U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - October 2007

Compliance and Enforcement National Priority

Clean Water Act, Wet Weather, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs)

What is the Environmental Problem?

CAFOs have been regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program since the mid-1970s.  In February
2003, EPA promulgated new CAFO regulations to update the NPDES program
and prevent environmental harm from these operations through better
management of animal waste.  The 2003 regulation required all CAFOs with
a potential to discharge to be covered by NPDES permits.  Because of the
2005 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
Waterkeeper v. EPA (399 F.3d 486), EPA requires only CAFOs that
discharge or propose to discharge to apply for a NPDES permit.  EPA is
also revising its CAFO regulations regarding the development of nutrient
management plans to address changes mandated by the Waterkeeper
decision.

An ongoing trend toward fewer but larger farm operations, together with
greater emphasis on intensive animal production methods, increases
environmental and public health risks by concentrating large volumes of
animal waste within geographic areas.  In addition, many large
operations often do not have sufficient cropland to effectively utilize
the manure they generate as fertilizer.  The U.S. Department of
Agriculture estimates that operations that confine livestock and poultry
animals generate about 500 million tons of manure annually – three
times EPA’s estimate of 150 million tons of human sanitary waste
produced annually in the U.S.  Under Section 305(b) of the CWA, states
have consistently identified agricultural sources - including CAFOs - as
a leading contributor of water quality impairment in state-assessed
surface waters.

Pollutants associated with animal waste primarily include nutrients --
mainly nitrogen and phosphorus -- but animal waste may also include
organic matter, solids, pathogens, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones,
salts and various trace elements (including metals).  If manure and
wastewater are not properly managed, pollutants can be released into the
environment through discharges from animal confinement areas, manure
storage areas, and/or from cropland where manure is applied as
fertilizer.

Why Are We Addressing this Problem?

Inadequate manure management and the resulting risks, a pattern of CWA
noncompliance in the industry, and the need for EPA leadership in
implementing the federal CAFO regulations contributed to OECA’s
decision to continue CAFOs as a CWA national priority.  The 2005
Waterkeeper decision that eliminated the requirement that virtually all
CAFOs obtain permits, resulted in uncertainty in the regulated community
regarding the direction of the CAFO program.  EPA’s strategy helps to
clarify that the CWA and the federal regulations prohibit discharges
from a CAFO, even one that is unplanned or accidental, unless it is
authorized by the terms of a permit.

Any facility that meets the regulatory definition of a “CAFO” as it
was defined in the 1976 rule and discharges, needs a NPDES permit now.

Nationwide, EPA’s Office of Water estimates that there are
approximately 19,000 large and medium CAFOs, and roughly 8,300 or 43
percent of these operations currently have NPDES permits.  EPA will lead
by example and focus on identifying and addressing those facilities most
likely to need NPDES permits based on provisions of the federal CAFO
regulations that have been on the books since the 1970s.

How will the Problem be Addressed?

Because it is impossible for EPA to identify and address all CAFOs that
have unauthorized discharges and need permits in a timely manner,
strategically targeted inspections and enforcement actions and
publicized enforcement results will be utilized.  Federal inspections
and enforcement actions will focus primarily on existing large and
medium CAFOs identified as discharging without a permit to maximize
deterrence against noncompliance with the permitting requirement of the
CWA and to improve the technical capability of EPA Regions and,
ultimately, states to identify and address CWA violations at CAFOs.  In
selecting which facilities to investigate, EPA will consider factors
such as: size and type of operation, proximity to waters of the U.S.,
proximity to impaired waters or priority watersheds, citizen complaints
and manure spill data, environmental harm, compliance history, and
environmental justice.

EPA will continue to refine its understanding of the CAFO universe,
improve targeting of compliance and enforcement activities to increase
CAFO NPDES permit coverage, and assess and communicate the effectiveness
of its actions.  EPA believes that ensuring that CAFOs that need permits
obtain them is critical to improving manure management and addressing
the environmental problems associated with this industry.

Through this strategy, EPA will consider the critical role of individual
state commitments to CAFO permitting in achieving a level playing field.
 EPA will target compliance and enforcement activities in states with
lower levels of CAFO permit coverage.

Although not the emphasis of EPA’s strategy, some federal actions will
address CAFOs that have NPDES permits and are in violation of their
permit requirements.  These actions also support the overall theme of
EPA’s strategy that appropriate CAFO permit coverage resulting in
proper manure management is important.

Highlights from the FY 2005-2007 Planning Cycle

EPA has established an internal national CAFO work group to provide a
forum for discussing CAFO compliance and enforcement issues and
identifying training needs.  OECA has provided and continues to develop
additional technical training to support EPA Regions in the development
of CAFO CWA cases.

In fiscal year 2006, nine out of ten EPA Regions either met or
significantly exceeded their CWA commitments to conduct federal CAFO
inspections and to conduct joint CAFO inspections with their states,
resulting in 262 federal CAFO inspections conducted and 130 CAFO joint
and/or oversight inspections conducted.  EPA also concluded 56
enforcement actions against CAFOs for CWA violations that year, with a
total value of over $400,000 in administrative penalties and an
estimated 12 million pounds of pollutants reduced via those actions.

A number of EPA Regions are using a variety of sampling and modeling
tools to develop cases against existing CAFOs with unauthorized
discharges.  Recent EPA enforcement actions reflect the high level of
sophistication at which some Regions are performing in conducting CAFO
compliance investigations.

 PAGE

Final: CAFO Summary		October 2007

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

Draft: CAFOs Summary		09/11/07


The Agency anticipates that States will have the opportunity to participate in the review of draft guidance materials to help ensure that the guidance and the tools it provides are useful and practical from the States' perspective. If appropriate, the Agency may provide additional training materials and/or workshops to further assist States in using the guidance.

 The Agency estimates that the cost of providing this additional guidance would be $397,665. Over the three-year period of the ICR, the annual cost would be $132,555 which translates into a burden of 2,117 hours annually (at the fully loaded hourly rate of $66.12 as discussed in 6(c)).

 B.5 Agency Burden Estimates for Reviewing TMDLs

 To estimate the Agency burden associated with reviewing TMDLs, we assume that on average about 4,000 TMDLs per year will be submitted to EPA over the three-year period of the ICR as a result of consent decrees and state submitted schedules. We also assume that about half of these TMDLs (2000) will be submitted in packages of about 10 or more substantially similar TMDLs. Clusters of similar TMDLs can be reviewed in an average of 1 hour, amounting to a total of 2,000 hours annually. For non-clustered TMDLs, it is anticipated that a disapproval (perhaps occurring 15% of the time for the remaining 2,000 TMDLs  -  i.e., 300 TMDLs) will require about 1 day (8 hours) of effort amounting to 2400 hours annually; and an approval (perhaps occurring 85% of the time for the remaining 2000 TMDLs  -  i.e., 1,700 TMDLs) will require about (1/2) day (4 hours) of effort amounting to 6,800 hours annually. Altogether, the annual burden is estimated to be 11,200 hours.  These estimates have not been affected by the reduction we applied in this ICR.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44233-44235]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18041]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0289; FRL-9998-42-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Revision to Sulfur Dioxide Control
Requirements for Lake Road Generating Facility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted
by the State of Missouri on November 2, 2018. This final action
replaces a Consent Decree in Missouri's SIP with an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC) between the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MoDNR) and Kansas City Power and Light (KCPL). The EPA is
also approving an amendment to the AOC. This action strengthens
Missouri's SIP by replacing an outdated Consent Decree with an AOC and
its Amendment that reflect current operating conditions at the facility
and does not result in an increase in sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions from the Lake Road Generating Facility.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0289. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Meyer, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number (913) 551-
7140; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 17, 2019, the EPA proposed to approve revisions in the
Federal Register to the Missouri SIP that replaced a Consent Decree in
Missouri's SIP with an AOC between the MoDNR and KCPL. See 84 FR 27996.
The EPA also proposed to approve an amendment to the AOC. The EPA
solicited comments on the proposed revision to Missouri's SIP, and did
not receive any comments.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of
Missouri on November 2, 2018. The revision consists of an AOC between
the MoDNR and KCPL that limits emissions of SO2 from KCPL's
Lake Road Generating facility in St. Joseph, Missouri, and an Amendment
to the AOC. The AOC and its Amendment replace a Consent Decree in
Missouri's SIP and strengthens SO2 control requirements for
KCPL's Lake Road Generating facility by limiting the types of fuels
that may be combusted in boilers at the facility. This action
strengthens Missouri's SIP by replacing an outdated Consent Decree with
an AOC and its Amendment that reflect current operating conditions at
the facility and does not result in an increase in SO2
emissions from the Lake Road Generating Facility.
    A detailed discussion of Missouri's SIP revision was provided in
EPA's June 17, 2019, Federal Register document and in a Technical
Support Document that is available in the docket for this action. See
84 FR 27996.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from July 30, 2018,
to September 6, 2018, and received zero comments. In addition, the
revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    We are taking final action to replace the May 25, 2001, St. Joseph
Light and Power Consent Decree with the 2015 AOC and 2018 Amendment
between MoDNR and KCPL.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Missouri Source-Specific Orders described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference
in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, in this document, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below, the EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-
Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders from the Missouri
State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in
accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission

that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal
regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 22, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated:August 15, 2019.
Edward Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart--AA Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by:
0
a. Revising entry ``(17)''; and
0
b. Adding entries ``(32)'' and ``(33)'' to the end of the table.
    The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          Name of source           Order/permit number  effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(17) St. Joseph Light & Power SO2  Consent Decree.....       5/21/2001  11/15/2001, 66 FR    Removed and
                                                                         57389 and 8/23/      replaced on 8/23/
                                                                         2019, [insert        2019 with (32) and
                                                                         Federal Register     (33).
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
(32) Kansas City Power and Light-- Administrative            9/27/2018  8/23/2019, [insert   ...................
 Lake Road Facility.                Order on Consent                     Federal Register
                                    No. APCP-2015-118.                   citation].
(33) Kansas City Power and Light-- Amendment #1 to           9/27/2018  8/23/2019, [insert   ...................
 Lake Road Facility.                Administrative                       Federal Register
                                    Order on Consent                     citation].
                                    No. APCP-2015-118.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2019-18041 Filed 8-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P