Document ybr6x63kQvJrk20J9YzaKqj4d

UNITED STATES.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 6Q64-358G REPLY TO THHXrLEOTiOFi OF: etc 0 5 2016 WN-16J Pamela Biersadh, Director Bureau of Watershed Management Wisconsin Department o f Natural Resources 101 S. Webster Sired PO Box 79.21 Madison, WI 53707-7921 Subject: Draft Feed Storage Runoff Controls for CAFOs guidance Dear Ms, Biersach: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Wisconsin Department o f Natural Resources (WDNR) draft Feed Storage Area Runoff'Controlsfo r CAFOs guidance. EPA has reviewed the draft guidance to determi ne whether it is consistent, with the federal effluent limitations guideline .(EL.G)..for..Large..c.Qiic.cntrMed..animalfeeding...o.peratioiis..(CAF.Qs.)jffld..ackn.Qwde.dges...o.iu'.............. concerns regarding documented discharges o f manure and process wastewater pollutants from vegetative treatment areas (VTA) to waters of the United States (see EPA letter dated March 4, 2016), .EPA provides the following comments and recommendations on the draft guidance: 1. The guidance should include State action to advise permitted CAFOs to immediately implement interim measures to cease all discharges o f pollutants from VTAs while the state and facility work to make any necessary modifications to. the existing Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System .(WPDES) permit The guidance as currently written docs not require WPDES permitted CAFOs to ensure that their VTA meets the "no discharge" performance standard. Inspections conducted by EPA have documented discharges o f pollutants from existing VTAs at WPDES permitted CAFOs. Wisconsin Administrative Code N R 243.31 provides that. WDNR may, following notice to the permittee modify, suspend or revoke a permit, in whole or in part when the state finds that the owner or operator o f a CAFO violated its WPDES permit. W DNR should provide notice to all permitted .Large CAFOs that operate a VTA that a discharge- o f pollutants from the VTA to a navigable waler is a violation of its current permit. n e c y e S d /R a e y d h ls '-OOs:;! wih vPiyOOfe Oil BiPiO O U gn 100B, Re::y:0:0 Fois; r;0% Pf>sMX:m>myO Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00107616-00001 ? Opt:niK ' and 4 in the guidance provide for the use o f an infiltration basin to control feed storage "tniuil, Although these options include criteria to ensure that an infiltration basic is um igneJ 1ons meted, operated and maintained to contain all manure, litter and process waotewatcj including the runoff and the direct precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, it is unclear how the W'PDHS permit will ensure that groundwater protection standards are met as required by Wis, Stats. 285.31(3; and NR 243.13(1). Option 3 in the guidance provides that operators should collect at least up to the peak flow front a 1-irich storm, however, it is unclear what data WDNR has used to support this requirement or if this requirement will be protective statewide. HP 4 recommends that permittees be reroired to submit a site-specific demonstration supporting what minim urn amount o f feed storage runoff'collected prior to runoff entering the infiltration basin will he protective of ground water quality. EPA also recommends that groundwater moniioring be required pursuant to NP 243 ' 5(7) at all CAFOs operating inti]trailer: basins. In the absence of groundwater monitoring. WDNR will have no method to determine if the operation is complying with groundwater standards. 3. The Objective and Options sections o f the guidance should clarify that the options in this guidance do not guarantee that the "no discharge" performance standards will be attained. The guidance should make clear that the state will review each feed storage runoff control system design on a ease-by-ca.se basis and will require additional design criteria beyond that presented in the guidance, if necessary, to ensure compliance with the "no discharge" perfonnance standard. 4 To be consistent with 40 CFR 412.31(aj(!)iT; and N R 243,13(2Ka)(2h the "or" should be changed to "and"'and "process" should be added to describe wastewater in the hv> bullet of Section C. Background and Definitions. The bullet should read "'...consm jueJ and .maintained to contain all manure and process wastewater ...73 "51..The I m p I e m e n i M i o n ' s e c i i o i f f ' f o u r t h " ' ..... discharge" performance standard be submitted with the permit application: a schedule to evaluate an existing VTA for a new permittee is not acceptable. If interim practices are necessary while construction is being completed, the permit should identify these interim practices, i'o further implementation o f this guidance and compliance with the "too discharge" performance standard, F.P 4 recommends that WDNR notify all permitted CAFOs and CAFOs with pending permit applications o f this guidance once finalized. WDNR should highlight in this notification that all CATOr,. permitted or those with pending applications, take necessary action to ensure that ah feed storage runoff control systems meet the "no discharge"' limitations for CAFO production areas and that a ay unauthorized discharge from the production area is a violation, 6, EPA recommends that the Options Section - Runoff Storage Requircmcms that. App > to All Options - clarify that ease by case design criierk. may be required for protection o f both surface water quality standards and groundwater protection standards. 7. The Options Section - Discharges Impacting Outstanding xiu Exceptional Resource Waters and 303idi Listed Waters - provides that, additional design practices may be required for discharges that impact ORW. HRW or 303(c; listed waters. This is inconsistent with the overall goal oi the guidance which is to eliminate discharges of pollutants troiii feed storage runoff control rysrcmv The federal ELG does not authorize discharges from feed storage runoff control Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00107616-00002 systems. These systems should be operated as no discharge systems. It is unclear why this section o f the guidance is suggesting that there may be discharges that need further design criteria requirements. 8. Options 2 and 3 refer to the use o f "multiple discharge locations'' or "multiple discharge points" to provide uniform application of runoff over the entire VTA or infiltration basin. The use o f the term "discharge" may cause some confusion. EPA recommends W DNR not use the term' discharge. Multiple inlet locations is an option that WDNR could consider using. 9. Option 3 (c} Vegetation section should include that management o f vegetation be included in the CAFO's nutrient management plan. 10. The citation N R 243.15(6) in Option 3(e) Groundwater Monitoring and Option 5 sections should be corrected to NR 243.15(7). 11. EPA recommends that groundwater monitoring be required pursuant to NR 243.15(7) at all CAFOs operating VTAs that, discharge to ar. internally drained area, hi the absence o f groundwater monitoring, WDNR will have no method to determine if the operation is complying with groundwater standards. If you have any questions or would like ro discuss these comments further please feel free io contact me or M ianne Socha, of m 3 stall, at (312) 886-4448 or (312) 886-4436, respectively, Sincerely, rrwrvwWW'' Kevin ivi Pierard Chief. NPDES Programs Branch cc: Mary Anne, i ovmdee, Chiel, R uuoff Management Section Bernard M ic'ieuii Watcf desolare,'. Engineer. Agriculture Runoff Program Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00107616-00003