FW: [vivavegie] Farms May Be Exempted From Emission Rules

[Guest guest]

vivavegie: pamela: Tue, 26 Feb 2008

20:25:02 -0500[vivavegie] Farms May Be Exempted From Emission Rules

 

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502472.\

htmlFarms May Be Exempted From Emission RulesBy Elizabeth WilliamsonWashington

Post Staff WriterTuesday, February 26, 2008; A03Under pressure from agriculture

industry lobbyists and lawmakers from agricultural states, the Environmental

Protection Agency wants to drop requirements that factory farms report their

emissions of toxic gases, despite findings by the agency's scientists that the

gases pose a health threat.The EPA acknowledges that the emissions can pose a

threat to people living and working nearby, but it says local emergency

responders don't use the reports, making them unnecessary. But local air-quality

agencies, environmental groups and lawmakers who oppose the rule change say the

reports are one of the few tools rural communities have for holding large

livestock operations accountable for the pollution they produce.Opponents of the

rule change say agriculture lobbyists orchestrated a campaign to convince the

EPA that the reports are not useful and misrepresented the effort as reflecting

the views of local officials. They say the plan to drop the reporting

requirement is emblematic of a broader effort by the Bush-era EPA to roll back

federal pollution rules. " One of the running themes we have seen is they have

taken numerous industry-friendly actions that are shot down in the courts, but

they buy time for industry " in appeals and reviews that could extend years into

the next administration, said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a

nonprofit environmental group based in Washington.The EPA requirement that farms

report large emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from animal manure has

been on the books since the 1980s. The EPA does not set limits for the releases;

it merely requires that farms disclose emissions over certain levels. Local

public health officials say that if people in an area started getting sick with

symptoms pointing to emissions, knowing who was reporting big releases of the

gases would be most helpful.The EPA proposed dropping the farm emissions

reporting requirement in the aftermath of lawsuits brought by communities

against several big farms sought damages and stricter controls of emissions.The

livestock industry has lobbied for years for the rule change. The EPA posted the

proposal in the Federal Register while Congress -- which is deeply divided on

the issue -- was on its December holiday recess. The change would take effect in

October. " Every major air pollution regulation that affects the agriculture

industry has been weakened or delayed by this administration, " said S. William

Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies,

which represents local and state air-quality agencies. " These are not

inconsequential pollutants. In large concentrations, they kill people. " Rep.

Albert R. Wynn (D-Md.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's

subcommittee on environment and hazardous materials, called the proposal a " gift

from the Bush administration to big corporate animal-feeding operations that

denies the public of knowledge that serious contaminants are in the air. " The

rule change would eliminate ammonia emissions reporting for big animal-feeding

operations such as Threemile Canyon Farms in Boardman, Ore., where waste from

tens of thousands of dairy cows releases more than 15,000 pounds of ammonia into

the atmosphere each day, according to the EPA.The agency estimates that

livestock operations generate two-thirds of the ammonia emissions reported in

the nation. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies blames manure-pit

emissions containing hydrogen sulfide and ammonia for the deaths of at least two

dozen people working or living near the operations in the Midwest over the past

three decades.In a February 2004 memo to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson

obtained by congressional investigators, agency scientist Roy L. Smith called

the ammonia reporting requirements " appropriately protective, though not

overprotective, " of public health. In tests of the air downwind of factory

farms, he found that ammonia concentrations slightly over the reportable levels

caused respiratory irritation and that the minimum reportable emissions of

hydrogen sulfide " could cause acute respiratory irritation and effects to the

central nervous system. " In a petition hand-delivered to Johnson in 2005,

however, the National Chicken Council, the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association and

the National Turkey Federation called the ammonia reporting rule " inappropriate,

unwise public policy, which does not reflect the nature of poultry management

practices, and does not improve environmental or public health outcomes in any

way. " The groups also said the reports put farms at risk for lawsuits.Lawmakers

from farm states have repeatedly tried to attach provisions exempting farms from

emissions reporting. Last March, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C.

Peterson (D-Minn.) and more than 130 lawmakers from agricultural states

sponsored a bill that would delist manure as an environmental pollutant under

the Superfund law.The measure came after the cities of Waco, Tex., and Tulsa,

Okla., and the state of Oklahoma filed lawsuits charging factory farms nearby

with polluting water sources.Lawmakers who oppose the bill, led by Rep. John D.

Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and

House Transportation Committee Chairman James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), wrote in a

May letter to colleagues that the bill " would protect bad actors " and " eliminate

all existing authorities from the Superfund statute that have been used by

[cities and states] to protect local watersheds and drinking water

supplies. " Peterson responded that " Congress never intended for Superfund to

apply to farms, but the judicial system has done just that, threatening the

livelihood of farmers and ranchers everywhere. " One point of contention in the

dispute involves a conference call with state and local air pollution control

agencies, organized by the EPA in the fall of 2006, that discussed lifting the

reporting requirements. Becker of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies

said that in the call, the association's members told the EPA that the health

risks posed by the emissions argued against a blanket exemption.But when Johnson

testified before Congress last year on the proposed exemption, the association

said, he did not tell lawmakers of the local officials' opposition. Asked why by

the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the EPA responded in writing, saying

that the agency " did not interpret the discussion as representing an opposition

of state and local air pollution control agencies to our proposed plan. " The EPA

said support for the rule change was expressed in 26 " very similar " letters it

received from local governments whose emergency responders said they " do not

believe such notifications would be of value. " The leadership of the House Energy

and Commerce Committee, believing that the letters were part of an

industry-orchestrated campaign, asked the Congressional Research Service to

review them. In a Jan. 28 report, the service said that most of the letters were

identically worded and that they " represent only a small fraction of the 4,491

[local emergency responders] that are included in EPA's database. " On Dec. 28,

with Congress away for the holidays, the EPA published a notice in the Federal

Register of its plan to proceed with the rule change. The public comment period

ends March 28.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.

http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008