> Thursday, July 14, 2005
> 
> ----------
> 
> Farm Industry Develops Pollution Definitions That
> Could Limit Enforcement
> 
> 
> An agricultural industry task force may ask the
> federal government to adopt 
> definitions for farm pollution that could limit
> enforcement of clean air 
> and Superfund laws targeting wastes from livestock
> feedlots.
> 
> 
> The Agricultural Air Quality Task Force met last
> month in Amarillo, TX, and 
> considered proposing definitions for terms that
> apply to agriculture and 
> crop tilling. The definitions are being developed
> for consideration by a 
> task force subcommittee this week.
> 
> 
> These definitions would address farms, farming
> operations, and pollution 
> releases. Such terms -- if backed by the secretary
> of Agriculture and 
> adopted by EPA -- could limit the reach of
> environmental laws that regulate 
> agriculture, sources say.
> 
> 
> One source familiar with the discussion says a task
> force policy 
> subcommittee asked the group to craft definitions
> for these terms. No 
> action was taken at the meeting, but members were
> directed to develop a 
> list of potential terms and submit them to the
> subcommittee for possible 
> adoption at a September meeting. The task force
> includes industry 
> officials, academic scientists and an
> environmentalist.
> 
> 
> A task force source says the Agriculture Department
> clearly has a role in 
> defining a farm, a farming operation, a pollution
> source and a release 
> because these terms are used differently in various
> statutes, and have also 
> been the subject of Clean Air Act and Superfund
> lawsuits. For example, 
> courts have broadly defined what constitutes a
> facility in two recent cases 
> where environmentalists sued animal feeding
> operations.
> 
> 
> An industry attorney who has participated in one of
> those lawsuits says 
> that if the definitions were adopted by the
> agencies, the courts would 
> likely recognize the terms. However, in one of those
> cases, the U.S. Court 
> of Appeals for the 10th Circuit explicitly asked EPA
> for a definition of a 
> facility but the agency did not respond. The agency
> said it did not have 
> enough time to develop a definition, but the source
> adds there was 
> disagreement within the agency as to how to define a
> facility.
> 
> 
> “What would the court do if it had a clear agency
> opinion . . . Most 
> likely, the court would defer,” the source says.
> 
> 
> Some environmentalists are worried that the task
> force will adopt narrow 
> definitions that would in effect shield agriculture
> from future litigation. 
> The environmentalist on the task force urged the
> group to commit to 
> focusing on farm stewardship, rather than seeking
> exemptions from regulations.
> 
> 
> The task force also 
>
<http://insideepa.com/secure/docnum.asp?f=epa_2001.ask&docnum=epa2005_1232>approved
> 
> a paper recommending that EPA exclude a coarse
> particulate matter 
> (PM-coarse) standard when it proposes new PM
> national ambient air quality 
> standards (NAAQS) later this year. The agency had
> been considering a new PM 
> standard that would have applied to dust particles
> between 2.5 and 10 
> micrograms.
> 
> 
> The farm industry remains united in its opposition
> to a PM-coarse standard 
> and will continue to lobby EPA even though an agency
> 
>
<http://insideepa.com/secure/data_extra/dir_05/epa2005_1173.pdf>staff
> paper 
> released June 30 recommends the standard not apply
> to agriculture. Instead, 
> the paper calls for a PM-coarse standard that
> applies only to urban 
> emissions, while also calling for tighter fine
> particle standards.
> 
> 
> “A coarse PM standard is not warranted based on
> current knowledge,” the 
> task force paper says. The paper also asks EPA to
> address “sampler bias 
> issues” in measuring PM in rural areas, and also
> recommends that the NAAQS 
> should not be used as a “concentration not to be
> exceeded” at the property 
> line for permitting and enforcement of PM emissions
> from agricultural sources.
> 
> 
> The National Cattleman’s Beef Association said in
> response to the EPA staff 
> paper, “In good news for cattle producers, the staff
> adopted the Clean Air 
> Scientific Advisory Committee recommendation to
> replace the current PM10 
> standard with an urban-only standard. They
> recommended against regulating 
> dust in rural areas because scientific evidence does
> not support such 
> regulation.”
> 
> Date: July 14, 2005
> 
> © Inside Washington Publishers
> 
> 
>
============================================================
> Ross Vincent
> Senior Policy Advisor
> Sierra Club
> 1829 South Pueblo Boulevard, #300
> Pueblo, CO 81005-2105
> 719-561-3117
> 415-946-3442(Fax)
> [log in to unmask]
>
============================================================
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - -
> To get off the CONS-EQST-COMM list, send any message
> to:
> [log in to unmask]
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]