Forwarded by Jane Clark
A C T I O N A L E R T on C A FOs
The public comment deadline for EPA's proposed concentrated animal feeding
operation (CAFO) regulations is July 30 (Monday). CAFOs are one of the
largest, essentially unregulated point sources of water pollution. The
existing regulations are severely outdated and were not written to control
pollution from these large-scale animal factories. EPA's proposed
regulations would close a few of the loopholes, but overall are not
sufficient to protect the environment and public health from this POLLUTING
industry. We need you to URGE EPA to TIGHTEN its proposed regulations to
protect our nation's rivers, lakes, streams, and coastal waterways.!
How to submit your own comments? Comments may be submitted by mail to:
Docket number OW-00-27
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Proposed Rule
Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
USEPA
electronically to [log in to unmask]
(Copy and paste this address)
Show EPA that the environmental community is united--we all want to see
STRONG REGULATIONS that will PROTECT our waterways! Because the agency
counts the comments it receives, it is important to also send in comments on
your own. You can use the attached model comments and add state-specific
information where available.
****Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number OW-00-27.
The DEADLINE is
on or before midnight on JULY 30.
Please take time this weekend or on Monday, July 30 to email comments.
It is too late to send in comments via mail, but e-mail comments may be
sent to: [log in to unmask]
The following are sample comments prepared by Sierra Club
that ask EPA to do the following:
Prohibit stormwater discharge exemptions
Prohibit exemptions from NPDES permits
Approve of corporate liability . The rules state "substantial
operational control" should be required to obtain a permit and be co-liable
for
environmental and public health damages.
Prohibit issuance of general permits
Change criteria for land application of phosphorus
Page numbers below in brackets [ ] reflect the Proposed Rule page numbers
as provided in the USEPA's web page document. The specific sections to
be amended are also given.
1. §122.23 (a) Definitions
[p377]
(1) We object to any exemptions for "agricultural stormwater discharges"
applicable to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). If runoff
of animal wastes from a land application area causes contaminants or
pollutants to enter waters of the state, this must treated as a violation of
water quality standards. Permits issued should contain a condition that
requires land application of wastes to be conducted in such a
manner that such wastes do not enter waters of the state under any
situations.
General Comment on inclusion of poultry as a CAFO: We are strongly
supportive of the inclusion of poultry operations - both broilers and egg
production - as CAFOs. Poultry operations have caused much pollution of the
waters of the United States from the DelMarVa Peninsula (Chesapeake) to the
Cumberland River in Kentucky to the White River Basin in Arkansas to the
drinking water supply lakes of Tulsa, Oklahoma. It is well past time that
these facilities and operations were required to handle their wastes in ways
that do not pollute the nation's waters.
3. §122.23(c Who must apply for an NPDES Permit? [p381]
2) There should be no exceptions allowed - every CAFO has the
"potential to discharge"
(3) This is laudable. Those entities with "substantial operational
control" should be required to obtain a permit and be co-liable for
environmental and public health damages. States that have experienced new
swine and poultry facilities recognize that contract operations - where a
corporate entity retains substantial operational control - is the preferred
method of expansion of these industries. The contracts make it clear that
the corporate entity (the "integrator") retains ownership of the animals,
own the feed and medication, detail the daily operating procedures of the
facility, and have almost complete control over the ways the animals are
housed, fed, and raised. These companies have the resources to address the
situations that cause public health problems and environmental degradation.
We strongly support this proposed rule. EPA cannot continue to allow swine
and poultry integrators to hide behind "independent contractors" who are
nothing more than poorly-paid employees of the company and have little or no
control over the facility.
11. §122.28 General Permits (applicable to State NPDES programs.)
[p387]
General Permits do not provide the level of protection - specifically
in regard to monitoring for compliance - nor the public participation
elements necessary for pollution prevention nor public health protection.
Only site-specific permits provide the level of protection expected by
adjacent landowners, neighbors, and those downstream and downwind.
We are, therefore, unequivocally opposed to the issuance of General
Permits to CAFOs.
12. §412.1 General Definitions
[p390]
(k) through (o) Phosphorous is an important fertilizer and a require
nutrient/element for certain crops. However, the "phosphorous index"
proposed in these subparagraphs provides for a method of disposal of
animal wastes on an industrial scale, not at true agronomic rates. We
suggest
that no land application of animal wastes containing phosphorous be
allowed unless the following criteria are met:
-Soil testing on an annual basis to determine the availability of
phosphorous on a specific field.
-An analysis of the amount of phosphorous needed by the crop to be grown
on that field that year.
-Application amounts shall be calculated to meet soil and crop needs.
If the soil and crop needs determine no application of phosphorous is
indicated, none shall be allowed.
When the existing technology standard and permitting rule for
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) was promulgated in the
1970's, animal feeding operations existed on a much smaller scale.
Today, large-scale animal factories, which raise thousands of animals
and produce enormous quantities of manure, dominate animal production.
Annually, animal feeding operations generate 220 billion gallons of
waste, or 130 times more waste than the entire human population in the
United States. This increasing concentration and industrialization of
livestock production is devastating our waterways. Conservative
estimates reported by states and tribes in 28 states indicate that
animal feeding operations pollute 27,751 miles of rivers and streams.
CAFOs contribute to water pollution when lagoons break, spill, or fail,
releasing wastewater into rivers, lakes, and streams. In fact, over
1,000 spills occurred at feedlots in just ten states between 1995 and
1998, resulting in the death of more than 13 million fish. In addition,
liquid waste is often over-applied or inappropriately applied to land,
causing runoff into surface water or seepage into groundwater.
Furthermore, ammonia emissions from open-air lagoons and sprayfields
redeposit nitrogen on land and waterbodies, adding to nutrient
pollution.
Nutrient pollution threatens the future of this country's waterways,
impairing 30 percent of surveyed rivers, 44 percent of lakes, and 23
percent of estuaries. The nutrients in animal manure are causing
eutrophication and toxic algal blooms that harm recreational waters,
kill fish, and alter the species composition of our coastal fisheries.
Outbreaks of the toxic microbe, Pfiesteria piscicida, have been linked
to nutrient pollution from animal waste in North Carolina and Maryland.
Pfiesteria has killed over a billion fish in coastal waters in North
Carolina alone. Runoff from animal manure also contributes to the Dead
Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, 7,000 square miles of oxygen-deprived water
devoid of aquatic life.
Leaking animal waste storage lagoons threaten human health by
contaminating groundwater used for drinking water supplies. Nitrate
levels above 10 mg/l in drinking water increase the risk of
methemoglobinemia, or "blue baby syndrome," which can cause
developmental deficiencies and deaths in infants. High nitrate levels
in drinking water near feedlots has also been linked to spontaneous
abortions in humans. Just last month EPA Region 6 resorted to its
federal emergency powers under the Safe Drinking Water Act to require
Seaboard Farms to provide safe drinking water to residents in Oklahoma,
after discovering that nitrates from five hog operations had
contaminated drinking water wells.
PERMITTING
(1) EPA Should Eliminate All Loopholes
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the damage wrought by CAFOs on our
environment, the majority of CAFOs continue to operate without any
regulatory oversight by either EPA or state authorities. EPA's own
estimates indicate that some 13,000 CAFOs should be permitted under the
agency's existing regulations, yet only an estimated 2,520 CAFOs (19
percent) are actually covered under either a general or an individual
permit. Now is the time for the agency to seize the opportunity to
close all of the loopholes that have allowed this industry to pollute
our environment.
In the interest of protecting our communities and the environment, we
hope you will consider our views.
Sincerely,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
