FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 5, 2003 CONTACT: Pat Gallagher, Sierra Club, (415) 977-5709 John Walke, Natural Resources Defense Council, (202) 289-6868 Tatjana Vujic, Environmental Integrity Project, (202) 572-3234 Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, (415) 346-4179 Tom Frantz, Association of Irritated Residents, (661) 746-1344 Joe Rudek, Environmental Defense, (919) 881-2601 Industry Documents Reveal Animal Factories Using Closed-Door Meetings with Bush Administration to Evade Environmental Laws Environmental Groups Petition EPA to Stop Sweetheart Deal Drafted Without Public Input Washington, DC-Closed discussions between the Bush administration and the livestock and poultry industry, which resemble the controversial energy task force meetings held by Vice President Cheney, may soon lead to far-reaching deals that would shield polluting animal factories from government lawsuits and effectively exempt animal factories from clean air safeguards. According to state and local air pollution administrators that have pulled out of the negotiations, Bush administration officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are contemplating an alarming agreement proposed by the meat industry. A copy of the industry's confidential proposal memo was recently released by an anonymous source concerned with the consequences of exempting animal factories from basic environmental protections, and is available at: http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/2003/may/cafo_papers.asp "Third and fourth generation family farmers can't enjoy their backyards, sometimes can't even leave their houses, due to the toxic gases coming from the manure in these industrial feedlots. Knowing that these animal factories are a major source of toxic pollution, why is the Bush administration cutting secret deals cut behind closed doors and letting polluting animal factories off the hook from their responsibility to obey clean air and clean water laws?" asked Pat Gallagher, Sierra Club's Director of Environmental Law. "Exempting animal factories from basic environmental laws like the Clean Air Act would quite simply put thousands of communities at risk," said Brent Newell, Attorney with the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment. "These facilities pollute like factories and should be treated as such." The confidential proposal, submitted by the meat industry last summer, would provide animal factories the opportunity to enter a "safe harbor agreement" with the Bush administration. Under the agreement, larger animal factories would opt-in by consenting to possible monitoring of air emissions. In return, the larger animal factories would receive amnesty from enforcement for Clean Air Act or Superfund violations. The agreement would also protect smaller animal factories, with no risk of monitoring. But the proposal is riddled with problems, for example: Members of the environmental community and the public have not been asked to participate in the secret meetings, potentially violating laws designed to prevent special interest influence; The agreement strips citizens of their ability to enforce the Clean Air Act, blatantly disregarding the public health threat posed by unabated pollution; EPA would provide inadequate opportunity for public comment; Fewer than one percent of the farms that enter the safe harbor agreement will actually be monitored, which severely limits the amount of data collected; EPA already has the authority to demand emission monitoring from animal factories without the need to exempt the entire industry from environmental laws in the process. "This backroom deal smells every bit as bad as the stench from these animal factories," said John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air Program. "It's yet another example of the Bush administration trying to dismantle our bedrock environmental laws at the expense of public health." The agreement is so flawed that state and local air pollution administrators who pulled out of the discussions have now written a letter to EPA Administrator Whitman expressing "serious concerns" over the safe harbor agreement. The letter from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officers (ALAPCO) also discloses that the EPA is considering effectively exempting animal factories from the Clean Air Act and Superfund. This related and extremely controversial move would mean considering a wholesale change in the way the Bush administration's EPA applies the Clean Air Act to animal factories. By defining emissions from confinement buildings and manure lagoons at feedlots as "fugitive emissions," the EPA would effectively exempt the U.S. livestock and poultry industry from the Clean Air Act. Fugitive emissions do not count for purposes of determining whether a source must obtain clean air permits, so the classification of emissions as fugitive or nonfugitive is the singular decision that largely determines whether animal factories are regulated under the Clean Air Act as major sources of pollution. The EPA is expected to issue a decision by late May. The STAPPA letter can be found online at: http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/2003/may/cafo_papers.asp "Instead of using our environmental safeguards to protect communities at risk, the EPA is trying to define pollution out of existence; it's a blatant reward to appease a politically powerful, polluting industry," said Tatjana Vujic, Environmental Integrity Project's Attorney. Scientific studies are beginning to prove what neighbors to factory farms know well-manure lagoons emit toxic airborne chemicals that can result in human health problems. Peer-reviewed studies have shown increased headaches, sore throats, excessive coughing, diarrhea, burning eyes, and reduced quality of life in residents near a 6,000-head hog operation in North Carolina resulting from air emissions, and increased eye and upper respiratory symptoms in residents within two miles of a large hog operation in Iowa. Animal factories are known to emit smog precursors, particulate matter, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide, which can cause both immediate and long-term respiratory problems. A joint letter was sent to EPA Administrator Whitman today by the Association of Irritated Residents, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, Environmental Defense, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club. The letter urges the Bush administration to neither remove animal factories from the Clean Air Act's permitting and pollution control programs nor grant immunity to animal factories violating federal law. "We are suffering from the effects of toxic emissions from local feedlots," said Tom Frantz, a resident of California's San Joaquin Valley and President of the Association of Irritated Residents. "We object to federal policy devised in a secret, back-room deal, a practice that has become all too common with the Bush administration and its friends in polluting industries." ### For a copy of today's petition from Association of Irritated Residents, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, Environmental Defense, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club, please go to: http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/2003/may/cafo_papers.asp Erin E. Jordahl Director, Iowa Chapter Sierra Club 3839 Merle Hay Road, Suite 280 Des Moines, IA 50310 515-277-8868 [log in to unmask] www.iowa.sierraclub.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp