> Legislative Push Would Exempt Livestock Pollution
> From Superfund
> 
> 
> House lawmakers are floating draft legislation that
> would exempt pollution 
> from livestock feeding farms from Superfund cleanup
> requirements, a plan 
> that could undercut groundbreaking new lawsuits
> charging the industry is 
> liable for contamination and resource damages from
> animal manure.
> 
> 
> At the same time, EPA has been working on a legal
> agreement with the 
> agriculture industry to temporarily exclude it from
> certain pollution 
> reporting requirements.
> 
> 
>
<http://insideepa.com/secure/data_extra/dir_05/epa2005_1369a.pdf>The
> House 
> proposal, reportedly drafted by Rep. Charles Taylor
> (R-NC), appears to go 
> further than previous legislative attempts by Sen.
> Larry Craig (R-ID) to 
> exempt concentrated animal feeding operations
> (CAFOs) from requirements to 
> report emissions under Superfund law, because the
> House plan suggests the 
> industry would not be responsible for cleanups or
> natural resource damages 
> (NRD).
> 
> 
> Environmentalists close to the issue say Taylor
> considered offering the 
> language as an amendment to a conference report for
> EPA’s spending bill, 
> which was approved in committee July 26. Taylor, who
> chairs the House 
> Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, environment
> and related agencies, 
> declined to offer the amendment after
> environmentalists mounted an 
> aggressive lobbying campaign to oppose it, these
> sources say.
> 
> 
> Spokespersons for Taylor and Craig could not be
> reached for comment, and it 
> is unclear if they will try to find another vehicle
> for the legislation.
> 
> 
> The language would have specified that animal manure
> is not a “hazardous 
> substance” or a “pollutant or contaminant” as
> defined under Superfund law. 
> The effect would be to exempt manure waste from both
> cleanup and reporting 
> requirements under the law.
> 
> 
> Last year, Craig proposed an amendment to EPA’s
> spending bill that would 
> have said emissions from agricultural facilities are
> not considered a 
> “release” under Superfund. The impact would have
> been to exempt CAFOs from 
> reporting requirements under Superfund and the
> Emergency Planning and 
> Community Right-to-Know Act.
> 
> 
> One environmentalist says it is unclear if the
> earlier Craig amendment 
> would have also achieved exemptions from cleanup
> requirements, but the most 
> recent language would explicitly do so. “I think the
> Craig language was 
> intended to do the same thing, it was just really
> sloppy drafting,” the 
> source says.
> 
> 
> A series of high-profile court decisions, including
> Sierra Club v. Seaboard 
> Farms, Inc. in 2004, held that large CAFOs are
> subject to reporting 
> requirements under Superfund and the Emergency
> Planning and Community 
> Right-to-Know Act -- without addressing cleanup
> responsibilities.
> 
> 
> But Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmunson (D)
> recently filed a lawsuit in 
> June against 14 poultry companies arguing that
> animal wastes at CAFOs 
> trigger cleanup and NRD liability under Superfund.
> Edmunson argued in its 
> complaint to the court in The City of Tulsa v. Tyson
> Foods that the animal 
> facilities released hazardous substances from
> poultry waste.
> 
> 
> A spokeswoman for Edmunson says he is involved in
> discussions with 
> companies over the case, and could not comment on
> the possible effect of 
> new legislation.
> 
> 
> A second lawsuit, The City of Waco v. Dennis
> Schouten, is pending in the 
> U.S. District Court for the Western District of
> Texas and raises similar 
> arguments, charging that dairy farms are subject to
> cleanup requirements 
> under Superfund law.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, EPA has once again extended the deadline
> for signing on to its 
> controversial agriculture consent agreement that
> would temporarily exempt 
> participating companies from the Clean Air Act and
> Superfund reporting 
> requirements. The agency had earlier extended the
> deadline to July 29, but 
> the new signup date will be Aug. 12.
> 
> 
> EPA acting enforcement chief Thomas Skinner 
>
<http://insideepa.com/secure/data_extra/dir_05/epa2005_1369b.pdf>said
> in a 
> July 28 letter to the National Milk Producers
> Federation (NMPF) that it was 
> allowing the extension after dairy producers said
> they were hesitant about 
> whether they could obtain funding to participate in
> the agreement. Skinner 
> added that even if they signed up by the deadline,
> dairy companies would 
> have additional time to back out until EPA forwards
> the consent agreements 
> to its Environmental Appeals Board (EAB).
> 
> 
> “While the extension is shorter than requested, it
> is important to note 
> that until final approval by EPA, those who
> participate in the agreement 
> have no obligations,” Skinner wrote. “EPA will not
> forward dairy agreements 
> to the EAB if NMPF informs us that funding is
> unavailable.”
> 
> Date: August 2, 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 view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions,
> see:
>  http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp