Permit requirements for CAFOs
|
Revisions are proposed in the requirements that CAFOs must meet related to manure storage, setback requirements, conservation practices, and nutrient management. However, there are serious shortcomings in the requirements. Manure storage facilities Manure Storage Facilities:Under a consolidated Section 91.36, on Pollution Control and Prevention, DEP is proposing to require only some livestock operations with manure storage facilities of more than 1 million gallons of liquid or semisolid manure to have a water quality management permit for the storage structure. Manure storage facilities holding from 1 to 2.5 million gallons of manure would be let off the hook, unless the storage facility is earthen, is located upgradient of a high quality or exceptional value stream, or is upgradient from a stream impacted by agricultural activity that is not implementing a Nutrient Management Plan, or unless DEP uses the discretion proposed in Section 91.36a(7) to require the permit. Many facilities with the potential to cause serious harm to downstream waters, or that are already doing so, would be inappropriately excluded from the water quality management permit requirement. We Propose:Tell the Environmental Quality Board to revise Section 91.36 to require all manure storage facilities with capacity above 1 million gallons of manure to have water quality management permits. In addition, DEP should require water quality management permits for any new manure storage facilities in impaired waters and where cumulative impacts are of concern. DEP should prohibit construction of any new or expanded manure storage facilities in the floodplain, and should apply setback requirements to all surface waters, including wetlands and intermittent streams. Setback requirements:DEP has requested comment on whether to adopt the Natural Resource Conservation Service guidelines requiring a 50 foot vegetated buffer or a 100 foot setback as the minimum required setback for CAFOs, in lieu of the 35 foot vegetated buffer and 100 foot setback proposed in Section 92.5a(d)(1)(i). DEP has also proposed the alternative Statewide setback requirement in Section 91.36(b)2, with the more stringent to apply to CAFOs: “appropriate vegetated buffers and setbacks established by the Department shall be followed to protect and maintain water quality.” We Propose:Tell the Environmental Quality Board that the 50 foot vegetated buffer should be adopted as the minimum required width. In addition, a Statewide setback requirement applicable to all operations, including CAFOs, should be defined according to specific standards, rather than with the vague wording of “appropriate vegetated buffers and setbacks” as currently proposed.The Pennsylvania Technical Guide standards for Riparian Forest Buffers (391) and Filter Strips (393) would provide helpful clarification. In addition, Sections 91.1 and 92.1 should be modified to specify that the setbacks apply to sinkholes, drainage tiles, agricultural well heads and other conduits to surface waters, in order to protect water quality and to meet federal requirements. Other agricultural operations:DEP proposes to incorporate pollution control requirements that apply to smaller livestock operations, based on the observations of the CAFO Stakeholder Group that smaller livestock operations are responsible for “causing a substantial portion of pollution problems created by agriculture.” These requirements, included in Section 91.36(a) relate to siting and design criteria for manure storage facilities. The proposal to apply water quality protections more broadly to embrace smaller livestock operations is welcome, however, it is difficult to ignore that the Stakeholder Group may have had an agenda, rather than strong evidence, in determining that smaller operations are a significant pollution problem. The focus on pollution from smaller operations seems particularly questionable in light of DEP’s failure to even apply the definition of CAFOs to medium-size operations that are discharging to surface waters. We Propose:Tell the Environmental Quality Board that DEP’s proposal to require water quality management permits for manure storage facilities on smaller operations on a case-by-case basis, in Section 91.36(a)(7), is consistent with the need to protect water quality from agricultural runoff from all sources. In addition, Section 91.36(c) should provide that DEP will, not “may”, require an agricultural operation to develop and implement a nutrient management plan where a violation of the Clean Streams Law is found to occur. However, DEP should back up these more broadly applied requirements with an effort to target technical assistance and other funding on a needs basis. Additional requirements for CAFO permitting:The large-scale meat industry is notorious for maximizing their profits by forcing contract growers to shoulder waste disposal costs and pollution liability. We Propose:Tell the Environmental Quality Board that agri-business corporations and livestock management companies that contract with growers must be required to co-sign CAFO permits. In addition, ‘bad actor’ language should be included in the permittee specifications to prevent companies that have a history of environmental violations elsewhere from doing business in Pennsylvania. Finally, financial assurances should be required of CAFO permittees, to cover potential future remediation costs otherwise borne by the host communities. Click here to return to Where to send
comments page Sierra Club® and "Explore,
enjoy and protect the planet."® are registered trademarks
of the Sierra Club. |