2/3/05

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting public comments on its program to give factory farms immunity from air pollution regulations and lawsuits if they sign up to be part of an air quality study.

The arrangement, known as the "Safe Harbor Agreement," would allow thousands of factory farms across the county to pay a few thousand dollars to participate in the study and in return they would be granted a free pass to pollute the air without any repercussions—for at least the next six years. EPA is only planning to monitor 28 sites across the country, but thousands of factory farms will be granted this above-the-law status.

EPA has put the Safe Harbor Agreement out for a 30-day public comment period. Please take time to write and submit comments on this unjust, unaccountable corporate-government scheme. Below are some points to include in your comments. Adding your own personal experiences with factory farm air pollution to some of these talking points will strengthen your letter. Directions on how to submit your comments are included at the end of this action alert.

Key Points on EPA's Safe Harbor Agreement with Factory Farms
(Please start your comments by writing Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0237)

1. We oppose EPA entering into a "Safe Harbor" agreement that gives factory farms a free pass to pollute our air.

2. We do not oppose the EPA conducting a field study and monitoring of factory farm air emissions as long as factory farms are held accountable for the pollution they cause at the same time.

3. We oppose industry being allowed to choose who does the "study" and who has oversight of the "study." An industry-led group, such as the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS), should not have oversight. To ensure an unbiased and credible study, a credible, independent agency such as the National Institute of Health Sciences or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)—specifically, an agency that is not funded or supported by industry—should conduct the study and be in charge of the oversight. Also, real time monitoring data should be made available online for the general public to see.

4. Make explicit in the agreement that it will not preclude citizen actions or any state clean air laws for factory farms, including those that are included in the State Implementation Plan.

5. Do not grant protection for every factory farm that signs up. The EPA is only planning to monitor 28 sites, but will give immunity to thousands of factory farms. This is just plain wrong. The EPA has the authority to do the monitoring study and take enforcement action without having to enter into a "Safe Harbor" agreement that protects factory farms rather than citizens' health.

6. While monitoring, if the EPA notices problems with exceedences at any facility, the EPA needs to require factory farms to fix the problem right away, not wait until sometime in the future after the study is completed. EPA's priority should be protecting public health, not protecting factory farms. In addition to conducting the field study, the EPA should continue to investigate complaints and possible air pollution problems with large facilities and take enforcement action as necessary.

7. Since the EPA already has data on very large facilities—such as Buckeye Eggs from Ohio and Premium Standard Farms—and knows that facilities of this size are violating the Clean Air Act, these facilities should be required to come in compliance with the Clean Air Act now.

Here is how to submit comments:

Please start your comments by writing: Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0237

Submit your comments by one of the following methods:

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: 202-566-1741.

• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.

Please make comments today!