Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0037-0973
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-11-20T05:00Z

Memo to File

From:  Allison Wiedeman

Date:  10/10/07

On October 10, 2007 EPA attended a listening session with OMB with the
CAFO industry and USDA officials.  Attendees are the following:

 

Name			Affiliation

Jim Laity		OMB/OIRA

Tamara Thies		NCBA

Deb Atwood		C&MC/AMI

Kevin Bromberg	SBA/Advocacy

Mike Formica		NPPC

Lisa Kelley		NCGA

Tom Hebert		United Egg Producers

Job Serebrov		USDA

Rick Swenson		USDA/NRES

Don Parrish		American Farm Bureau Federation

Charlie Garrison	The Garrison Group/NMPF

John Knepper		OMB

Art Fraas		OMB/OIRA

Kevin Neyland	OMB/OIRA

Susan Thomas		NPPC

Will Craig		NCFC	

Allison Wiedeman	EPA		

During the meeting the industry expressed the following opinions and
concerns.  No response was provided by EPA or OMB as this was a
listening session only.  

There is no duty to apply for any industry even if they are discharging.

The permitting authority should not be able to "second guess" an
operator's claim to not needing a permit

Because there is no duty to apply, the only violation that can be cited
for a CAFO that discharges is for the discharge itself.

If EPA uses "propose to discharge" then they need to clarify that
propose means "intent".

Need to clearly define what the terms of the NMP that must go into the
permit.

If there is a change to the terms of the permit, there should be no
minor or major permit modification process required which includes
public review; only require the change to be reported in the annual
report.  They do not want the permit writer to have the discretion as to
what constitutes a substantial modification.  

Want to make sure that information reported in the annual report would
not make them liable for citizen suits.

Do not want to provide prospective info in their annual report.

Need a simple "off-ramp" if operator chooses to terminate permit
coverage – and this decision would not be at the discretion of the
permit authority.

Would like the rule to say that if an unpermitted CAFO operating under
the ag stormwater exemption gets inspected, that it does not have to
provide the NMP for 24 - 48 hours (at present the final rule simple says
that documentation "must be either on site or at a nearby office, or
otherwise make such documentation readily available to the Director or
Regional Administrator upon request").

 PAGE   

 PAGE   1