EPA Required Reporting Facilities and Environmental Impact

New York, New York

By Marriele Robinson
industrial farming, agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution

This Project explores the environmental implications of the facilities required to report to the EPA.

Project Overview and Context

In the United States, 8,000 of the largest industry greenhouse gas emitters are required to the Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting System. Total reported emissions from these 8,000 facilities are about 3 billion metric tons CO2e, or 50 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions (EPA, 2017). Beyond dispropotionately contributing the total greenhouse gas emissions, these facilities have few retrictions as to location. The result is high emitting factories placed inside or near to protected wildlife reserves. These areas will be especially sensitive to the contaminated water runoff commonplace with high emitting facilities, resulting in loss of ecosystems.

The Impact of Factory Farming Facilities on Air, Water, and Sensitive Ecosystems

The “Facilities Greenhouse Gas Emissions Map” depicts all factory farming facilities affiliated with animal processing, with the option to toggle to Cargill only facilities.

Facilities are also mapped based on nearest proximity to a natural body of water. The agriculture industry is the leading cause of water quality problems today (EPA, 2016).  Fertilizers and manure resulting from livestock farming are the leading sources of water pollution from agricultural sources (The Sources and Solution: Agriculture, 2017).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Water Runoff

Globally, up to 29% of GHG emissions are from the agriculture sector (Global Justice Now, 2015). In the United States, the top four beef producers are responsible for over 70 percent of the domestic beef market (Painter, 2017).  With power concentrated to a few powerful and influential corporations, little progress has been achieved in modernizing the industrial farming industry. In fact, practices remain almost unchanged from their initial development almost a century ago. The result is a polluting and exploitative industry that is harming the surrounding water, air, and ecosystems.

The Center for Disease Control reported that between 1986-1998 every identified waterborne disease was likely from livestock-related water contaminates (Grace Projects, 2017).   With many facilities on or near the water, combined with the fact that 2,500 cows producing as much waste as 411,000 residents (Cargill has over 115,000 cows PER feedlot), these statistics are unsurprisingly. (Grace Projects, 2017).

While the EPA mandates Livestock Manure Management Systems and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits, regulations haven’t fixed the water runoff problem.  Better management of livestock waste and drainage water would significantly reduce water runoff pollution. For example, moving cattle from industrial feed operations to field grazing reduces the presence of E. Coli (Grace Projects, 2017).

Additionally, facilities that adopt renewable energy systems for waste disposal, rather than in-ground containment tanks, would greatly reduce septic leaks.  However, renewable energy systems are as accepted by the EPA as in-ground tanks are, making the investment largely unnecessary in the eyes of industry leaders, and adoption remains limited.

Cargill Facilities

Cargill facilities are included as a separate filter on this map due to their status. Of the top three livestock producers, Cargill is the highest emitter of GHG, declaring over 15 million tons of CO2 emissions a year (Global Justice Now, 2015).  In the United States, Cargill, along with 8,000 of the largest industry emitters, is required to report seven of its facilities GHG emission data to the Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting System.

If Cargill was held responsible for poor waste management and water runoff issues, their changes in technologies and management process and procedures would result in an entire industry trend towards more sustainable practices.

Facility Proximity to Protected Wildlife Areas

Complications from construction, pollution, and land acquisition are all contributing to shrinking natural wildlife habitats. While many of the protected areas I explored had industrial farming facilities onsite or nearby, protected Fish Spawning (in California) and Wildfowl Production areas were especially inundated. The map indicates that these areas have a disproportionate amount of processing facilities located within the designated area. The EPA will need to better mandate safe processing practices, or encourage facilities to move all together, if these natural ecosystems are going to remain.