Anonymous public comment

This parameter is defined in paragraph 412.31(a)(2)(i)(C) ?A calculation determining the predicted median annual overflow volume based on a 25-year period of actual rainfall data applicable at the site.? The problem lies with the reliance upon median annual discharge in evaluating a facility that, while discharges do occur(sometimes persistently and frequently over a limited period of time), may have discharges in less than half of the twenty five years of record being evaluated. This condition translates into the median annual discharge being zero while the annual average discharge could be very significant and easily improved upon by a proposed alternative. It is obvious that reliance upon annual average discharge is the fair and appropriate test of performance for ELG systems and that reliance upon median annual discharge is a simple mistake that EPA has an obligation to correct. While there certainly are locations where alternative technologies can and will essentially result in performance that can be characterized as zero discharge and be able to overcome this prejudicial error in the CAFO rule, perpetuating an obvious mistake and one more permanent prejudice against efficient environmental protection by CAFOs is a prejudice that is unexcusable. It is important that those reading this who support balanced, efficient, and fair environmental protection and rule making comment and insist that EPA correct this mistake and change the language in paragraph 412.31(a)(2)(i)(C) of the 2003 CAFO rule to read ?average annual? where it now reads ?median annual?!