Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Controlled breeding, calving season can improve efficiency
Alto Ingredients hosts facility tour  and discusses year round E15
Horses on the Hill brings therapy, beauty to Cincinnati neighborhood
Farmers should weigh benefits of cover crops with cost, yield
Antique Cretors popcorn wagon still popping after 100 years
Kentucky farmer plants his entire crop using autonomous equipment
Indiana and Tennessee taking steps to prevent spread of NWS
Roadside Stand Trail does better than organizers expected
NWS confirmed in the U.S., Rollins says sterile flies are the answer
Replanting is happening in some areas due to wet weather
Ground broken for $2 million Peoria Farm Bureau building
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Pork, poultry groups seek rehearing on EPA air rule
By STAN MADDUX
Indiana Correspondent
 
TUCKER, Ga. — A challenge is being waged against the overturning of a U.S. EPA rule that exempted producers of pork, meat and poultry from reporting air emissions from the waste produced by their animals.
 
The National Pork Producers Council and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Assoc. on June 6 announced they are seeking a rehearing on the April decision to lift the exemption by the U.S. Court of Appeals out of the District of Columbia.

The request for a rehearing is also being supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc., Natonal Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Milk Producers Federation and the United Egg Producers.

The exemption from reporting low-level emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide generated from the natural breakdown of animal manure was made part of the EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act in 2008.

Following an evaluation of the emissions, EPA ruled that reporting low level releases were not only “unnecessary and impractical” but such releases were “unlikely” to require an emergency response. But, the court, in its ruling had a much different opinion.

“In light of the record, we find that these reports aren’t nearly as useless as EPA makes them out to be,” the court stated in its decision. The court also ruled Congress did not authorize EPA to exempt “releases of hazardous substances” from the statutory reporting requirements under CERCLA and EPCRA.

Both statutes require reporting of any release exceeding the thresholds established by EPA, according to the court’s opinion, except where specifically exempted by Congress itself.

The court further noted that nothing in CERCLA or EPCRA authorized the agency to narrow reporting requirements established by Congress and pointed out there was no information presented to show if any analysis was done to determine if the costs of reporting emissions outweigh their benefits prior to EPA authorizing the exemption.

EPA also in 2008 placed a similar exemption into the Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act, but confined animal feeding operations – also referred to as CAFOs – were still required to file one-time reports for continuous releases of such emissions because of the volume of their animals and the waste produced being greater. 
6/13/2017