Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Mounted archery takes aim at Rising Glory Farm
Significant rain, coupled with cool weather, slows Midwest fieldwork
Indiana’s net farm income projected to drop more than $1 billion this year
Started as a learning tool, Old World Garden Farms is growing
Senator Rand Paul introduces Hemp Safety Enforcement Act
March cattle feedlot placements are the second lowest since 1996
Diverse Corn Belt Project looks at agricultural diversification
Deere settles right-to-repair lawsuit for $99 million; judge still has to approve the deal
YEDA: From a kitchen table to a national movement
Insurer: Illinois farm collision claims reached 180 last year
Indiana to invest $1 billion to add jobs in ag, life sciences
   
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