Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Insurer: Illinois farm collision claims reached 180 last year
Indiana to invest $1 billion to add jobs in ag, life sciences
Illinois farmer turned flood prone fields to his advantage with rice
1,702 students participate in Wilmington College judging contest
Despite heavy rain and snow in April drought conditions expanding
Indiana company uses AI to supply farmers with their own corn genetics
Crash Course Village, Montgomery County FB offer ag rescue training
Panel examines effects of Iran war at the farm gate
Area students represent FFA at National Ag Day in Washington
Garver Farm Market wins zoning appeal to keep ag designation
House Ag’s Brown calls on Trump to intercede to assist farmers
   
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