H.P. Hildebrand

P.O. Box 91288

San Antonio,, TX 78209-9099

March 13, 2008

Superfund Docket

Dear Superfund Docket:

Re: CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of

Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste: Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469

Dear Administrator Johnson:

I strongly support EPA\'s proposed rule to establish an administrative

reporting exemption from the notification requirements of the CERCLA and

EPCRA laws for releases of hazardous substances, such as ammonia and

hydrogen sulfide, to the air where the source of the release is animal

waste at farms.

I am a cattle producer who works hard every day to protect and improve
the

land, air and water that are fundamental to sustaining my family\'s way
of

life. While regulatory requirements have become much more stringent in

recent years, I work diligently to comply with all applicable

environmental regulations.

The purpose of the emergency release reporting provisions of CERCLA and

EPCRA is to target releases of \"hazardous substances\" that present

substantial threats to public health and the environment and that
require

immediate response by state and local emergency response officials in

order to prevent or minimize their adverse impacts. It is extremely

unlikely that notifications of emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide

from cattle operations would ever lead to any response action, since
there

is no evidence of the need to do so and response would be infeasible.
The

releases pose no threat to public health or the environment, and it
would

be an utter waste of public resources for authorities to investigate and

to consider remedial action when it would never lead to any such action.

In addition, I do not believe Congress ever intended to require cattle

producers to report these emissions from manure. CERCLA was intended to

provide for cleanup of hazardous waste sites like Love Canal and Times

Beach. To this end, Congress created the Superfund to tax the building

blocks (such as petrochemicals, inorganic raw materials, and petroleum

oil) used to make all hazardous products and waste. Manure and urea are

clearly not among these materials. In addition, \"\[a\]mmonia when used
to

produce or manufacture fertilizer or when used as a nutrient in animal

feed\" is specifically exempted from the tax due to the \"unnecessary

burden\" it would place on agriculture. A similar exemption is in place

for pesticides. In fact, the definition of \"hazardous chemical\"
excludes

\"any substance to the extent it is used in agriculture operations.\"

EPCRA was adopted in the wake of the 1984 Union Carbide disaster in

Bhopal, India to force reporting of releases of hazardous chemicals and
to

enable emergency response from governmental authorities when
appropriate.

In EPCRA, Congress specifically exempted \"Any substance to the extent
that

it is used in routine agricultural operations or is fertilizer held for

sale by a retailer to the ultimate customer\" from the definition of

hazardous chemical. Because manure is used as a fertilizer, it fits

squarely within this exemption.

Congress also specifically excluded from cleanup action \"naturally

occurring substances in their unaltered form, or altered solely through

naturally occurring processes or phenomena.\" An example of a natural

occurring substance cited in the Senate Committee Report is \"animal
wastes

(e.g. beaver excrement)\" which produce ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.

Emissions from manure, flatulence and belching fit squarely under this

exclusion.

In addition to the statutory exclusions, the Superfund law allows the
EPA

to grant administrative reporting exemptions \"for releases of hazardous

substances that pose little or no risk or to which federal response is

infeasible or inappropriate.\" Criteria EPA has used to exempt
operations

from release reporting requirements are: (1) continuous low level

emissions over large areas; (2) rapid dispersion in the environment; (3)

acceptable exposure risk (Congress specifically recognized the low risk
of

low level continuous ammonia releases); and (4) infeasibility and

inappropriateness of response. Emissions from cattle operations fit

squarely within these criteria for exemption.

This law was intended to ensure that true emergencies created by toxic

release of pollutants would be quickly and effectively identified so
that

timely response actions could occur. Numerous state and local agencies

charged with implementing CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting
requirements

have indicated to the EPA that they would not expect to ever respond to

reports from animal agriculture operations and would find the paperwork

associated with such reports burdensome and a hindrance to their
abilities

to respond effectively to the kinds of emergency releases that do

constitute a public health concern. Since it is inconceivable that

emergency situations resulting from ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
releases

from animal manure would ever occur, an administrative reporting
exemption

from these requirements is appropriate and I strongly support it.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,

Henrietta P.C. Hildebrand