U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–052 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–237 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2421, THE FAIR 

AGRICULTURAL REPORTING METHOD ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE 

MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 8, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Ranking 

Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, 

AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota, Chairman 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming (ex officio) 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey, Ranking 

Member 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 8, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota .................... 1 

Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ..................... 2 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 4 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 8 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 9 

WITNESSES 

Mortenson, Todd, Mortenson Ranch, member, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association ................................................................................................................ 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 20 

Senator Ernst ............................................................................................ 21 

Satterfield, Bill, Executive Director, Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc ................ 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso ........................... 30 

Response to an additional question from Senator Ernst ............................... 31 

Kuhn, Mark, Floyd County Supervisor, Floyd County, Iowa ............................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Response to an additional question from Senator Ernst ............................... 57 

LEGISLATION 

Text of S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act ............................. 107 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter to Senators Barrasso, Rounds, Carper, and Booker from Marti and 

Larry Olesen et al., March 7, 2018 ..................................................................... 111 

Letter to Senators Barrasso, Rounds, Carper, and Booker from the Animal 

Legal Defense Fund et al., March 9, 2018 ......................................................... 122 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2421, THE FAIR 

AGRICULTURAL REPORTING METHOD ACT 

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Rounds (Chairman 

of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Rounds, Booker, Moran, Ernst, Van Hollen, 

Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator ROUNDS. Well, good morning. 

The Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, 

Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight is meeting today to 

conduct a legislative hearing on S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method, or FARM Act. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, or CERCLA, was established to manage hazardous waste and respond to environmental emergency spills and 

natural disasters. Under CERCLA, the owner or operator of a facility must report the release of a certain amount of hazardous substance to authorities within 24 hours. This is to make certain that 

first responders have the information they need to adequately respond to a release of a hazardous substance into the environment 

and surrounding community. 

Although ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are both considered 

hazardous substances under CERCLA, and both are emitted into 

the air from animal manure, Congress never intended normal agricultural operations and American farmers to be subject to the reporting requirements under these laws. CERCLA was intended to 

make certain State and Federal officials have the information they 

need in the event they have to respond to an emergency release of 

a hazardous substance. It is unlikely Federal officials would be required to respond to an emergency release at a cattle operation or 

a poultry farm, particularly one resulting from animal waste or 

emissions. 

Further, it is unlikely the U.S. Coast Guard, which coordinates 

CERCLA reporting, has the resources to manage the nearly 

200,000 farms that would be required to report their daily activiVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:59 May 23, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\30052.TXT SONYA
2 

ties under this rule. This additional burden on resources could potentially hinder the ability of first responders to respond to real 

emergencies. 

Accordingly, in 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency released a rule exempting animal waste at agricultural operations 

from CERCLA reporting. However, in 2017 the D.C. Circuit Court, 

in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, vacated the EPA’s 2008 rule. This 

decision leaves approximately 200,000 American farmers subject to 

bureaucratic and burdensome reporting and paperwork, the requirements that may overwhelm first responders, while the benefits of this regulation are questionable at best. 

That is why I have worked with Senator Fischer, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and the rest of my bipartisan colleagues to introduce the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method, or 

FARM Act. This legislation would reinstate the CERCLA reporting 

exemption for air emissions from animal wastes so that American 

farmers and ranchers will not be burdened by needless Federal regulations and can continue to do what they do best. 

American farmers and ranchers are already required to comply 

with multiple Federal regulations governing how they run their operations. Complying with these Federal regulations requires hours 

of paperwork, time, money, and resources, all of which take away 

from actually being able to work on their land. We should not make 

them subject to additional layers of bureaucracy that Congress 

never intended them to be subject to. 

It should also be noted that CERCLA is the basis for EPA’s 

Superfund program. This law was intended to allow the EPA to coordinate cleanups of hazardous waste or Superfund sites. A U.S. 

farm or ranch is most certainly not a Superfund site and should 

not be regulated as such. The FARM Act prevents U.S. farmers 

and ranchers from being subject to needless regulations that have 

no environmental benefit. 

I would like to thank Senator Fischer and Chairman Barrasso for 

their leadership on this issue. I am glad we were able to work in 

a bipartisan fashion to move this bill forward. 

Our witnesses today are members of the agricultural community, 

with decades of experience in farming and ranching. They are well 

versed in agricultural operations and how Federal regulations affect their way of life, and their ability to do business and provide 

the food that we all rely on. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today with us, 

and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Now I would like to recognize Senator Booker for a 5 minute 

opening statement. 

Senator Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. I am really grateful, Chairman Rounds, to be 

able to serve with you on this Committee; it is exciting to have the 

opportunity to partner with you. I hope it is as well as my partnership with Senator Fischer. She and I were a great tag team. She 

is still mad at me for leaving her in the other committee. 

3 

But I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I think 

this is just a really important conversation. The issue of air emissions from large CAFOs and the impact of those emissions on 

neighboring property owners is indeed a very serious issue, life 

threatening issue. 

As animal waste breaks down, it emits dangerous pollutants, 

specifically ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as the Chairman said. 

To protect the health of the small family farmers and other residents who live near these massive CAFOs, there are currently two 

laws that require reporting of emissions of ammonia and hydrogen 

sulfide at levels of 100 pounds per day. 

The first law, CERCLA, which the Chairman mentioned, requires reporting of these emissions to the Coast Guard National 

Response Center. The second law, EPCRA, requires reporting of 

emissions from extremely hazardous substances to State and local 

authorities. In 2008 again, as the Chairman detailed, the EPA attempted to exempt all CAFOs from having to report their emissions 

under CERCLA, and also attempted to exempt all but the largest 

CAFOs from reporting under EPCRA. 

Last year, the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the attempt by the 

EPA to exempt reporting emissions of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia from CAFOs. The D.C. Circuit Court, in its decision, stated the 

risk of harm of those emissions isn’t just theoretical; people have 

become seriously ill and even died as a result of them. 

EPA itself has found that hydrogen sulfide can cause respiratory 

irritation and cause central nervous system effects 1 mile downwind when emitted at current reportable quality of 100 pounds per 

day. Of those affected, children are the most at risk for lung disease and health effects, and the closer a child lives to a CAFO, the 

greater the risk of asthma symptoms. 

At the last meeting of this Committee, I talked about my 2016 

trip to Duplin County, North Carolina. Given the focus of today’s 

hearing, I want to again talk about my trip and my firsthand experiences going to Duplin County. 

In 2016 residents from Duplin came to Washington, telling lawmakers that they desperately needed help. There are about 60,000 

people that live in Duplin County, but there are more than 2 million pigs being raised there. And the primary way that the waste 

from those 2 million pigs is disposed of is by piping it into huge, 

open air lagoons and then spraying the waste out onto open fields, 

what I witnessed myself, with my own eyes. 

These residents that came to Washington complained about suffering from serious respiratory problems such as asthma and 

chronic lung disease caused by living near these lagoons and spray 

fields. So, when I visited Duplin County, I wanted to see these conditions firsthand, and what I saw there is something I will never, 

ever forget. 

I saw pig waste being sprayed; I saw how the wind was carrying 

the mist. Some of the spray would fall, but I watched it mist onto 

adjacent properties. I smelled what was a wretched, horrible smell 

standing hundreds and hundreds of yards away, and how that 

smell permeated the entire community. I heard heartbreaking stories from residents who said they too often felt like prisoners in 

their own homes. 

4 

In fact, I met a veteran from foreign wars who said I fought for 

my country overseas, and I came back and am a prisoner in my 

own home. They talked about how they no longer can have cookouts in their backyards; that they can’t even open their windows 

or run their air conditioning because of that toxic smell. 

So when we have legislation before us that would create exemptions from reporting, I think we need to be very careful how we 

proceed. Under current law, we still have communities like Duplin 

County, where people are truly suffering, where their rates of respiratory illness and other diseases are higher than the general population. 

I was happy to see that this bill, S. 2421, only proposes to exempt CAFOs from reporting under CERCLA, and not under 

EPCRA. And I know that Senator Carper and others fought to 

limit the scope of the bill before signing on. But the problem is that 

the EPA is again taking action to exempt CAFOs from having to 

report these emissions under EPCRA. If the EPA is successful in 

creating a complete exemption, local residents will no longer have 

access to information about the levels of these harmful chemicals 

being emitted literally into their front yards, as I know we will see 

from one witness. 

Some farmers should not have to file unnecessary paperwork. I 

believe that very strongly. And ranchers who engage in pasture 

based farming, like Mr. Mortenson does, should not have to calculate emissions and file forms. 

But larger CAFOs are a different story. The type of operations 

that I saw in North Carolina, and the type in Iowa that Mr. Kuhn 

will describe in his testimony, create serious health risks. This is 

about people. This is about their lives, their livelihoods, their property values, and their health. And as it currently stands, reporting 

under EPCRA is not difficult; large CAFOs have been doing it for 

years, and a reporting mechanism is already in place. 

So, I hope that between Congress and the EPA we can find a 

path forward that gives clarity to small farmers that they do not 

need to report their emissions, but that continues to require reporting under EPCRA by CAFOs that emit over 100 pounds per day 

of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide, serious dangerously agents. 

Thank you, Senator Rounds, for this, which, again, I think is an 

urgently needed conversation, and I look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator Booker, and I look forward 

to working with you on this Committee, as well as the Ranking 

Member. 

Traditionally, in this Subcommittee, we would allow the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the full Committee to also have 

an opportunity to visit. Senator Barrasso just had to leave to go to 

a business meeting, so he has indicated that he would pass on his 

opportunity at this point. However, we are privileged in that Ranking Member Carper is here, and at this time I would like to ask 

Senator Carper if he would like to make an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Yes, I would. Thank you. 

5 

I appreciate very much the Chairman and the Ranking Member 

hosting this hearing today. Thank Senator Fischer and others for 

trying to lead us to a principled compromise, where we are mindful 

of the need to protect public health, and at the same time, to make 

sure that an industry which provides a lot of jobs in this country— 

the ag industry—is able to be successful and compete in the world. 

Delaware is not a big State. I go home almost every night; went 

home last night. We have three counties; the largest one is in 

southern Delaware. Sussex County is the third largest county in 

America. It is a little State, but the third largest county in America. 

We raise more chickens there, I am told, than any county in 

America. Last time I checked, we raise more soybean than any 

county in America. And I think the last time I checked we raise 

more lima beans than any county in America, and I think we have 

more five-star beaches than any county in America. So it is a little 

State, but that is quite a county, isn’t it? But we have a lot of people who live there, and we want to make sure they have a good environment in which to live; clean air, clean water. 

We raise a lot of chickens on Delmarva, as Bill knows, Delaware, 

Maryland, and the Virginia eastern shore, and for years the farmers have taken chicken litter, chicken manure, and mixed with 

sawdust, which is usually on the floor of the chicken house; they 

mix it together and use it for fertilizer and spread it on farm fields 

all over Delmarva and certainly all over Sussex County in order to 

support raising soybeans, corn, and other crops. 

For years and years we were not very good environmental stewards with the way we spread our chicken litter on our farm fields. 

Didn’t do a good job. As Bill knows, a lot of our farm fields drain 

into creeks, drain into ditches, and eventually into rivers, Nanticoke River, which flows into the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay badly degraded, and we were one of the reasons why it 

was badly degraded. 

About 20 years ago, my last term as Governor, we put together 

a farmer led initiative, nutrient management commission, farmer 

led, includes some environmentalists, includes the Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and we figured out 

a way to make sure that folks who were spreading chicken litter 

on farm fields, which is high in phosphorus, high in nitrogen. It is 

good fertilizer, relatively inexpensive; we have to figure out what 

to do with it. 

For those who, starting in the late 1990s, were going to be 

spread chicken litter, they had to get a plan. They had to submit 

a plan, say this is my plan, here is how I am going to do it; have 

to have their soil tested to make sure it was appropriate for receiving chicken litter, how much could go onto the farm fields that 

would be safe for public health, and to make sure that the farmers 

were adhering to their nutrient management plan. We have been 

doing that for over 15 years. 

Senator Van Hollen and Senator Cardin will tell you that the 

quality of the water in the Chesapeake Bay has significantly improved. Is it perfect? No, it is not. Delaware was not a good neighbor for many, many years. I think we are a much better neighbor 

today. They have a neighbor up to the north, Pennsylvania; so do 

6 

we. I don’t think Pennsylvania has sort of—we have to get them 

online. 

But Delaware is a much better neighbor today. Can we do better? Sure, we can always do better. Everything I do, everything all 

of us do, we can do better. But I just want to give you that for a 

little bit of context. 

I have known Bill Satterfield forever. When I was elected State 

Treasurer at the age of 29, every time you get on the radio, if you 

are State Treasurer, it is not a hot commodity like being a Senator. 

Every now and then I would get invited to Radio Station WDOV— 

was that the name of the station?—WKEN in Dover, Delaware. 

One of the folks who was on, one of the people who did this talk 

radio, and one of the folks who did some of the program and some 

of the interviews was Bill Satterfield. 

He was nice enough to invite me to be on his show from time to 

time, and on my way, driving on Route 8 to WKEN to do the interview, I would drive—was it a Tastee-Freez?—I would drive by 

Tastee-Freez on my way. I love chocolate milkshakes. I would stop 

and get a chocolate milkshake. He was a co-owner. Who was the 

other guy who was a co-owner with you? Yes, Rick. 

And I would get a chocolate milkshake and then I would go do 

the interview, and he would say to me at the beginning of the 

interview, he would say, ‘‘How are you doing today?’’ And I would 

say, ‘‘Great. There was a Tastee-Freez on the way out here on 

Route 8, and I love to stop there and get a chocolate milkshake; 

in fact, I am having one right now. And you guys make the best— 

I don’t know who owns that place, but they make the best chocolate 

milkshake.’’ 

But anyway, from those humble beginnings, me, a State Treasurer, and Bill as a radio interview personality, he went on to join 

the Delmarva poultry industry in 1986, was named their Executive 

Director in 1993, and he works to advance the interests of our Delmarva poultry farmers. I said earlier ag is a big deal in our State, 

and especially in the southern part of the State. 

I have said a million times before to my colleagues that it is possible to have clean air, it is possible to have clean water, cleaner 

air, cleaner water, and good public health, and still have jobs, and 

there is always a balance, and sometimes it is not easy to find that 

balance, but we think we are working toward that and still will 

continue to do this. 

But I said in our full Committee here on ag issues last month, 

I acknowledged that sometimes environmental requirements can be 

complex. They can be confusing to those who farm, especially when 

those rules apply suddenly to them, and that is what happened in 

April 2017 when the D.C. Circuit Court of appeals invalidated an 

EPA rule from 2008. 

That rule had exempted all farms in the nation, as we have 

heard today, from reporting requirements for hazardous air emissions from animal waste under CERCLA. That rule also exempted 

small and medium sized farms from reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, which we 

know as EPCRA, but left in place, reporting requirements for large 

farms. 

7 

But with the FARM Act, the legislation that we are holding this 

hearing on today, we are hoping to provide certainty to farmers by 

legislatively exempting all farms under CERCLA, as was done by 

EPA in its 2008 rule. 

One thing I worked hard on this legislation with Senators Fischer and Barrasso and others, as we were developing this legislation, 

is to make sure the FARM Act makes no change to EPCRA reporting, no change. And I think Senator Booker has mentioned this already. 

I just want to thank both Senator Barrasso, I want to thank Senator Fischer, others, other staffs and others for working with my 

staff and me and agreeing not to amend EPCRA in this bill. This 

is an issue that was critical for many members on our Democratic 

side. We have repeatedly heard concerns from State and local officials, public health experts and other members of our communities 

who want information about what is in their air, and this bill seeks 

to strike a careful balance. As a result, it enjoys broad, bipartisan 

support. My hope is that that broad support can be translated into 

prompt legislative action. 

Again, my thanks to all who played a role in crafting this compromise which is before us today. 

Senator Booker and I show up most Thursdays, we will do it 

later today, at a Bible study group led by our Chaplain, Barry 

Black, for about a half an hour. It is for those seven or eight of us 

who need the most help, right? 

One of the things that Chaplain Black, who is retired Navy Admiral, former Chief of Chaplains for the Navy and Marine Corps, 

he always reminds us every week of the Golden Rule: treat other 

people the way we want to be treated, and love thy neighbor as 

thyself. And this is an effort, I think, a good faith effort to try to 

make sure that we are true to that admonition. 

We are not there yet, but it is striving toward perfection. Keep 

striving, keep striving, and hopefully some day we will get there. 

Maybe we will even get to Heaven. Who knows? 

Thank you so much. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator Carper. I think Senator 

Booker was right as he suggested to me that not only will they 

probably clip your message here on behalf of your local Chamber 

of Commerce, but probably the dairy and milk industries will as 

well. Chocolate malts sound very good, actually. 

I would also make note that Senator Carper has suggested that 

this is a bipartisan effort. A lot of that has to do with the leadership of Senator Fischer and her work here to gather both Republicans and Democrats as part of this. She currently has 12 Democrats and 21 Republicans on this as cosponsors, and that says a lot 

about the leadership that she has provided. 

I would like to give Senator Fischer the opportunity to visit a little bit about this legislation before we move directly to our witnesses. 

Senator BOOKER. And I would like to note for the record it was 

her birthday last week. She is now, I think, 38. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FISCHER. That would be correct. 

[Laughter.] 

8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Chairman Rounds and Ranking 

Member Booker, for convening today’s legislative hearing on important bipartisan legislation that would ensure common sense policies prevail for our farmers, our ranchers, and our livestock markets. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your support, and to my other 

EPW colleagues, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, 

Senators Inhofe, Ernst, Moran, Duckworth, Wicker, and Boozman, 

for supporting this important legislation. I would also like to thank 

the witness panel for their willingness to share their time and experience with our Committee this morning. 

Since my first day in Congress I have worked with my Senate 

colleagues to promote policies that enable our ag producers to prosper, while also safeguarding our environment. The bill before us 

today, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method, or the FARM Act, 

would provide greater certainty for ag producers. It will protect 

farmers and ranchers from burdensome reporting requirements for 

animal waste emissions under the Superfund law, also known as 

CERCLA. 

When CERCLA was enacted, Congress never intended the law to 

affect normal production agricultural practices. Instead, the law is 

meant to address dangerous industrial pollution, chemical plant explosions, and the release of hazardous materials into the environment. 

In an effort to clarify that animal manure is not a hazardous 

chemical emission, the EPA published a final rule in 2008 that exempted most livestock operations from animal waste emission reporting requirements under CERCLA. But last year the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the 2008 rule, noting that 

the EPA does not have the authority to grant the reporting requirement exemption. 

The Court’s decision created confusion, and it created that for 

both the EPA and ag producers, and that sent a clear message that 

a legislative fix from Congress is needed to clarify these reporting 

requirements. My legislation does exactly that. 

The FARM Act codifies the original intent from the EPA’s 2008 

rule by mirroring the intent of the exemption. It does so by providing an exemption for air emissions from animal waste from 

CERCLA reporting requirements. Most importantly, it provides ag 

producers with greater certainty by reinstating the status quo that 

producers have been operating under since EPA’s final 2008 rule. 

It is important to also note that while EPA administers 

CERCLA, producers must notify the National Response Center, 

which is housed under the U.S. Coast Guard, of their animal waste 

emission releases. The NRC reported that their daily calls jumped 

from an average to 100 to 150 to well over 1,000 a day, creating 

at times a 2 hour wait delay. Due to the extreme influx of reports, 

the director of the NRC wrote to me that without the CERCLA exemption, the increased reporting would absolutely hinder the Coast 

Guard’s ability to respond to real emergencies around this country. 

We all want clean air, and we want clean water. Our farmers 

and ranchers understand this better than most, and it is important 

9 

for us to provide them the necessary tools that they need to continue to feed our nation and to feed the world. America’s farm and 

ranch families are currently experiencing a tough economy. We 

have depressed markets, and we have tight margins. They 

shouldn’t also have to worry about reporting their animal waste 

emissions. 

This is an issue where we can provide a solution. It is one of 

those rare moments where everyone involved, our stakeholders, the 

EPA, and the National Response Center, all want a fix, and I am 

grateful for the bipartisan interest in seizing this opportunity. 

I am looking forward to today’s discussion, and I thank my 33 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle for joining me in this legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator Fischer, and once again, 

thanks for the leadership on this. This is very, very important. Any 

time you bring together both Republicans and Democrats in these 

numbers, that says a lot about the work that you put into it, so 

thank you. 

At this time, Senator Barrasso, who is the Chairman of our full 

Committee, has again rejoined the Subcommittee. 

Senator Barrasso, would you care to make any opening comments? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you, as well as Ranking Member Booker, for convening this hearing on S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting 

Method Act, the FARM Act. It is important bipartisan legislation 

that is going to help bring clarity to ranchers and to farmers in 

Wyoming and all across the country. I cosponsored the bill, strongly support it, and compliment Senator Fischer for its introduction. 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act, CERCLA, was enacted by Congress to give EPA 

the authority, the authority to respond to hazardous industrial pollution that threatens the environment and public health. It is an 

important and necessary law, provides tools to clean up polluted 

sites, and to hold responsible parties accountable. 

But when applied to the everyday activities of ranches and 

farms, it really makes very little sense. That is why, in 2008, the 

EPA finalized a rule to clarify that farming ranches are exempted 

from air emission reporting requirements under CERCLA. Even 

the Obama administration agreed that farmers and ranchers 

should be relieved of some of this burdensome regulation. 

In April 2017 the D.C. Circuit Court nullified the Obama administration rule, mandating new onerous reporting requirements for 

up to 100,000 farms and ranches. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I was home in Wyoming the last 2 weekends, 1 weekend in Riverton, Wyoming, the Freemont County 

Cattlemen’s Association; last weekend in Big Piney and Marbleton, 

Wyoming, at the Green River Valley Cattlemen’s Association. Look, 

I continue to hear how out of touch the environmental regulations 

have become, and this is a textbook example. The people who labor 

10 

year round to feed, to clothe, to house our nation should not be burdened with the time and money it takes to estimate and to record 

and to file emissions reports that even the EPA has said it does 

not need or want. 

That is why enacting the FARM Act is critical. It is a common 

sense bill. It protects ranchers and farmers in Wyoming and 

around the nation from punishing and unnecessary Federal Government regulations. It eliminates regulatory uncertainty by putting into law the CERCLA animal air emissions exemption that 

producers have relied on since the EPA’s 2008 rule. I believe it is 

an important bill. 

I would like to again thank Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member 

Booker for holding this hearing, and especially like to thank Senator Fischer for bringing it to us, bringing it to the Senate as we 

move forward on this bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. 

Our first witness for today’s hearing is Mr. Todd Mortenson, who 

is the Owner-Operator of Mortenson Ranch in South Dakota. On a 

personal note, Todd lost his father, Clarence, just this last week, 

who was a good friend of mine, a real gentleman, and truly, with 

regard to modern sustainable ag practices, probably one of the fathers of making it a reality in South Dakota. 

First of all, my condolences to you and to your family on the loss 

of your father, but also in South Dakota the loss of a real gentleman and a true part of the pride that we have in our State. So, 

just on a personal note, that loss is felt. 

Todd is the owner and operator of the Mortenson Ranch in Stanley County, South Dakota. His cow calf operation sits along the 

beautiful Cheyenne River, and Todd focuses on conservation and 

stewardship of his land. He has restored more than 90 percent of 

his 19,000 acre ranch back to native grasses, shrubs, and trees, 

and for this Todd was recognized by the Sand County Foundation 

as the Leopold Conservation Award winner in 2011. 

The Mortenson Ranch was also the subject of a multi-year study 

conducted by the South Dakota State University, and in my opinion, is a gold standard for striking a perfect balance between 

ranching, economics, and environmental conservation. 

I first went out to Todd’s ranch way back in the 1990s, and I saw 

what they were doing for water improvement on livestock improvement, pasture improvement, bringing broadleaf back in and so 

forth, and it can be pointed to as a true success story for sustainable ag. 

Senator Carper is still here. I would like to yield to Senator Carper to introduce our second witness at this time. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I think I have done about as much harm to Bill 

Satterfield’s reputation as anybody can. But if you didn’t get the 

drift of my earlier statements when I talked about him, a little bit 

about his background. 

Agriculture is hugely important in all of our States, but particularly in southern Delaware, and a big part of that is poultry. We 

always face, in every one of our States, the question can we have 

cleaner air, cleaner water, and still have jobs. Can we have better 

11 

public health and still have jobs? And I always say it is a false 

choice to say you have to choose one or the other. We can have 

both. And part of what we want to do is make sure that we do a 

better job of adhering to that thought, and I think Bill understands 

that, and he has helped to provide leadership for a big consortium 

of folks who raise chickens, process chickens, export chickens all 

over the world, and we are grateful for his service in that regard, 

and I am just grateful for his friendship over all these years. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to note for the 

record that Mr. Satterfield did not bring chocolate milkshakes for 

everybody. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROUNDS. Duly noted. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, if I just could, I believe, if 

I am not wrong, that Mr. Satterfield actually, if you still live in 

Salisbury, you are a Marylander, so we are very proud to have you 

as a Marylander, and thank you for being here. 

Senator CARPER. But he still votes in Delaware. No, I am just 

kidding. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. For the record, he does not. 

Senator ROUNDS. We won’t get into that today. 

Mr. Satterfield, welcome. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Bill. 

Senator ROUNDS. Our third witness for today’s hearing is Mr. 

Mark Kuhn, Floyd County Supervisor, Floyd County, Iowa, and we 

welcome you, as well, to this very special panel. Thank you, sir, for 

being here. 

Now we will turn to our first witness, Mr. Todd Mortenson, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. Mortenson, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF TODD MORTENSON, MORTENSON RANCH, 

MEMBER, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MORTENSON. Good morning. My name is Todd Mortenson. 

My wife, Deb, and I, along with our sons, Quinn and Jack, live on 

a ranch in Stanley County, South Dakota, along the Cheyenne 

River. I am a member of the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association 

and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and today I am representing cattle producers from across the country. 

Thank you, Chairman Rounds and Ranking Member Booker, for 

allowing me to testify on CERCLA reporting for agriculture and 

the importance of the FARM Act. 

Farmers and ranchers truly are America’s original environmentalists. We care more than anyone about the land that we 

manage because the environmental quality of our operations directly impacts not only the health of our livestock, but the water 

we drink and the air we breathe. I work hard to implement management practices that improve the environmental sustainability of 

my ranch so that someday I can pass it on to my sons. For example, we move cattle to the uplands during the summer months, allowing increased native plant growth and decreased sediment flow 

through the ranch creeks. 

12 

While I fully support best management practices that improve 

environmental quality, I cannot support needless requirements 

that burden the agricultural community while providing no benefit. 

A prime example of this is the burdensome reporting requirement 

under CERCLA which requires farmers and ranchers to report manure odors to multiple Federal agencies for emergency response coordination. Let me say that again, because the absurd bears repeating. CERCLA reporting requires farmers and ranchers to report manure odors to the Federal Government so that the Federal 

Government can coordinate an emergency response to manure 

odors. 

On my pasture based cow calf operation, I manage 1,295 cows on 

19,000 acres. Because my cattle are so spread out, the concentration of emissions is extremely low. But CERCLA does not consider 

concentration, only release. It makes no difference whether my cattle are spread over 10 acres or 10,000 acres; if my cattle emit over 

100 pounds of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide per day, I am required 

to report their emissions to the Coast Guard and the EPA. 

It is clear that Congress never intended for CERCLA to govern 

agricultural manure odors. The EPA understands this, and in 2008 

exempted agricultural operations from CERCLA reporting requirements. While the exemption was put in place by the George W. 

Bush administration, it was defended in court by the Obama administration. In defending the exemption, the Obama EPA argued 

that Congress did not include an exemption for manure emissions 

because they never dreamed that these low level emissions would 

fall into the possible realm of regulation. 

However, in April 2017 environmental groups won their lawsuit, 

and the D.C. Circuit Court eliminated these important exemptions. 

When the mandate issues in May, nearly 200,000 farmers and 

ranchers will be required to report low level manure odors to the 

Federal Government. 

Reporting is no simple task; it is a three step process that requires, at minimum, 1 year to complete. The first step is an initial 

call to the Coast Guard, the agency tasked with coordinating emergency response for the nation’s hazardous emergencies, such as oil 

spills and chemical explosions. 

The Coast Guard is on record stating that these reports don’t 

help them at all. In fact, they only hurt their ability to respond to 

environmental and public health emergencies. For quotes from the 

Coast Guard’s declaration to the D.C. Court, you can see my written testimony. In summary, the Coast Guard indicated that early 

calls in November from some livestock operations increased wait 

times to report emergency releases by up to 2 hours. 

The initial call is followed by two written reports to the EPA sent 

over the span of 1 year. These reports require detailed information 

regarding my cattle’s emissions, information that I simply do not 

have. Research in this area is limited, to say the least. Only two 

land grant universities have done research to establish an emissions calculator, and as a pasture based producer, there is no available science to meet the statutory burden. 

It should also be noted that this reporting requirement is not a 

one and done obligation; any time I decide to increase the size of 

my herd, I am required to start the process all over again. 

13 

To clarify these exemptions, Congress needs to change the law to 

reflect its intent that livestock producers are exempt from CERCLA 

reporting requirements. The FARM Act, introduced just a couple of 

weeks ago, provides the relief that livestock owners and first responders need under CERCLA, and has the same bipartisan support exhibited under the Bush and Obama administrations. 

CERCLA is one of our most important environmental statutes, 

providing the tools we need to effectively clean up releases that 

harm both the environment and public health. Unfortunately, we 

all know that environmental agencies are given low priority at both 

Federal and State level. The FARM Act will ensure that precious 

time and monetary resources are not siphoned from important 

cleanup efforts to address a paperwork requirement with no environmental or public health benefit. 

As May 1st quickly approaches, only Congress can ensure that 

the agriculture community is protected from this reporting burden, 

the reliability of our emergency response coordination is maintained, and the integrity of the Superfund law is not degraded. 

Thank you for your time, and thank you for your support of the 

FARM Act. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mortenson follows:] 

14 


30052.001

Todd Mortenson -Biography 

Todd Mortenson lives on a ranch located in west central South 

Dakota in the northwest comer of Stanley county, along the 

Cheyenne River. 

Todd, along with his wife Deb and sons Quinn and Jack, operate 

the cow/calf ranch. Todd's brother Curt and his family also 

maintain an ownership interest in the ranch and help out when 

needed. Shane and Val Sheets, a young couple from the area, 

live and work with the Mortensons on the ranch. 

Additionally, Todd owns 200 acres of cropland. In a normal 

year he will put up between 1,000 and 1,500 acres of alfalfa and 

native grasses for hay. Cows on the Mortenson Ranch are out in 

pasture until they calve, in March and April, and then 

supplemented with hay. A rotational grazing system is used so 

the cows are on the move quite frequently when the grass greens up. This system ensures the cows 

stay on a high nutritional plan in addition to protecting grasses from overgrazing. The calves are 

given shots in the spring at branding and again in August before they are weaned in September 

and October. At that time the steers are sorted off and shipped to a feedlot in Wessington Springs 

and the heifers are sent to a neighbor's operation where they are fed. The steers are sold as fat 

cattle in April and May. The heifers are kept as replacements with some being grass-fattened, 

sold, and marketed through EcoSun Prairie Farms in Brookings, South Dakota. 

Todd is a member of the West Central Cattlemen's Association, the South Dakota Cattlemen's 

Association, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He also volunteers as an EMS First 

Responder and member of the Hayes volunteer fire department. 

The most rewarding part raising livestock for Todd is constantly being challenged to make what 

he is raising fit into the rhythms of nature. Working to improve the environment while 

simultaneously getting the most out of livestock is a tremendous balancing act. 

Todd hosts tours every year for those interested in learning more about ranch life, and hopes that 

when people leave the ranch they have seen that a healthy landscape that leads to healthy wildlife 

and healthy livestock. 
15 


30052.002

Testimony 

on behalf of the 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

with regards to 

"Legislative Hearing on S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" 

submitted to the 

United States Senate 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Mike Rounds, Chairman 

submitted by 

Todd Mortenson 

Mortenson Ranch 

Member 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

March 8, 2018 

Washington, DC 

National Cattlemen's 

Beef Association 
16 


30052.003

Good morning, my name is Todd Mortenson. I live with my wife Deb on a ranch located in west 

central South Dakota in Stanley County, along the Cheyenne River. My grandfather, Ben Young, 

started the home ranch in the 1930s and added ground in Ziebach county when the Oahe dam was 

built, flooding their bottom lands in the late 1950s. 

I am a member of the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association and the National Cattlemen's Beef 

Association, and I'm testifYing before you today representing cattle producers and family ranchers, 

each of whom have a stake in protecting the environment. Thank you, Chairman Rounds and 

Ranking Member Booker, for allowing me to testifY today on the issue ofCERCLA reporting for 

agriculture, and the importance of the FARM Act. 

American cattlemen own and manage considerably more land than any other segment of 

agriculture- or any other industry for that matter. Ranchers graze cattle on approximately 666.4 

million acres of the approximately two billion acres that makes up the United States' land mass. 

In addition, the acreage used to grow hay, feed grains, and food grains add millions more acres of 

land under cattlemen's stewardship. Some of the biggest challenges to our industry come from 

urban encroachment, natural disasters, and government overreach. Since our livelihood is made 

on the land, through the utilization of our natural resources, protecting the land not only makes 

good environmental sense; it is fundamental for our industry to remain strong. Cattle producers 

pride themselves on being good stewards of our country's natural resources. We maintain open 

spaces, healthy rangelands, provide wildlife habitat and feed the world. But to provide all these 

important functions, we must be able to operate without excessive federal burdens, like the one we 

are discussing today. 

Farmers and ranchers truly are America's original environmentalists. In fact, I would say we care 

more than anyone about the land we manage, because our operations directly impact not only the 

health of our livestock, but the water we drink and the air we breathe. I work hard to implement 

conservation practices that improve the environmental sustainability of my operation, ensuring 

that I'll be able to pass my ranch on to the next generation. For example, we move cattle to the 

uplands during summer months, allowing increased native plant growth and decreased sediment 

flow through ranch creeks. Additionally, in the spring, our herds graze on grasses in riparian areas 

while stamping seeds into the ground to help increase future vegetation growth. 

While I fully support conservation practices that benefit and improve environmental quality, I 

cannot support needless requirements that burden the agricultural community while providing no 

environmental or public health benefit. A prime example of this is the burdensome reporting 

requirement under CERCLA, which requires farmers and ranchers to report manure odors to 

multiple agencies within the federal government for emergency response coordination. On my 

pasture-based cow/calf operation, I manage l ,295 cattle on 19,000 acres ofland. The concentration 

of emissions is extremely low, because my cattle are spread over such a large area. However, 

2 
17 


30052.004

CERCLA reporting requirements do not take concentration into account only release. It makes 

no difference whether my cattle are spread over 10 acres or 10,000 acres. If my 1,295 cattle emit 

over 100 pounds of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide per day, I am required to report their emissions 

to the US Coast Guard and EPA. Our best estimation of how many beef cattle it takes to trigger 

the reporting requirement is 208 head of cattle. Clearly, I would fall under these reporting 

requirements. 

It is clear that Congress never intended this law to govern routine manure odors from everyday 

farm and ranch activity. The EPA understands this and, in 2008, exempted agricultural operations 

from reporting requirements under the Superfund law. While the exemption was put in place by 

the Bush W. Administration, it was defended in court by the Obama Administration for eight years. 

In defending the exemption, the Obama EPA argued that Congress did not include an exemption 

for manure emissions because they never considered that these low-level releases would fall into 

the possible realm of regulation. However, in April 2017, environmental groups won their lawsuit 

when the D.C. Circuit court found that Congress provided no exemption for agriculture. When the 

mandate issues on May I, 2018, over 200,000 farmers and ranchers will be required to report lowlevel manure odors to the federal government. 

Reporting is no simple task. It is a three-step process that spans, at minimum, one year. The first 

step is an initial call to the Coast Guard, the agency tasked with coordinating emergency response 

for the nation's oil spills, chemical plant explosions, and other hazardous emergencies. The Coast 

Guard is on record stating that these reports do not help them at all - in fact, they only hurt their 

ability to respond to true environmental and public health emergencies. In a November 14, 2017 

declaration to the D.C. Circuit Court, Director of Incident Management and Preparedness for the 

USCG Dana Tulis indicated that early reports from livestock operations "increased [call volume] 

from approximately 100-150 calls per day (not associated with air releases from farms) to over 

1,000 phone calls per day." 1 This influx of non-emergency reports negatively impacts the Coast 

Guard's ability to coordinate response for true emergencies. The Coast Guard further indicated the 

abundance offarm calls meant that "wait times have been up to two hours for calls, many of which 

require immediate attention." 

The initial call to the Coast Guard is followed by two written reports sent to the EPA, over the 

span of one year. These reports require specific, detailed information regarding my cattle's 

emissions- information that I simply don't have. Research in this area is limited, to say the least. 

Only two land-grant universities have completed studies related to calculating emissions from 

livestock on a per-pound basis, and the EPA has completed no research in the area. 2 Further, those 

who are considered experts in this area are not confident that available reporting methodologies 

1 Tulis Aff. 2 (Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 853 F.Jd 527 (2017)). 2 R. Stowell and R. Koelsch, Ammonia Emissions Estimator, University ofNebraska-Lincoln (2009); S. Preece, N. 

Cole, and B. Auvermann, Ammonia Emissions from Cattle Feeding Operations, Texas A&M (2012). 

3 
18 


30052.005

should be widely depended upon. According to Dr. Rick Stowell, co-creator of the University of 

Nebraska Lincoln's Ammonia Estimator Worksheet, "While I can place some confidence in 

differentiating between a I ,000-head feedlot and a 200-head feedlot, given all of the variability 

involved on AFOs and in research, I would not place much confidence in saying that a 300-head 

lot is definitely emitting more NH3 than the neighboring 200-head lot or that we can be certain 

that either is above or below the threshold."3 For pasture-based livestock, no research exists 

quantifying per-head ammonia or hydrogen sulfide emissions. However, research does indicate 

that ammonia emissions differ significantly based on diet and confinement. Requiring pasturebased operations to report using tools provided on EPA's webpage (research that focuses 

exclusively on grain-fed animals) is inadequate, and will lead to substantially inaccurate reporting. 

It should also be noted that this reporting requirement is not a "one and done" obligation. Any time 

I decide to increase the size of my heard, I have to file additional paperwork with the government. 

In addition to concerns I have related to the accuracy of my reports, I also worry that I will be 

providing my specific residential location information to the EPA- an agency with an established 

record of farm location information misuse. The widespread collection and dissemination offarm 

location information by the government will put the privacy of producers and safety of our food 

system at risk, as individuals will have unfettered access to farm and residential location data. 

Many of the families who manage livestock operations live on their farms, so any data required by 

the government, like the data required for CERCLA reporting, creates a situation ripe for abuse. 

To clarify these exemptions, Congress needs to change the law to reflect its intent that livestock 

producers are exempt from CERCLA reporting requirements. The FARM Act, introduced on 

February 13, 20!8, provides the relief that farmers, ranchers, and first responders need under 

CERCLA, and carries strong bipartisan support, as was exhibited by the Bush and Obama 

Administrations. In 20 !8, its not often that Republicans and Democrats can agree on anything, and 

I for one am proud of you all for putting aside your differences and making your constituents a 

priority. CERCLA truly is one of our most vital environmental statutes- it provides the tools we 

need to efficiently and effectively cleanup releases that harm both the environment and public 

health. Unfortunately, we all know that environmental agencies are given low funding priority at 

both the federal and state level. The FARM Act will ensure that precious time and monetary 

resources are not siphoned from important cleanup efforts to address a paperwork requirement 

with no environmental or public health benefit. 

In addition to maintaining my ranch, I also volunteer with the Hayes volunteer fire department and 

EMS First Responder in Stanley County, South Dakota. While I did not receive EPCRA reports 

from agricultural operations in 2009, because there are no large CAFOs in my county, the receipt 

of this paperwork would in no way improve my ability to do my job as an emergency responder. 

3 Statement made by Dr. Rick Stowell in an email to Scott Yager, Chief Environmental Counsel for the National 

Cattlemen's Beef Association (Communication on November 7, 2017). 

4 
19 


30052.006

Rather, like the CERCLA reporting requirements, it would impose a burdensome paperwork 

requirement with no environmental or public health benefit. Rural emergency response teams are 

already stretched for time and resources requiring additional, needless paperwork would only 

compound this burden. 

Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns, and for listening to livestock producers around 

the country. As the May I, 2018 reporting deadline quickly approaches, only Congress can ensure 

that the agricultural community is protected from this reporting burden, the reliability of our 

emergency response coordination is maintained, and the integrity of the Superfund Jaw is not 

degraded. The key to environmental sustainability is working together with stakeholders, not 

fighting us. Thank you for your time, and thank you for your support of the FARM Act. 

5 
20 


30052.007

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight 

Hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method 

Act." 

March 8, 2018 

Questions for the Record for Todd Mortenson 

Chairman Barrasso: 

I. Mr. Mortenson, in Wyoming we have instances where cattle is owned by one individual, 

managed by another individual, and grazed on leased lands owned by a third entity. In 

Wyoming and across the West, this third entity is often a federal agency. In such a 

scenario, has EPA provided you, or other producers within your association, with 

guidance on whether the owner, the manager, or the landowner is responsible for 

reporting requirements in these situations? 

This is a standard that remains unclear. However, the EPA has indicated in conversation 

that, because ranchers own the object that creates the emissions (the cattle), they will be the 

ones required to report. 

2. Mr. Mortenson, pursuant to a D.C. Circuit Court mandate, EPA is set to begin 

enforcement of animal waste air emissions at farms and ranches on May I st. However, 

EPA's reporting factsheet, which is intended to guide agricultural operations through the 

reporting process, states:"[I]t will be challenging for farmers to estimate releases because 

there is no generally accepted methodology for estimating these emissions at this time." 

Farmers and ranchers want to comply with the law. But have they been provided enough 

direction or clarity to enable them to do so? 

The EPA has taken measures to ensure that livestock owners can access compliance 

information which will help them to report. Unfortunately, research does not exist which 

allows livestock operations to accurately report their emissions. This is not a failure of 

academia or the EPA, it just illustrates that there is no one-size-fits-all solution when it 

comes to regulation and management of the agricultural industry. 

3. Mr. Mortenson, in the 2008 EPA rulemaking which provided reporting requirement 

exemptions for animal waste emissions at farms and ranches under CERCLA and 

EPCRA, the agency determined that limiting the scope of reporting under those two laws 

would reduce the time burden on farms and ranches required to report by 1,290,000 hours 

over a I 0-year period. Do you, or the producers within your association, have the ability 

to spend 1,290,000 hours attempting to comply with these laws? 

Mr. Chairman, during the March 8 hearing on the FARM Act, I noted that EPA 's website 

anticipates that the reporting requirement will take approximately 10 hours to complete. 

Owning and managing a ranch, or any livestock operation for that matter, is not just a fulltime job, it's a lifestyle. I don't have an extra 10 hours to sit down and complete paperwork 

at the end of a 14-hour day. 

Page 1 of3 
21 


30052.008

4. Mr. Mortenson, how important is it that we enact the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method 

Act? 

I cannot overstate the importance of passing the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act into 

law. Not only will this burdensome paperwork requirement harm the agricultural industry by 

preventing us from doing our jobs, but will severely inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to respond 

to legitimate chemical emergencies. Not only that, but Administrator Pruitt has specifically 

targeted Superfund cleanup as a top priority for the EPA under the Trump administration. 

Siphoning limited funds to manage paperwork directly contradicts this mission. 

Thankfully, the omnibus funding bill passed into law on March 23, 2018 included the FARM Act. 

Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, for your leadership and support in passing this important 

legislation into law. 

Senator Ernst: 

5. In your testimony, you stated that reporting is "no simple task." Can you go into more 

detail about this three-step reporting process? What specific information are you required 

to compile and report? How long does it take? ... and so on. I know this is an unnecessary 

requirement and I want to get a better understanding of the specific burdens it puts on 

farmers and ranchers. 

Reporting is a three-step process. The first step is an initial phone call to the U.S. Coast 

Guard's National Response Center (NRC). When the D.C. Circuit Court issues its mandate, 

operations will be required conduct an initial notification. This must be done through a 

telephone call to the NRC at 1-800-424-8802. The telephone call must include 1) Your name, 

2) the operation's name, 3) location of the operation (City, State), and 4) that you are 

reporting an "initial continuous release notification" of ammonia and/or hydrogen sulfide. 

While this should be a fairly painless process, the overwhelming need for agricultural 

operations to report will overburden the NRC, disabling their ability to accept reports. In 

November, when some operations decided to report early, wait times skyrocketed to nearly 

two hours. 

The second step is a written report to my EPA regional office. Reports are required to be 

submitted within 30 days of your initial phone call to the NRC. This report is more 

comprehensive, and requires mailing in signed documentation. EPA 's reporting form is 

available on their website. EPA requires that operations submit a "lower bound" and 

"upper bound" for emissions. The biggest issue with this requirement is that/ simply do not 

have access to research that would allow me to report emissions accurately. 

Finally, I 'II be required to submit a one-year anniversary report to my EPA Regional Office. 

To confirm that a release is truly "continuous," the EPA requires that operations submit a 

follow-up report one year after the initial written report. To fulfill this requirement, fill out 

the same form and send it in to your EPA Regional Office. 

Page 2 of3 
22 


30052.009

6. What sort of fines, litigation, or other penalties can a farmer be subject to if they fail to 

adhere to the reporting requirement? 

Liability for failure to report is the same as liability for a hazardous release. Therefore, I could 

be fined up to $53,000 every day that I go without reporting my emissions. 

Thankfully, the omnibus funding bill passed into law on March 23, 2018 included the FARM Act. 

Thank you, Senator Ernst, for your support in passing this important legislation into law. 

Page 3 of3 
23 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Mortenson. 

We will now turn to our second witness, Mr. Bill Satterfield. 

Mr. Satterfield, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF BILL SATTERFIELD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

DELMARVA POULTRY INDUSTRY, INC. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Good morning, Chairman Rounds, Ranking 

Member Booker, Mr. Van Hollen, and Senator Carper. Thank you 

for the trip down memory lane. What I do not recall is whether I 

charged you for that milkshake. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Paid in full. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I am Bill Satterfield. I am the Executive Director of Delmarva Poultry Industry Incorporated, which is the trade 

association for the meat chicken industry in Delaware, the eastern 

shore of Maryland, and the eastern shore of Virginia. On behalf of 

America’s chicken, turkey, and egg farmers, I thank the leadership 

of this Committee and our Delmarva Peninsula Senators for introducing the FARM Act. As you have heard, this will restore the 

CERCLA reporting requirement exemption to the limited purpose, 

which was never intended to be low level air emissions from animal 

manure emissions. 

The FARM Act is needed because EPA’s original farm reporting 

exemption was challenged in court, and in its decision the court 

adopted a strict reading of the CERCLA statute and concluded that 

Congress did not authorize EPA to create the exemptions. Therefore, failure to amend the CERCLA statute now to remove the reporting requirement for farm air emissions reporting will subject, 

as we have heard, 200,000 farmers or more to these reporting requirements. Congress needs to clarify its intent immediately. The 

FARM Act will do this. 

While CERCLA is a valuable tool to protect the public and the 

environment from accidental releases of hazardous substances, it is 

hard to believe it was ever the intent of Congress to extend the reporting requirements to farms that incidentally release ammonia 

that is generated as manure decomposes. This guided our 2005 petition requesting an exemption from CERCLA reporting. 

After considering the request, EPA developed a rule that provided a narrow exemption for farms for reporting low level continuous releases of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. EPA’s exemption 

was based on Congress’s intended purpose of notifying the National 

Response Center only when a truly hazardous substance is released. The NRC and the Coast Guard have indicated on several 

occasions that they did not intend to do anything with the information. 

While it is true that ammonia, which in significant concentrations and volumes is a substance reportable under CERCLA, it is 

a by-product of manure decomposition. The concentrations on poultry farms are at very low levels, and they dissipate rapidly into the 

air. 

University of Georgia researchers, in 2009, found that ammonia 

concentrations were lower as distance from the poultry houses increased. At no time during that study did the measured ammonia 

levels meet or exceed OSHA’s ammonia odor detection threshold 

24 

levels, and this underscores EPA’s rationale for providing the exemption in 2008. Similarly, we cannot imagine that local emergency response agencies, if they even get this information, would 

do anything other than scratch their head and say, what are we 

supposed to do now? 

The EPA’s anticipation on reporting concerns was entirely correct. In November of last year poultry farmers from the Delmarva 

Peninsula and other parts of the country attempted to initiate the 

then required CERCLA reporting process. One such grower is 

Sharon, who operates a poultry farm near Marydel, Maryland, just 

across the border from Delaware. 

Upon calling the NRC to provide an initial notification of a continuous release, a recording informed her that NRC would not be 

accepting telephone notifications. And as feared, as Senator Fischer 

was saying, the system was overloaded. The reporting to Sharon 

told her to submit the initial response in e-mail form. 

Well, you need to understand that many farmers do not use email, do not have e-mail, so requiring e-mail notification is not 

practical and could result in these farmers—wishing to be compliant with the law—being in violation. Sharon is 73 years old; never 

has owned a computer, never used e-mail, so that was not an option for her. 

That is just one example of the numerous breakdowns in the reporting system starting last November. This indicates that the 

NRC did not recognize these reports as emergencies that require 

an immediate response or action. 

Requiring the emissions monitoring is difficult. Calculating air 

emission levels is very complicated, and it is hard to do, and there 

needs to be a whole lot more research on how do you do it, because 

chicken houses differ, the age of the birds have a factor, the age 

of the litter material, the weather, the treatment of the birds inside 

the house all play factors. 

So, simply put, CERCLA was never intended to force farmers to 

report low level emissions from normal, everyday agricultural operations. 

On behalf of Delmarva Poultry Industry Incorporated and the entire poultry industry nationwide, we thank the Committee and its 

members for introducing this Act. This bill will put enormous regulatory relief to countless farmers across America without sacrificing 

human health and will give them more time to focus on their vocation, which is producing food for America and the world. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify and would be happy to answer any questions at any time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Satterfield follows:] 

25 


30052.010

Bill Satterfield Executive Director 

Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. 

Georgetown, Delaware 

Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. is the non profit trade association working for the continued 

progress of the meat chicken industry in Delaware, on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and the 

Eastern Shore of Virginia. 

Bill has been with Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. since 1986, serving as executive director 

since January 1993. In addition to management responsibilities for the 1 ,800-member 

organization, he has spent most of his time in recent years on government relations, 

environmental, and outreach programs. 

Prior to that, he was a radio farm news reporter in Salisbury, Maryland for 3 years and prior to 

that he was a radio news reporter/news director in Dover, Delaware where he was born and 

raised, and was a reporter for WCAU radio in Philadelphia. 
26 


30052.011

Written Testimony of Bill Satterfield 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight 

March 8, 2018 

Good morning, Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Booker and members of the subcommittee. 

I am Bill Satterfield and I am the Executive Director of the Delmarva Poultry Industry Inc., an 

1 ,800-member trade association working for the meat chicken industry in Delaware, the Eastern 

Shore of Maryland, and Virginia's Eastern Shore. On behalf of America's chicken, turkey and 

egg farmers, I thank Senators Fischer, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Chairman Barrasso and 

Subcommittee Chairman Rounds for introducing the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act 

(FARM Act). I also extend a special thanks to our Delmarva Peninsula Senators, Ranking 

Member Carper, Senator Coons and Senator Warner for their leadership on this issue and their 

support of the poultry farmers on the Delmarva Peninsula. This significant breakthrough 

legislation will restore the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) reporting requirements to their intended purpose which was not lowlevel animal manure emissions. We in the poultry industry look forward to working with the 

committee to enact this united legislative effort that has been nearly 15 years in the making. 

This piece of legislation is needed because EPA's original exemption was challenged in court 

and in its decision the court adopted a strict reading of the CERCLA statute and concluded that 

Congress did not authorize EPA to create the exemptions it did. Therefore, failure to amend the 

CERCLA statute to remove the reporting requirement for emissions of animal manure will 

subject thousands of poultry and egg farmers to a paperwork exercise that has no environmental 

or health benefit to the public. In fact, we estimate that more than 200,000 or more farmers and 

ranchers could be to be subjected to these reporting requirements if this bi-partisan legislation is 

not enacted into law. To prevent practical reversal of this important rule and expedite emergency 

response personnel's ability to respond to genuine hazardous releases and emergencies, Congress 

needs to act to clarify its intention and the FARM Act will effectively codify the EPA's vacated 

standard. The poultry industry and all of animal agriculture look forward to working with 

Congress to pass this legislation immediately and avoid unjustified reporting. 

As you know, CERCLA was enacted by Congress in December 1980 to provide broad Federal 

authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may 

endanger public health or the environment. Section 103 of the CERCLA statute requires any 

person in charge of a facility to report the release of a hazardous substance in a quantity that 

meets or exceeds the reportable quantity in any 24-hour period for the hazardous substance 

released. Immediately upon gaining knowledge of a reportable release the person in charge must 

notify the National Response Center (NRC) which the Coast Guard oversees and is charged with 

handling reports of tanker, pipeline, and other significant volumes that are truly an emergency. 

Section 1 03(f)(2) provides a mechanism for reporting continuous releases of hazardous 
27 


30052.012

substances that exceed the reportable quantity. There is also a continuous release reporting 

protocol that requires the person in charge to notify the NRC immediately upon gaining 

knowledge of a continuous release. Following the initial notification to the NRC, the person in 

charge must submit a written notification to regional EPA office within 30 days of the initial 

notification. Finally, the person in charge must submit a follow-up report within 30 days of the 

anniversary of the initial written report. If the facility undergoes any modification that increases 

the releases significantly, they must report those releases in a new report. All of these 

requirements for a normal agriculture operation was not the intent of CERCLA and provides no 

additional benefit to the public. 

While CERCLA is a highly valuable tool that helps to protect the public and the environment 

from accidental releases of hazardous substances; as stated above, it is hard to believe it was the 

intent of Congress to extend the reporting requirements to farms that incidentally release 

ammonia that is generated as manure decomposes. This belief guided the poultry and egg 

industry's petition to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 requesting an exemption 

from CERCLA reporting. After considering the request and proposing a rule that followed the 

requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, EPA developed a rule that provided a narrow 

exemption for farms that raise animals from reporting low level continuous emissions of 

ammonia and hydrogen sulfide into the air. EPA's rationale for providing the exemption was 

based on Congress's intended purpose of notifying the NRC when a truly hazardous substance is 

released and then the likelihood that a response to that notification would be acted upon by any 

government agency based on that information. EPA noted that it has never initiated a response 

to any NRC notifications of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, or any other hazardous substances 

released to the air where animal manure at farms is the source of that release, and it should be 

noted that the NRC and the Coast Guard have indicated on several occasions that they do not 

intend to do anything with this information if the court ultimately rules to move forward with 

reporting animal farms. 

While it is true that ammonia, which in significant concentrations and volumes is a substance 

reportable under CERCLA, it is a byproduct generated as manure naturally decomposes. The 

concentrations that occur on poultry and eggs farms are at very low levels and they dissipate 

rapidly into the air. A 2009 study by researchers at the University of Georgia found that 

ammonia concentrations were lower as distance from the poultry house increased, with ammonia 

levels at I 00, 200, 300 and 500 feet being less than 1 part per million in approximately 60, 75, 85 

and 90 percent of the observations taken during the study, respectively. Researchers found that 

at no time during the study did the measured ammonia levels meet or exceed the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration- USEP A ammonia odor detection threshold values. This 

study underscores EPA's rationale for providing the exemption in 2008 because it could not 

foresee the agency initiating a response as a result of any such notification. Similarly, we cannot 

imagine that local emergency response agencies would do anything from such notifications, if 

they receive them, other than scratch their heads and wonder what they are supposed to do. 
28 


30052.013

As it turns out the Agency's anticipation was entirely correct. In November of2017, a handful 

of poultry producers from the Delmarva Peninsula and other parts of the country attempted to 

initiate the CERCLA reporting process before the court issued the reporting mandate because 

they were fearful of potential violations. One such producer is Sharon who operates a poultry 

farm near Marydel, Maryland. Upon telephoning the NRC to provide an initial notification of a 

continuous release, she heard a recording informing her that the NRC would not be accepting 

telephone notifications. As feared, the NRC was not capable of handling the increased call 

volume prompted by the reporting requirement. The recording further directed her to submit the 

initial notification by email to the NRC. You need to understand that many of our farmers 

members do not have or use email regularly, so requiring an email notification is not practical 

and could result in farmers wishing to be compliant to be in violation of the CERCLA statute. 

Sharon is 73 years old and never has owned a computer or used email, so this was not an option 

for her. We received several telephone calls from our members that week with similar messages 

and concerns, including one that tried sending the email several times in one day, received an 

error message each time, and then was not able to reach anybody by telephone. This course of 

action by the NRC verifies that the Center fails to recognize the report as an emergency that 

requires a response, much less an immediate action. Further, it demonstrates the entire process is 

nothing more than an exercise in paperwork that could distract the NRC and other emergency 

response personnel from focusing on incidents that truly need emergency attention. 

While the reporting requirements sound uncomplicated, just the opposite is true. In fact, the 

many variables that affect the generation of ammonia make calculating emission values very 

complicated. To address this issue in 2007, the animal agriculture industry funded the National 

Air Emissions Monitoring study hoping to develop emission factors that would allow poultry and 

livestock producers to calculate emissions on their farms. From 2007 until2009, numerous data 

points, including ammonia concentration and volume, were collected each minute for the study. 

While the data collected to develop estimation methodologies was informative, the scientific 

advisory committee established by EPA to review the process determined that the data lacked the 

robustness to develop any verifiable test for farmers to report given the many variables that 

contribute to the generation of ammonia as animal manure decomposes. Despite recognizing this, 

EPA's current guidance documents, as required by the court order, indicate the need for poultry 

and egg producers to calculate emissions generated on their farm. Specifically, the reporting 

forms provided by EPA require a farmer to report a lower threshold of emissions, an upper 

threshold of emissions, and total quantity released over the past year- all values that are 

virtually impossible to calculate with any certainty. Simply put, CERCLA was never intended to 

force farmers and ranchers to report low level emissions from normal everyday agricultural 

operations. 

On behalf of the Delmarva Poultry Industry Inc., and the entire poultry industry, I thank this 

committee for introducing the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act." This bill will provide 

enormous regulatory relief to countless poultry and livestock farmers across America and give 
29 


30052.014

them more time to focus on their vocation - producing an economical, safe and wholesome 

supply of food for the United States and the world. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony and I am happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 
30 


30052.015

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight 

Hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method 

Act." 

March 8, 2018 

Questions for the Record for Bill Satterfield 

Chairman Barrasso: 

I. Mr. Satterfield, pursuant to a D.C. Circuit Court mandate, EPA is set to begin 

enforcement of animal waste air emissions at farms and ranches on May !st. However, 

EPA's reporting factsheet, which is intended to guide agricultural operations through the 

reporting process, states:"[I]t will be challenging for farmers to estimate releases because 

there is no generally accepted methodology for estimating these emissions at this time." 

Farmers and ranchers want to comply with the law. But have they been provided enough 

direction or clarity to enable them to do so? 

A. The EPA had not, at the time of the March 8 hearing, provided enough direction or 

clarity to enable farmers and ranchers to comply with the CERCLA reporting law. 

Changes to the instructions by the EPA over the course of several months made it 

difficult for farmers to know how to report let alone to determine what to report 

and what formula to use to determine if their farm was required to report. 

2. Mr. Satterfield, in the 2008 EPA rulemaking which provided reporting requirement 

exemptions for animal waste emissions at farms and ranches under CERCLA and 

EPCRA, the agency determined that limiting the scope of reporting under those two laws 

would reduce the time burden on farms and ranches required to report by I ,290,000 hours 

over a 10-year period. Do you, or the producers you represent, have the ability to spend 

1,290,000 hours attempting to comply with these laws? 

A. Our farmers, already burdened with state, federal, and local statutory and 

regulatory reporting requirements on a variety of topics, are spending too much 

time filling out forms and taking away from the time they have to do what they 

intend to do ... grow chickens. Especially annoying to our members was the need 

submit an initial report to the U.S. Coast Guard and the EPA, followed by an update 

on an annual basis, to report information that really would have little value to 

these two agencies and the emergency response agencies that might receive it 

should ammonia emissions exceed 100 pounds per day. The CERCLA statute was 

designed for emergency responses and not for the collection of data on ammonia 

emissions from farms as the result of the natural decomposition of chicken 

manure and bedding material. 

Page 1of2 
31 


30052.016

3. Mr. Satterfield, how important is it that we enact the Fairness for Agricultural Reporting 

Method Act? 

A. At the time of the March 8, 2018 subcommittee hearing, it was quite important 

for the FARM act to be enacted. Now, it is not important because the language of 

S. 2421 was incorporated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625) 

that was signed into law by President Trump on March 23, 2018. 

Senator Ernst: 

4. What sort offines, litigation, or other penalties can a farmer be subject to if they fail to 

adhere to the reporting requirement? 

A. It is my understanding that failure to report under the CERCLA statute can result 

in a $55,907 per day civil penalty with a second violation with repeat enforcement 

now at $167,722. Additionally, it is my understanding that there could be a three 

year prison sentence. 

Page 2 of 2 
32 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Satterfield. 

We will now turn to our third witness, Mr. Kuhn. 

Mr. Kuhn, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF MARK KUHN, FLOYD COUNTY SUPERVISOR, 

FLOYD COUNTY, IOWA 

Mr. KUHN. Thank you, Chairman Rounds and Ranking Member 

Booker, for inviting me to address the Subcommittee, and welcome 

from Iowa, hello from Iowa, Senator Ernst, the Hawkeye State. 

I am a farmer and current member of the Board of Supervisors 

from Floyd County, Iowa. I served six terms as a State representative and was one of 12 legislators who drafted the last major 

change to Iowa’s confined animal feeding law in 2002. I know how 

essential it is to monitor air emissions from CAFOs and why results should be shared with neighbors, communities, and emergency responders. 

According to Iowa State University, Iowa’s hogs, cattle, and poultry produce a combined total of 50 million tons of manure each 

year. Amid growing concerns about public health and the environment in 2001 Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack asked the College of Agriculture at Iowa State University and the College of Public Health 

at the University of Iowa to provide guidance regarding the impact 

of air quality surrounding CAFOs on Iowans and recommended 

methods for reducing and/or minimizing emissions. 

Based on an analysis of peer reviewed, duplicated, legitimate, 

and published scientific research, the consensus of the entire study 

group was that hydrogen sulfide and ammonia should be considered for regulatory action. Both of these gases have been measured 

in the general vicinity of livestock operations at concentrations of 

potential health concern for rural residents under prolonged exposure. 

In April 2002 Governor Vilsack signed new livestock regulations 

into law giving the Iowa Department of Natural Resources authority to develop air quality rules and monitor CAFOs. During the 

next 2 years three attempts by the DNR to establish regulations 

for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia were nullified after strong opposition from the CAFO industry. 

In March 2004 the industry introduced through friendly legislators a bill to set air emission standards. The bill was passed by the 

legislators, but vetoed by Governor Vilsack. In his veto message, 

Vilsack stated the bill represented a significant step backward because it would not adequately protect the health of Iowans, and it 

would set a standard so lenient it would undermine the credibility 

of the CAFO industry. 

Nothing has changed in Iowa since the joint university report 16 

years ago, with two key exceptions: Iowa has more than four times 

as many CAFOs as they did then, and the pork industry is about 

to go hog wild again. An unprecedented increase in packing plant 

capacity in Iowa, fueled by the demand for exported pork to China, 

will likely result in an onslaught of new CAFOs. 

It is clear to me that the CAFO industry is opposed to any air 

emission regulations. It intends to continue business as usual as 

long as State elected officials in Iowa allow it. This isn’t a rural 

33 

versus urban issue; it affects all Iowans. It pits neighbor versus 

neighbor all too often. It pits farmer versus farmer. 

Please be assured these reporting requirements do not affect 

small family farms. The CAFO industry is industrialized factory 

farm agriculture. It is vertically integrated from top to bottom; 

giant corporations get the profits from the hogs they own and process at their packing plants, local farmers build the barns and get 

the manure, while neighbors get the pollution. 

A preponderance of evidence shows that toxic air emissions from 

CAFOs can adversely affect immediate neighbors and nearby communities. Those with allergies, asthmatics—especially children, in 

which asthma is more common—and adults with COPD are at particular risk. 

In Iowa it takes a good neighbor to be a good neighbor. I will 

close with the story of one good neighbor family in Floyd County. 

Jeff and Gail Schwartzkopf bought a house in the country near the 

small town of Rudd 4 years ago. Thirty days after they moved into 

their new home they learned a large CAFO was going up 1,987 feet 

south of them. Once it was built and populated with thousands of 

squealing pigs, their lives changed forever. 

According to Gail, ‘‘We tried to make the best of it, but nothing 

worked. We stopped enjoying the outdoors. We hate the stench, the 

biting flies, our burning eyes, scratchy throat, fatigue, digestive 

issues, and insomnia because we worry about our health. We can’t 

open our windows or hang our clothes on the line to dry. There are 

only 5 or 6 days out of a month when it doesn’t smell like rotten 

eggs.’’ 

The Schwartzkopf family is surrounded by three large CAFOs. 

They should be protected from toxic air emissions that impact their 

health and diminish their quality of life, but Iowa lawmakers 

refuse to act. So now it is up to you to protect their access to air 

emission information under both CERCLA and EPCRA. 

This is a picture of Gail and her family, and the view from their 

front yard. The last thing Gail told me before I left for Washington, 

DC, was ‘‘I wish this picture was scratch and sniff so all those Senators could partake of the toxic emissions and polluted air if only 

for a little while.’’ 

Thank you for listening. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kuhn follows:] 

34 


30052.017

Mark Kuhn 

Floyd County Supervisor 

Charles City, Iowa 

Mark Kuhn, 67, has been a part-owner/operator of 

the Kuhn family com and soybean fann since 

1973. He served on the Floyd County, Iowa Board 

of Supervisors for six years prior to being elected to 

the Iowa House of Representatives in 1998. He 

served six terms as a state representative and was 

the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, vice-chair of the House 

Appropriations Committee, and co-chaired the Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget 

Appropriations Subcommittee. After retiring from the Iowa House in 20 I 0, he was elected to the 

Floyd County Board again and is currently serving his second four-year term. 
35 


30052.018

Written testimony of Floyd County, Iowa Board of Supervisor member Mark Kuhn 

March 8, 2018 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight Hearing 

S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act. 

************** 

Thank you, Chairman Rounds and Ranking Member Booker, for inviting me to testify before the 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight regarding S. 2421, the Fair 

Agricultural Reporting Method Act. 

I am a farmer and current member of the Board of Supervisors from Floyd County, Iowa. I served six 

terms as a state representative and was one of 12 legislators who drafted the last change to Iowa's 

concentrated animal feeding law in 2002. 

In Iowa, it takes a good neighbor to be a good neighbor. I'll begin my written testimony with the story 

of one good neighbor family in Floyd County. 

Jeff and Gail Schwartzkopf bought a house in the country near the small town of Rudd four years ago. 

Thirty days after they moved into their new home they learned a large Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operation (CAFO) was going up 1,987 feet from them. Once it was built and populated with thousands 

of squealing hogs, their lives changed forever. 

According to Gail, "We tried to make the best of it, but nothing worked. We stopped enjoying the 

outdoors. We hate the stench, the biting flies, our burning eyes, scratchy throat, fatigue, digestive 

issues, and insomnia because we are worried about our health. We can't open our windows or hang our 

clothes on the line to dry. There are only five or six days a month when it doesn't smell like 'rotten 

eggs.' 

The Schwartzkopf family is surrounded by three large CAFO's. They should be protected from toxic air 

emissions that impact their health and diminish their quality of life, but Iowa lawmakers refuse to act. 

So now it's up to you to protect their access to toxic air emission information from CAFO's under the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

I know how important it is to monitor dangerous air emissions from CAFO's and why results from that 

monitoring should be required under EPCRA. 

Iowa is the nation's leading pork and egg producer, and ranks second nationally in red meat production. 

There are 22.4 million hogs (almost 32% of the nation's total), 3.9 million cattle, 60 million chickens, and 

11.7 million turkeys raised in Iowa. The livestock industry is vital to Iowa's economy. 

According to Iowa State University, Iowa hogs, cattle and poultry produce a combined total of 50 million 

tons of manure every year. 
36 


30052.019

Amid growing concerns in 2001, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack asked the College of Agriculture at Iowa 

State University and the College of Public Health at the University of Iowa to provide guidance regarding 

the impact of air quality surrounding CAFO's on Iowans and recommended methods for reducing and/or 

minimizing emissions. (See Appendix 1-lowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality 

Study, Executive Summary)- https://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy/CAFO 1.pdf 

Based on an analysis of peer-reviewed, duplicated, legitimate, and published scientific research, the 

consensus of the entire study group was that hydrogen sulfide and ammonia should be considered for 

regulatory action. Both of these gases have been measured in the general vicinity of livestock 

operations at concentrations of potential health concern for rural residents, under prolonged exposure. 

Hydrogen Sulfide-- It was recommended that hydrogen sulfide, measured at the CAFO property line, not 

exceed 70 parts per billion (ppb) for a 1-hour time weighted average (TWA) period. In addition, the 

concentration at a residence or public use area shall not exceed 15 ppb. 

Ammonia -It was recommended that ammonia, measured at the CAFO property line, not exceed 500 

ppb for a 1-hour TWA period. The concentration at a residence or public use area shall not exceed 150 

ppb. 

It was recommended that each CAFO have up to seven days (with 48 hours notice) each calendar year to 

exceed those concentrations to allow for manure application to the land. 

In April2002, the Iowa Legislature approved and Governor Tom Vilsack signed into law new livestock 

regulations which gave the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) authority to develop air quality 

rules. I voted for this legislation because I was convinced that for the first time, the Legislature was 

committed to doing something about dangerous air emissions from CAFO's. 

In July 2002, Iowa's Environmental Protection Committee (EPC) approved the ambient air quality 

standards recommended in the Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study. The 

Iowa DNR held public hearings throughout the state to collect public comment on the proposed rules. 

On April21, 2003, the EPC approved a second version of the ambient air quality standards despite 

objections from the CAFO industry. The approved level for hydrogen sulfide was 15 ppb measured at 

the property line. 

On April30, 2003 the Iowa legislature nullified the EPC rules which prevented the DNR from 

implementing air quality rules. 

In January 2004, the EPC approved a third proposed rule that would have established a standard of 15 

ppb for hydrogen sulfide with the ability to monitor within 900 feet of the separated distance. 

In response to opposition to this proposed rule, Iowa's livestock industry introduced through friendly 

legislators, a bill setting hydrogen sulfide emissions at 70 ppb enforced at the separated distance. 
37 


30052.020

I voted against the bill that was passed by the legislature, and vetoed by Governor Vilsack. In his veto 

message Vilsack stated the bill represented a significant step backwards because it would not have 

adequately protected the health of Iowans, and it would have set a standard so lenient that it would 

undermine the credibility of the CAFO industry. 

Despite failed attempts to pass meaningful air emission standards to protect the health of Iowans, 

nothing has changed in Iowa since Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study was 

released 16 years ago, with two key exceptions. 

Iowa has four times as many CAFO's as it did then, and the pork industry is about to go 'hog wild' again. 

An unprecedented increase in packing plant capacity in Iowa fueled by the demand for exported pork to 

China, will likely result in an onslaught of new CAFO's. 

last September, Seaboard Triumph Foods opened a packing plant in Sioux City, Iowa where it slaughters 

10,SOO hogs per day with plans to add a second shift to increase the kill to twice that number. Prestage 

Foods of Iowa plans to open its packing plant near Eagle Grove, Iowa in November 2018 and start 

processing 10,000 hogs a day. 

It is clear to me that the CAFO industry is opposed to any new air emission regulations. It intends to 

continue 'business as usual' as long as state elected officials in Iowa allow it. 

This isn't a rural vs. urban issue. It affects all Iowans. It pits neighbor vs. neighbor. All too often, it pits 

farmer vs. farmer. Please be assured small family farms will not be affected by any air emission 

reporting requirements. The CAFO industry in Iowa is industrialized, factory farm agriculture. It is 

vertically integrated from top to bottom. Giant corporations get the profits from the hogs they own and 

process at their packing plants; local farmers build the barns and get the manure; while neighbors get 

the pollution. 

A preponderance of evidence shows that toxic air emissions from CAFO's can adversely affect 

immediate neighbors and nearby communities. Those with allergies, asthmatics-- especially children in 

which asthma is more common-- and adults with COPD are at particular risk. 

I find it very alarming that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a 

guidance document entitled 'Does EPA interpret EPCRA Section 304 to require farms to report releases 

from animal waste?' (See Appendix 2 --EPA Guidance on EPCRA) --

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/web document placeholder. pdf 
38 


30052.021

If the EPA conducts a rulemaking as outlined in their guidance document, it will have dire consequences 

for 'good neighbors' like the Schwartzkopf's. 

To understand the effect of such a rule on Iowans, you need to know about a bill passed by the Iowa 

legislature and signed into law by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad in 2017. 

According to a January 2018 report published by The Iowa Policy Project and authored by James 

Merchant and David Osterberg, "The new law limits damages that can be awarded to a person who wins 

a lawsuit against an animal feeding operation, under a claim that the CAFO is a public or private 

nuisance or an interference with another person's "comfortable use and enjoyment of the person's life 

or property." The new law limits damages that can be awarded to a person impacted by a CAFO to (a) 

any actual reduction in property value caused by the facility, (b) past, present, and future adverse health 

impacts as determined by objectively documented medical evidence and proven to be caused by the 

facility, and (c) any award for damages due to annoyance and the loss of comfortable use and 

enjoyment of the property to 1.5 times the sum of the property value and objective medical evidence of 

deterioration of health. By requiring "objectively documented medical evidence and proven to be 

caused by the facility" in question, this new law seeks to eliminate consideration of the substantial 

literature on CAFO exposures and causation of adverse health effect, disease and impairment." 

EPCRA provides an essential safety net for protecting the air Iowans breathe. If the EPA eliminates 

EPCRA air emission requirements by rule, 'good neighbors' like the Schwartzkopf's will not be able to 

obtain toxic air emission reports, not be able to access information to provide their medical provider 

about their health issues, and be denied any chance for justice in Iowa against the powerful CAFO 

industry. 

This is a picture of Gail and her family and the view from the Schwartzkopf's front yard. 

The last thing Gail told me before I left for Washington, D.C. was, "I wish this picture was 'scratch and 

sniff' so all of those Senators could partake of the toxic emissions and polluted air, if only for a little 

while." 

************** 
39 


30052.022
40 


30052.023

Appendix 1-- Iowa's Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study, Executive Summary 

Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group 
41 


30052.024

IOWA CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS 

AIR QUALITY STUDY 

Final Report 

Iowa State University and The University of Iowa Study Group 

February 2002 
42 


30052.025

CHAPTER 1 Executive Summary 

lntrodudion 

In mid-June of 2001, Governor Tom Vilsack requested that the facuity of the two universities address 

the public health and environmental impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs, also 

referred to as Concentrated Feeding Operations or CFOs). In response to this request, Richard Ross, 

PhD, DVM, Dean of the College of Agricuiture at Iowa State University and James Merchant, MD, 

DrPH, Dean of the College of Public Health at The University of Iowa, were asked by the Department 

of Natural Resources Director Jeffrey Vonk to provide guidance "regarding the impacts of air 

quality surrounding CFOs on Iowans and recommended methods for reducing and/ or 

minimizing emissions. Specifically, I am asking your advice and recommendations on how the 

Department of Natural Resources should address this critically important public policy issue." 

Director Vonk asked five questions. Through a series of discussions and meetings, a combined study 

group of £acuity and consultants (See Attachment 1) was identified, conflict of interest and 

confidentiality statements were signed by all £acuity and consuitants, definitions were discussed and 

agreed upon, a comprehensive report oudine was developed and agreed upon and individual teams of 

facuity agreed to write each of the 10 chapters that constitute the full report. A technical and policy 

workshop was held in Des Moines on December 18 and 19,2001, at which time chapter presentations 

were made and discussions were held regarding the series of five questions asked by Director Vonk. 

Groups were assigned to summarize the responses to these five questions in this Executive Summary. 

Peer review of this Executive Summary and the full report was considered to be vital to the validity and 

integrity of the report. This peer review, completed by national and international scientists who are 

experts in the areas addressed by the report (See Attachment 2), was completed in January, 2002. Their 

review comments, as well as comments from members of the combined study group, were discussed at 

meetings on January 8, 24 and 29 and were useful in completing the final report for submission to the 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). An agreed-upon glossary, which defines the many 

technical terms used in this report, is found in Attachment 3. 

Response to Question 1 

There are two questions contained in Question 1. The first is: 

Based on analysis of peer-reviewed, duplicated, legitimate, published scientific research, is there dired evidence 

of harm to humans by emissions, byproduds, toxic waste, or infectious agents produced by CFOs? 

There is now an extensive literature documenting acute and chronic respiratory diseases and dysfunction 

among workers, especially swine and pouitry workers, from exposures to complex mixtures of 

particulates, gases and vapors within CAFO units. Common complaints among workers include sinusitis, 

chronic bronchitis, inflamed mucous membranes of the nose, irritation of the nose and throat, 

headaches, muscle aches and pains. Asthma and acute (cross-shift) declines in lung function are 
43 


30052.026

documented among CAFO workers, even though workers with pre-existing asthma usually select 

themselves out of such employment because of increased asthma severity. Progressive declines in lung 

function over years are documented among CAFO workers. Those workers with increased acute 

declines in lung function, which are often accompanied by chest tightness and wheezing (asthma-like 

syndrome), have been found to have more rapid declines in lung function over time. Very high 

exposures to hydrogen sulfide, which occurs during pit agitation, may result in death from asphyxia and 

respiratory arrest; those who survive such high dose exposures often develop reactive airways distress 

syndrome (RADS), bronchiolitis obliterans and severe respiratory impairment. It is therefore concluded 

that there is direct evidence of harm to humans from occupational exposures within CAFOs (See 

Chapter 6.3.2). 

However, one cannot directly extrapolate occupational health risks observed among workers inside 

CAFOs to community health risks that may arise from CAFO emissions. While the discharge of 

airborne particulates and gases/vapors from CAFOs and manure handling clearly occur, the aerosols at 

the point source differ from ambient exposures as they move downwind, both in composition and in 

concentration. The populations at risk (workers) within CAFO units and within the community 

(community residents) also differ significantly. CAFO workers are generally a healthy population (those 

fit enough to work), while community residents include children, the elderly, and those with preexisting 

impairments. Regulatory agencies recognize the need for lower exposure limits to compensate for 

increased susceptibility among community residents, to allow for uncertainty factors from 

epidemiological study findings (and for species to species differences when animal data is used) to 

establish community ambient exposure limits. 

The second part of the first question is: 

What human research is there to confirm the existence of disease and exadly what are the specific chemical, 

bacterial, or aromatic causes of such diseases? 

Published, controlled studies of odor experienced by community residents living in proximity to CAFOs 

are limited to two studies in North Carolina and one in Iowa. The first North Carolina study reported 

more negative mood states (tension, depression, anger, reduced vigor, fatigue and confusion) among 

those exposed to CAFO odor compared with control subjects. The second North Carolina study 

reported increased symptoms of headache, runny nose, sore throat, excessive coughing, diarrhea, 

burning eyes and reduced quality of life measures among community residents living in proximity to a 

swine CAFO compared with rural residents not living in proximity to livestock operations. The Iowa 

study found increases in several symptom clusters, mainly eye and upper respiratory symptoms, among 

those living within two miles of a swine CAFO compared with rural residents living near minimal 

livestock production. These studies are limited in size and scope, did not make specific environmental 

exposure or odor measurements, and are subject to recall bias. They are notable in that they are 

controlled studies that report eye and respiratory symptoms associated with concentrated livestock 

exposures that are similar to more prevalent and severe symptoms experienced by CAFO workers who 

are exposed at much higher concentrations of mixed emissions (See Chapter 6.3.3). 

Also relevant in responding to this question are many experimental and epidemiological studies of nonCAPO populations exposed to low concentrations of individual chemical components of CAFO 

emissions, particularly hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and endotoxin. These studies document respiratory 

symptoms associated with low levels of these individual exposures. Because at least two of these 
44 


30052.027

chemicals (hydrogen sulfide and ammonia) arc found in CAFO emissions that contribute to ambient 

community exposures, these experimental and community exposure studies are relevant to this question 

(See Chapter 6.3.1). Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Agency for Toxic 

Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR)' have recommended ambient exposure limits for ammonia 

and hydrogen sulfide based on these studies. 

It is concluded that no specific disease(s) per se among community residents can be confirmed to arise 

from a specific chemical, bacteria or aromatic cause. However, the findings of the limited community 

studies of concentrated livestock exposures are consistent with adverse health effects observed in other 

experimental and epidemiological studies of some specific chemicals (ammonia and hydrogen sulfide) 

known to be components of CAFO air emissions. It is, therefore, also concluded that CAFO air 

emissions may constitute a public health hazard' and that precautions should be taken to minimize both 

specific chemical exposures (hydrogen sulfide and ammonia) and tuixed exposures (including odor) 

arising from CAFOs. 

Response to Question 2 

Question 2: Based on an analysis of peer-reviewed, duplicated, legitimate, and published scientific research, 

what specific substances, including aromatic compounds, do you believe require regulatory adion to prated the 

public? 

By consensus of the entire study group, the following substances should be considered for regulatory 

action: (1) hydrogen sulfide; (2) ammonia; and (3) odors. The justification for regulatory action of these 

substances is based on our assessment of the scientific literature, (See Chapters 2.0-8.0), 

recommendations by pertinent federal agencies, and review of regulations established in other states 

(See Chapter 9.0). 

Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are recognized degradation products of animal manure and urine (See 

Chapter 3.4 in the full report). Both of these gases have been measured in the general vicinity of 

livestock operations at concentrations of potential health concern for rural residents, under prolonged 

exposure (See Chapter 8.0). 

The World Health Organization lists hydrogen sulfide as a toxic hazard in many environments, and 

recommends specific exposure limits. The ATSDR lists hydrogen sulfide and ammonia on its registry of 

toxic substances 1 under its federal mandate to protect the public health according to the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, [42 U.S. C. 9604 et seq] as amended by the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act [pub. 99-499]. Furthermore, the ATSDR has 

published Minimum Risk Levels (MRL's) for these substances to protect the public's health.' The EPA 

historically evaluates scientific information regarding environmental contaminants and the potential 

threats for human health hazards. Based on a standardized risk assessment process, the EPA identifies 

hydrogen sulfide and ammonia as potentially hazardous substances. 3 A detailed description of the 

process and justification used by the EPA and ATSDR to include ammonia and hydrogen sulfide as 

hazardous substances is provided in detail in Chapter 8.7. 

1 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Minimal Risk Levels for Hazardous Substances (MRI/s), http:/ /\\."W\\:arsdr.cdc.govl 

lllll:ihl.ml 

2 hazard: the potential for radiation, a chemical or other pollutant to cause human illness or injury 

3 Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, wv.tw.cpa.govliris/sub~t.html 

7 
45 


30052.028

Minnesota and Nebraska have established ait quality standards for hydrogen sulfide based on public 

health concerns. California and Minnesota regulate ambient concentrations of hydrogen sulfide based 

upon nuisance and human health effects. Minnesota is in the process of setting standards for ammonia 

ambient exposures. Monitoring of ammonia ambient exposures is taking place in Missouri. The 

regulatory actions taken by other states in setting standards are described in Chapter 9.0. 

Odors have been a major concern of residents in the vicinity of CAFOs (see Chapter 3.4, 4.0, 6.8 and 

8.0). Colorado, Missouri, and North Carolina have recognized the need to promulgate odor regulations. 

Details of the processes of odor regulations for these states are presented in Chapter 9 .0. 

Response to Question 3 

Question 3: Based on an analysis of peer-reviewed, duplicated, legitimate, and published scientific research, 

what would you recommend as Iowa or National consensus standards for any proposed substances to be regulated 

as emissions from CFOs? 

The study group recommends that ambient ait quality standards be developed to regulate the 

concentration of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and odor. There has been considerable discussion on what 

standard levels should be established for each pollutant as well as where the measurement should take 

place. Some states measure concentration at the property line of the source while others measure at the 

residence or public use area. The U.S. EPA has determined that simultaneous exposure of two 

substances such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia (both pulmonary irritants) results in an additive 

effect. Thus, in order to protect against the adverse effects of such binary mixtures the exposure limit 

for each should be reduced accordingly. While emissions from CAFOs fluctuate over time, they produce 

chronic rather than acute exposures. Rather than representing single doses, these exposures are recurring 

and may persist for days with each episode. 

The study group reached consensus that measurements for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia should be 

taken at the CAFO property line and residence or public use area. Measurements for odor should be 

taken at a residence or public use area and one proposal includes measurements at the CAFO property 

line. The study group recommends that measurements for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia should be 

time weighted rather that instantaneous to allow for atmospheric variability. 

With current animal production practices, stored manure must be removed and land-applied. During 

these times hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and odor levels at or near production facilities may be 

significandy higher than during normal conditions. Therefore, it is also recommended that provisions 

be made for allowable times to exceed the established standards to allow for proper manure application 

to land. Notification must be given to the Iowa DNR and nearby residents, at least 48 hours in advance 

when the operation expects to exceed the standards 

The study group provides the following recommendations on the regulation of hydrogen sulfide, 

ammonia, and odor from CAFOs: 

Hydrogen Sulfide 

It is recommended that hydrogen sulfide, measured at the CAFO property line, not exceed 70 parts per 

billion (ppb) for a 1-hour time-weighted average (IWA) period. In addition, the concentration at a 

residence or public use area shall not exceed 15 ppb, measured in the same manner as the property line 
46 


30052.029

measurement. It is recommended that each CAPO have up to seven days (with 48 hour notice) each 

calendar year when they are allowed to exceed the concentration for hydrogen sulfide. 

Ammonia 

It is recommended that ammonia, measured at the CAPO property line, not exceed 500 ppb for a 1-

hour TWA period. In addition, the concentration at a residence or public use area shall not exceed 150 

ppb, measured in the same manner as the property line measurement. It is recommended that each 

CAPO have up to seven days (with 48 hour notice) each calendar year when they are allowed to exceed 

the concentration for ammonia. 

Q£!Q!; 

The study group was unable to reach consensus on the regulation of odors. Thus, the following two 

opinions for odor are presented: 

Opinion 1: 

It is recommended that odor, measured at the residence or public use area, shall not exceed 

7:1 dilutions with an exceedence defined as two excessive measurements separated by 4 

hours, in any day. It is recommended that each CAFO have up to seven days (with 48 hour 

notice) each calendar year when they are allowed to exceed the concentration for odor. At 

the CAPO property line, odor shall not exceed a 15:1 dilution, with an exceedence defined as 

one excessive rwo-hour time averaged sample, in any day. It is recommended that each 

CAPO have up to 14 days (with 48 hour notice) each calendar year when they are allowed to 

exceed the property line concentration for odor. Exceedence of a CAPO ambient air quality 

standard should result in regulatory action similar to that which would be required in 

regulatory action exceedence of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The IDNR 

should be granted the power to develop an implementation plan to reduce the emissions that 

led to the violation. 

Opinion 2: 

Odor recommendations are more difficult to establish because studies relating health 

impacts to odor exposure have not measured odor concentrations. However, odor 

concentrations related to annoyance impacts have been established. Measurements for odor 

should be taken at a residence or public use area. Using sampling events at the source, the 

frequency, duration, and concentration of exposure to odor at the residence can be modeled 

using tools currendy available, thereby avoiding extensive monitoring. 

Polls indicate that residents are willing to tolerate nuisance odors for only up to a reasonable 

amount of time (see Iowa Rural life Poll, Chapter 7 in the full report). Thus, the reported 

odor concentration represents tolerable continuous exposure, above which, concentrations 

are tolerated only in relation to their frequency and duration. An odor concentration of 7:1 

dilutions at a residence is a tolerable odor providing it is not exceeded for periods that 

extend beyond that considered reasonable. 
47 


30052.030

Response to Question 4 

Question 4: What do you think should be done to address any other emerging issues with respect to industrial 

CFOs in Iowa? 

There are other important emerging issues surrounding the intensification of livestock production that 

extend beyond concerns over air emissions. These include concerns about water quality, the health of 

CAFO workers, socioeconomic impacts in rural communities, and the emergence of microorganisms 

resistant to antibiotics used in human and veterinary medicine. There are also concerns about the 

emission of greenhouse gases from CAFO sites. The effects of siting large CAFOs in or near 

communities should be recognized and used in making informed decisions on permitting facilities. 

There is a need to evaluate plans for controlling livestock epidemics and for proper disposal of carcasses 

in the event of an outbreak. Recent events in Europe associated with foot and mouth disease, plus 

renewed concerns over agricultural bioterrorism highlight this need. Lasdy, the study group makes 

recommendations regarding the formation of a science advisory panel to advise the IDNR on 

agricultural and environmental health issues. Each of these issues is further described below. 

Some issues discussed in this section may be outside the purview of the IDNR, but all are congruent 

with science-based conclusions in the body of the report. Some are appropriately addressed by other 

state or federal agencies, and some can only be addressed through a combination of related public 

policies. 

Water Qualily 

Water quality is a major issue concerning CAFOs. Concerns include: 1) leakage or rupture of lagoons 

(both lined and unlined); and 2) runoff from agricultural fields where animal waste has been improperly 

applied. Nonpoint discharges may result in surface runoff with high concentrations of ammonia, 

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total and fecal coliform bacteria, total suspended solids, and 

phosphorus which can cause low dissolved oxygen in streams. Ecosystem impacts may include fish kills, 

changes in the natural food webs, algae growth, and losses of biological diversity in stream habitat. Both 

the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems can be impaired. Impacts may include increased cost 

for drinking water treatment of surface water supplies, reduced harvest of fish and shellfish, closed 

bathing beaches due to fecal coliforms, and loss of aesthetic beauty of Iowa's waterways. 

Recently, Iowa has experienced an increase in the number of CAFOs as well as a greater density of 

animals per operation. Many larger operations are not self-sufficient in grain production and purchase 

feed from other sources. Therefore, applicators must follow additional application guidelines established 

by legislation and rules. While some study group members believe manure should never be applied to 

frozen ground or steep slopes, others recommend that manure application on steep slopes and frozen 

ground follow guidelines established by USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service "Iowa Nutrient 

Management Standard 590". In addition, large producers are required to file manure management plans 

with the IDNR. 

Study group members reached consensus that as operations become more numerous and concentrated 

on limited land bases, there is an increased risk for deterioration of water quality. All members believe 

that if producers do not follow their manure management plans, the chance for runoff of nutrients and 

bacteria is increased. In addition, some members felt more strongly on this issue, stating that it is not 

possible to apply manure at high areal loading rates without runoff of nutrients and bacteria because 

10 
48 


30052.031

one cannot foresee intense rainfall events. One cannot assume that manure can always be safely applied 

to land without a potential for runoff. These members feel the present system of CAFO production 

disposes of too much manure in too small an area exposed to uncontrolled meteorological conditions to 

realistically expect acceptable water quality. 

Wastes that are stored in lagoons or earthen waste storage structures have a potential for spills and/ or 

groundwater contamination if existing standards are not met. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits are required for large (>1000 animal units) open feedlots which allow 

discharge only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm. Totally roofed CAFOs are not allowed to 

discharge into surface waters, and therefore do not require NPD ES permits. This is in contrast to small 

Iowa towns, all of which are required to have NPD ES permits and meet effluent discharge 

requirements. 

Occupational Health 

The occupational health problems for those who work inside CAFOs have been well recognized since 

1977. At least 25 percent of workers in swine CAFOs have been reported to have current respiratory 

health problems. Recommended maximum exposure levels designed to protect worker health have been 

defined (See Chapter 6.3). It is apparent that current Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) limits are not protective of CAFO worker health because a number of hazardous contaminants 

are not regulated. Importandy, OSHA has not promulgated any Permissible Exposure Limits specifically 

to protect the health of livestock production workers. 

There are several important regulatory problems that have interfered with the protection of workers in 

CAFOs. Most of the large livestock and poultry producers have not been regulated by OSHA, even 

though they may have more than 10 employees and are subject to OSHA regulations. The specialization 

of livestock production has led to increased cumulative exposure, as workers may spend as much as 70 

hours per week in these buildings. There is a need to establish exposure standards that protect workers 

for these extended work schedules. There is enough information to protect workers' health if 

recognized workplace management procedures are adopted. It is recommended that the livestockproducing industries institute comprehensive worker health protection programs. 

Antibiotic Resistance 

Antibiotic resistance is a health threat of great concern. Recent documents from the World Health 

Organization (2000), the Centers for Disease Control, and other health agencies have placed a high 

priority on the understanding and control of antibiotic resistance (Interagency Task Force On 

Antimicrobial Resistance, 2000; Tenover and Hughes, 1995). It is clear that certain antibiotic use 

practices in human medicine have contributed to resistance. Agricultural antibiotic use practices have 

also been targeted as contributing to this serious problem (Witte, 1998). In particular, the subtherapeutic 

use of antibiotics in food producing animals has been identified by public health officials as the key 

factor in the development of resistance among foodborne pathogens (Gorbach, 2001 ). 

Antibiotic resistant organisms or the resistance genes responsible can be spread from agricultural 

settings into human populations through a variety of mechanisms. Ingestion of contaminated food 

products, especially animal-derived foods including meat and dairy products, has been linked to spread 

of antibiotic resistant organisms (Mead et al., 1999). Direct contact between colonized or infected 

animals and farm workers has also been associated with the acquisition of resistant organisms in 

humans (Levy eta!, 1976). 

11 
49 


30052.032

Various studies have demonstrated that continued use of antibiotics in feedstuffs provides conditions 

favorable to the selection of resistant strains of bacteria in food animals and their environment (CheeSanford eta!., 2001; Zahn, Arthalt, & Boyd, 2001). Yet the threats for emergence of resistant strains of 

bacteria through subtherapeutic usc of antibiotics in livestock applies wherever these practices occur; 

the threat is not restricted to CAFOs. Selection pressure may be enhanced by: (1) the long-term use of 

antibiotics in animals having endemic subclinical infections; (2) poor environmental hygiene; and (3) 

management practices that allow for the introduction of naive, susceptible animals or the movement of 

carrier animals into a na!ve herd. This latter practice allows for the continuous passage of resistant 

bacteria among susceptible animals. Over the past decade, increasing numbers of organisms isolated 

from food animals or meat products demonstrate resistance to antibiotics including penicillins, 

tetracycline, sulfamethoxazole, streptomycin and other compounds (Aarestrup et a!, 1998; Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, 1999; Molbak et a!, 1999; Smith et a!., 1999; Tbrelfall et a!., 1996; 

White et a!., 2001 ). 

Antibiotics are critically important in human and veterinary medicine, and in the current context, food 

animal production. Organisms resistant to all classes of available antimicrobial agents have been 

identified in human medicine and the incidence of community acquired highly drug resistant organisms 

is increasing (Neu, 1992). No new classes of antimicrobial agents will be available in the foreseeable 

future. It is critical that the appropriate state and federal agencies and the research community in the 

United States take a leading role in defining the risks associated with different antibiotic use practices 

and develop strategies to improve our antibiotic stewardship both in human and agricultural settings 

(American Medical Association, 2001). 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Regatding air pollution, air permits are not required for emissions from CAFOs, so there is not a good 

method to quantify their inputs. However, emissions of particulate matter, sulfur compounds, and 

nitrogen oxides are believed to be a very minor portion of Iowa's total emissions. CAFO emissions of 

these pollutants are small compared to emissions from stationary sources (power plants and industry) 

and mobile sources (automobiles and truck diesel). Greerthouse gas emissions from CAFOs are 

significant for methane. On a radiative basis (greerthouse gas impacts), methane is about 10-15% of the 

total greerthouse gas produced in Iowa, and methane from manure management is about 25% of the 

total (approximately 3% of total greenhouse gas estimated in Ney eta!., 1996). The Iowa Greerthouse 

Gas Action Plan calls for capture of methane at large feed lots (Ney eta!., 1996). Nitrous oxide 

emissions from manure management at CAFOs is a small contribution, and the emissions of carbon 

dioxide from CAFOs are a negligible portion of the state's C02 emissions. 

Community and Socioeconomic Impacts 

A number of important community and socioeconomic issues have developed with the emergence of 

CAFOs, as described in Chapter 7. Research has explored some of these issues, and posed and evaluated 

alternatives, including some alternatives for livestock production. To a significant extent, these issues are 

tied to overall changes in agriculture and rural life in America. Importantly, these issues are complex and 

generally outside the purview of the ID NR. 

These issues include the concern about increased concentration of control of livestock supply chains, 

lack of public price discovery, and loss of family farmers' control of production. Another concern is 

decline in local economic activity and increases in purchases of some animal production inputs from 

12 
50 


30052.033

outside the local area, as CAFOs increase in size and number. This is a complex issue since we must 

estimate what purchases would have been made had the structure remained the same. Of equal 

importance is the fact that decision-making on questions that matter at the local level are increasingly 

more centralized with the growth of corporate CAFOs. 

Devaluation of property near hog CAFOs and related legal challenges are documented. Studies in 

lYiichigan, North Carolina, and lYiissouri found that the value of real estate close to CAFOs tended to 

fall. These and other data show that CAFOs are defined by present and potential neighbors as at least a 

nuisance. 

Studies showing a decline in neighborliness, or community social capital, have been conducted in Iowa, 

North Carolina, JYiinnesota, and JYiissouri. This decline was measured by diminished opportunities to 

socialize, lack of trust, increased community conflict, and related variables in communities where 

CAFOs are concentrated. 

A more diverse livestock sector that was able to remain competitive and responded to increasingly 

differentiated consumer preferences would likely result in greater environmental (Donham, 2000), social 

(Wright, eta!., 2001), and economic sustainability of rural areas than one dominated by large-scale 

CAFOs. Policies that encourage more diverse livestock/ crop farms, particularly those using sustainable 

production systems, could also reduce the regulatory burden of the IDNR and other agencies. 

The most clearly recognizable socioeconomic issue for CAFOs that impinges on the IDNR's 

responsibilities is what CAFOs may do to aquatic, wildlife, and aesthetic qualities of living in Iowa, as 

well as tourism in Iowa. If air and water quality is compromised, the interest of persons and businesses 

considering relocation to Iowa will be lessened. A compromised environment could have an economic 

impact on tourism by keeping Iowa a low priority destination for visitors as well as driving fishing and 

hunting activity away from Iowa and toward less challenged environments. 

Uvestock Epidemic and Disposal Issues 

The current state plan for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in Iowa is multi-agency and is called the Foot 

and Mouth Disease Response and Recovery Plan. As part of its responsibilities in the state plan, the 

IDNR has developed the FMD Carcass Disposal Plan. Burial and composting are given high priority 

compared to burning, in order to reduce air pollution consequences. However, the potential impacts of 

a FMD epidemic like that of last year in the United Kingdom and Europe should be evaluated to assess 

if the current plans are sufficient for isolation of pathogens and destruction of carcasses. In addition, 

these plans should be evaluated for other pathogens, including bioterrorist introduction of anthrax and 

other potential agents of agricultural bioterrorisrn. 

Formation of a Science Advisory Panel 

To enhance the effectiveness of responses to emerging issues, the study group recommends formation 

of a science advisory panel to contract with the IDNR on agricultural and environmental issues. The 

University of Iowa and Iowa State University participants have found the current review of scientific 

literature on CAFOs and the ensuing discussions to be very useful. University faculty could continue in a 

more general role as a scientific advisory panel. This would provide the opportunity to develop closer 

collaboration and planning in a prospective manner. The partnership of the IDNR and other 

appropriate state agencies with a continuing advisory group of specialists in the sciences germane to 

13 
51 


30052.034

agricultural, environmental, and public health issues would strengthen Iowa's ability to plan for 

prevention or remediation of emerging problems in a thoughtful and positive manner with sufficient 

lead-time to engage the needed resources and evaluation. A science advisory panel could suggest areas 

for needed research to better resolve or control the factors related to emerging issues. The panel could 

recommend consultants, establish standard operating procedures for resolving questions, and be 

prepared with the necessary background, literature resources and ongoing discussion to support sciencebased advice as needed by the IDNR or other agencies in Iowa. 

Response to Question 5 

Question 5: FinaiiJI am seeking your recommendations regarding available methods of reducing or minimizing 

the emissions from CFOs and the impad of those emissions on the ambient air surrounding sites. 

Emissions from CAPOs originate from three primary sources: (1) air emissions from housing units; (2) 

air emissions from manure storage facilities, and (3) air emissions during and following land application 

events. Documented emission reduction strategies exist for all three of these sources. Some of the 

documented strategies are more effective than others and some are more economical than others, 

however, economical strategies exist for dealing with emissions from all three sources. 

Housing Unit Air Emissions 

Housing unit air emissions ultimately are carried out with the ventilation air exhausted from buildings. 

Emissions originate from the feeding floor itself, where deposited manure and urine decompose 

anaerobically resulting in airborne gases and particulates from dried fecal material. In addition, emissions 

originate from under-floor manure storage in slatted systems and from bedding pack in deep-bedded 

systems. Studies have shown that, in slatted-floor housing systems, the emission contribution from the 

feeding floor itself can exceed 60 percent of the total with the remairting contribution from the underfloor storage compartment. Use of smooth cleanable surfaces along with frequent and complete 

scraping, and/ or frequent flushing of the feeding floor with minimal air exchange between the housing 

air and the under-floor slurry, is a good strategy for reducing housing unit emissions. 

If housing unit emissions are post-processed, (i.e., exhaust ventilation air is treated), additional strategies 

exist. Scrubbing the ventilation air with biofilters, where the exhausted air is passed through a bed of 

gas-scrubbing microorganisms, has been shown to reduce ammonia and odor emissions by more than 

90 percent. However, effective use of biofilter technology requires simultaneous use of power 

ventilation. Biofilters are difficult to implement under high ventilation rate situations typical of Iowa 

summers and, of course, are not useful in naturally ventilated housing systems. 

Gases and odors adhere to dust particles. Natural biomass ftlters such as corn stalks and chopped-straw 

have been used to capture a portion of the larger dust particles emitted with ventilation air. The 

evidence on this strategy is still being documented but research to date indicates that about 60 percent 

of the odor can be reduced using this technique. 

Tree barriers are being evaluated for effectiveness in reducing odor and particulates and enhancing 

mixing and dilution. However, the impact on a large scale relative to livestock or poultry production sites 

is unknown. Tree barriers surrounding production sites have high aesthetic value. 

14 
52 


30052.035

Storage Unit Air Emissions 

Outside manure storage systems can be a source of additional gas emissions. Regardless of whether the 

storage system is formed concrete, steel-lined, or earthen basin, these open exposures to the atmosphere 

can result in high emission rates. Emission rates are highly influenced by weather conditions. The most 

effective and economically feasible strategy for reducing emissions from outside storage units (not 

including anaerobic lagoons) is accomplished by covering the entire surface area of the storage unit. 

Research has been conducted on many covering materials, ranging from expensive impermeable covers, 

to relatively inexpensive chopped-straw covers with a maintained minimum depth of coverage. 

Inexpensive, chopped-straw cover, with a maintained minimum depth is as effective in reducing 

emissions as the more expensive covers. However, the key to success with this strategy is maintenance 

of a minimum depth of straw. 

The best method for minimizing odors from anaerobic lagoons is to simply practice good management. 

It is most important to use adequate dilution water and load at or below design capacity. There has been 

much discussion recently about the use of anaerobic digesters which can significantly reduce storage 

odors and generate energy in the form of methane gas. 

Air Emissions from Land Applied Manure 

Emissions during land application of livestock and poultry manure can be intense if the manure is 

surface-applied. The majority of total emissions, roughly 80 percent, occur during the first six hours 

after land application. To significantly reduce emissions of gases and odors during land application, 

injection or immediate coverage (within 1 hour) is required. Odor reduction is, in turn, dependent upon 

the degree of soil coverage. Poorly injected manure slurry with little soil coverage is only marginal in 

effectiveness in reducing gas and odor emissions. To take full benefit of the natural odor absorption 

capacity of soils, the slurry must be completely covered. The evidence is clear that 85-90 percent 

emission reduction is possible with complete soil coverage compared to surface application when 

coverage is delayed for more than 3-6 hours. 

Policy Strategies for long-Term Viability of the Livestock Industry in Iowa 

Emission of gases and particulates from livestock and poultry systems is an inevitable outcome 

reqniring special attention. Strategies for emission reduction for all stages of production have been 

outlined, with most being economically feasible. The strategies outlined previously are documented 

techniques that have gained fairly widespread acceptance with scientists and engineers working in this 

area. 

A few strategies have been discussed for years. They lack the scientific evidence to document their 

specific benefits, but nevertheless deserve discussion. The study group is unanimous in the belief that a 

long-term strategy of better facility siting, setbacks, and landscape considerations, in addition to the 

implementation of available odor and gas reducing technologies, will benefit both the producer and 

residents in the community. The study group strongly urges that the following topics receive careful 

consideration. 

Statewide Spatial Planning 

Facilities built today, under current siting and setback practices, have a lifetime of roughly 15 years. In 

the long-term, guidelines should be established based on siting and spatial planning considerations that 

require siting of new and replaced facilities in accordance with a statewide spatial plan. Some areas of 

the state are currently over-populated with facilities. A statewide spatial plan, based for example on 

15 
53 


30052.036

animal units per acre, would help guide and distribute animals in a manner that takes full advantage of 

Iowa's soil/ nutrient capabilities and minimizes the impacts of air emissions on the community. 

Local Siting Guidelines 

The study group feels strongly that current siting guidelines are outdated and not reflective of the 

changing demographics in rural Iowa. Current siting guidelines use a simple distance and size regulation 

for new facilities. The study group feels that this method of siting is not conducive to the long-term 

viability of the livestock and poultry industries in Iowa. A strategy that takes into account proposed 

facility size and type, distance and orientation to surrounding neighbors, local weather patterns, odor 

control measures, existing recreational and public-use facilities, and other existing production facilities in 

a community would provide better placement guidance of facilities and contribute positively to spatial 

planning considerations. Siting models that utilize the above mentioned inputs have been developed, are 

currendy being calibrated, and should be used in commuuity-wide applications. 

Aesthetic Considerations for Livestock and Poultry Production Sites 

Evidence exists in the literature that foliage (primarily trees) will enhance mixing and capture some of 

the odor-producing gases and particulates emitted from livestock and poultry production facilities. 

Currendy, research projects are being planned, and some have already been conducted, to test the use of 

strategically placed tree barriers around production sites. Although evidence documenting odor, gas, and 

particulate-capture-percentages on a production-size scale is limited, the study group feels strongly that 

landscape changes such as strategically placed tree lines will positively impact producer/ community 

relationships. This is a researchable area and one that holds promise as a natural, aesthetically pleasing 

strategy for producers to implement. 

Conclusion to Executive Summary 

The consensus responses summarized in this Executive Summary provide a science-based summary of 

this inquiry from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The study group recognizes the 

importance of livestock production and the vital role it plays in the livelihoods of Iowa producers and 

suppliers and the state's economy. It is, therefore, critically important that science-based policies be 

developed to sustain livestock production. It is equally vital that such policies protect the public's health, 

sustain and enhance the communities in which livestock production takes place, and protect and 

enhance the environment and Iowa's natural resources through sound production practices, 

environmental controls and the development of a long-range, sustainable, community health and 

environmentally conscious spatial plan for CAFOS. 

16 
54 


30052.037

References 

Aarestrup FM, Bager F,Jensen NE, Madsen M, MeylingA, Wegener HC. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in 

bacteria isolated from food animals to antimicrobial growth promoters and related therapeutic agents in 

Denmark. APMlS 106:606-622 (1998). 

American Medical Association, Resolutions of the 2001 Annual Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates: 508. 

Antimicrobial Use and Resistance. http://wwwama-assn.org/arna/pub/category/6692.htrn1. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National antimicrobial resistance monitoring system. Enteric bacteria 

1999 annual report (1999). 

Chee-Sanford,JC, Aminov, RI, Krapac, IJ, Garrigues-JeanJean, N, Mackie, RL Occurrence and diversity of tetracycline resistance genes in lagoons and groundwater underlying two swine production facilities. Applied and 

Environ Microbiol67:1494-1502 (2001). 

Donham Ig. The concentration of swine production: Effects on swine health, productivity, human health, and the 

environment. Veterinary Clin North Am: Food Anim Pract 16:559-597 (2000). 

Gorbach SL. Antimicrobial use in animal feed-time to stop. N Eng! J Med 345:606-622 (2001 ). 

Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance. A public health action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. 

Part I: Domestic Issues http://www.cdcgov/drygresistance/actionplan/aractionplan.pdf (2000). 

Levy S B, FitzGerald GB, Macone AB. Changes in intesrinal flora of farm personnel after introduction of a tetracycline-supplemented feed on a farm. N Eng!J Med 295:583-8 (1976). 

Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LI~ Bresee JS, Shapiro C, Griffin PM, Tauxe RV. Food-related illness and 

death in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis 5:607-625 (1999). 

Molbak K, Baggesen DL, Aarestrup FM, Ebbesen JM, Engberg J, Frydendahl K, Gerner-Smidt P, Petersen AM, 

Wegener HC. An Outbreak of multidrug-resistant, quinolone-resistant salmonella enterica serotype 

typhimurium DT104. N Eng!J Med 341:1420-1425 (1999). 

Ney RA, Schnoor JL, Foster NSJ, Forkenbrock DJ, IQWll greenhouse gas action plan. Iowa City, IA: Center for 

Global and Regional Environmental Research, University of Iowa (1996). 

Smith KE, Besser JM, Hedberg CW, Leano Ff, Bender JB, Wicklund JH, Johnson BP, Moore KA, Osterholm MT. 

Quinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni infections in Minnesota, 1992- 1998. Investigation Team. N Eng! 

J Med 340:1525-1532 (1999). 

Tenover FC, Hughes JM. WHO Scientific Working Group on monitoring and management of bacterial resistance 

to antimicrobial agents. Emerg Infect Dis 1:37 (1995). 

Threlfall EJ, Frost JA, Ward LR, Rowe B. Increasing spectrum of resistance in multiresistant Salmonella typhimurium 

[letter]. Lancet 347:1053-1054 (1996). 

White DG, Zhao S, Duster R, Ayers S, Friedman S, Chen S, McDermott PF, McDermott S, Waguer DD, MengJ. The 

isolation of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella from retail ground meats. N Eng J Med 345(19):1147-1154 

(2001). 

Witte W. Medical consequences of antibiotic use in agriculture. Science 279:996-997 (1998). 

World Health Organization. Overcoming antimicrobial resistance. WHO/CDS/2000.2 (2000). 

Wright W, Flora CB, Kremer KS, Goudy W, Hinrichs C, Lasley P, Maney A, Kroma M, Brown H, Pigg K, Durgan B, 

Coleman J, Elias Morse D. Technical work paper on social and community impacts. Prepared for the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (2001). 

Zahn, JA, Anhalt J, Boyd E. Evidence for transfer of tylosin and tylosin-resistant bacteria in air from swine production facilities using sub-therapeutic concentrations of tylan in feed. J Anim Sci 79, Suppl. 1:189 (2001). 

17 
55 


30052.038

Appendix 2 --EPA Guidance on Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know-Act 
56 


30052.039

&EPA United States Environmental Protectior Agency 

Office of land 

and 

Emergency Management 

October 25, 2017 

www.epa.gov/epcra 

Does EPA interpret EPCRA Section 304 to require farms to report releases 

from animal waste? 

EPA interprets the statute to exclude farms that use substances in "routine agricultural operations" from 

reporting under EPCRA section 304. 

As written, EPCRA section 304 requires all facilities "at which a hazardous chemical is produced, used or 

stored" to report releases of reportable quantities of any EPCRA Extremely Hazardous Substance and of any 

CERCLA hazardous substance. Congress, however, created an exception relevant to farms. As indicated 

above, EPCRA reporting tums on whether a facility produces, uses, or stores a hazardous chemical. The term 

"hazardous chemical," as defined in EPCRA sections 329(5) and 311(e), does not include "any substance to 

the extent it is used in routine agricultural operations." 

Therefore, if a farm only uses substances in "routine agricultural operations", the farm would not be a facility 

that produces, uses or stores "hazardous chemicals," and would therefore not be within the universe of 

facilities which are subject to EPCRA section 304 release reporting. Because such farms fall outside of 

EPCRA section 304, they are not required to report any releases of EPCRA extremely hazardous substances 

or CERCLA hazardous substances, including any releases from animals or animal waste. 

Based on the language of the statute described above, EPA believes Congress did not intend to impose 

EPCRA reporting requirements on farms engaged in routine agricultural operations. The statute does not 

define "routine agricultural operations," and EPA has previously identified examples of routine agricu~ural 

operations. Those examples were not intended to be exhaustive. EPA clarifies here that it interprets the term 

"routine agricultural operations" to encompass regular and routine operations at farms, animal feeding 

operations, nurseries, other horticultural operations and aquaculture. 

Additionally, as stated in previous policy interpretations, the following are examples of substances used in 

routine agricultural operations: 

Paint used for maintaining farm equipment; 

Fuel used at the farm to operate machinery or to heat buildings in a farm for housing animals; and 

Chemicals used for growing and breeding fish and aquatic plants in an aguacultural operation. 

These examples were not intended to be exhaustive. EPA interprets the statute to include other substances 

used in routine agricultural operations, including animal waste stored on a farm and animal waste that is used 

as fertilizer. EPA also notes that use of a substance in routine agricultural operations includes the storage of 

that substance necessitated by such use. To illustrate based on one of the examples cited above, an inherent 

part of using fuel to operate machinery is storage of that fuel. 

EPA clarifies here that, just as an aquacultural operation involving the feeding and breeding of fish would be 

considered a routine agricultural operation, the feeding and breeding of animals, as well as the expected 

handling and storage of the animals' waste, would also be considered a routine agricultural operation. EPA 

thus interprets the phrase "used in routine agricultural operations" to include, for example, the handling and 

storage of waste for potential use as fertilizer. In creating the routine agricultural operation exception, 

Congress demonstrated its intent to treat farms differently than other types of facilities. EPA does not believe 

Congress intended the generation, handling or storage of animal waste to subject farms to reporting if they do 

not otherwise produce, use or store hazardous chemicals. 

Under EPA's interpretation, a farm where substances are used only in routine agricultural operations is not 

within the scope of EPCRA section 304; however, farms are still required to report releases of CERCLA 

hazardous substances under CERCLA 103 (see EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 302 and the 

continuous release reporting form). 

Note: EPA intends to conduct a rulemaking on the interpretation of "used in routine agricultural operations" as 

it pertains to EPCRA reporting requirements. 

Office of Emergency Management 
57 


30052.040

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight 

Hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method 

Act." 

Senator Ernst: 

March 8, 2018 

Questions for the Record for Mark Kuhn 

Responses 

I. Honorable Senator Joni Ernst: 

Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO's) need to compile and report dangerous air emissions to 

protect the health of neighbors living nearby. My testimony on March 8, 2018 explained how emissions 

of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia have impacted the health of the Jeff and Gail Schwartzkopf family and 

diminished their quality of life. 

Even if the EPA hasn't yet initiated a response to the National Response Center (NRC), that's likely due 

to its own failure to complete the NAEMS Emissions Estimating Methodologies and the resulting lack of 

information about where such a response is needed and a lack of regulation under the Clean Air Act, not 

to a lack of need. There have been other emergency responses to such emissions by other agencies, so 

EPA's inaction says more about the EPA than the risks from this pollution. 

Other federal agencies have access to NRC data. have authority to act, and have responded to releases 

from CAFO's when the EPA hasn't. For example, ATSDR has responded, and is currently investigating 

emissions from Hickman Egg Farms in Arizona. The Center for Progressive reform wrote about it in a 

recent blog: 

http:/'progrcssivcrcform.org!CPRB log.clin?id Blog= 12D56AOB-93 5 E-9407 -l84D2C95643 E5CDO 

"Just this past month. after years of community advocacy had gone nowhere, the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) began working with the local community to investigate air 

quality near Hickman's facilities. ATSDR, a federal agency under the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), is authorized under CERCLA and performs several vital functions to address public 

health effects of hazardous substance releases into the environment. ATSDR is able to provide this 

assistance because, as noted above. ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, common emissions from CAFO 's, 

are listed as hazardous substances under CERCLA. " 

Purportedly the exemption bill (passed after the hearing, as part of the omnibus spending bill) maintained 

reporting of the same emissions under one provision of EPCRA, so CAFO operators are already still 

required to compile and report the emissions information, and CERCLA reporting doesn't add anything 

but an email to the NRC to the reporting they still have to do. 

And finally, neighbors like the Schwartzkopfs get so little information about what they are being exposed 

to, any mechanism that gets basic information out into the public could help neighbors and communities 

cope with the exposures they face. 

This is especially true as a result of legislation signed into law by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad in 2017. 

The new law limits damages that can be awarded to a person who wins a lawsuit against an animal 

feeding operation. By requiring "objectively documented medical evidence and proven to be caused by 

the facility," neighbors like the Schwartzkopfs will have little recourse in the courts and no place to turn. 
58 


30052.041

In Iowa, it takes a good neighbor to be a good neighbor, CAFO operators included. Being a good 

neighbor carries with it the responsibility to compile and report dangerous air emissions. 
59 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Kuhn, for your testimony 

today. 

At this time, each of the Senators will have 5 minutes to ask 

questions of our witnesses. I will begin. 

Before I actually start with questions, I would like to ask unanimous consent to include two letters of support for this legislation 

and ask they be entered into the record of this meeting, a letter 

from the American Farm Bureau and a letter from the Wyoming 

Stock Growers Association. 

Hearing none, we will enter it. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

60 


30052.042

·= 

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION' 

600 Mtttyt:and AW, SW I Sult~ 1000W ! Wllshl-'!}lOll. OC 200:24 

February 26, 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Barrasso: 

ph 202~40~D600 

I. 202~<00.3600 

www.IIMxg 

The American Farm Bureau Federation, the country's largest general farm organization with 

approximately 6 million family members and representing nearly every type of crop and 

livestock production across all 50 states and Puerto Rico, applauds your leadership in 

cosponsoring S. 2421, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act (FARM Act). 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(CERCLA) was enacted to provide emergency response to, and ensure cleanup of, major 

industrial toxic spills, like oil spills and chemical tank explosions, and provide for the cleanup of 

toxic waste sites. CERCLA has two primary purposes: to give the federal government necessary 

tools for prompt response to hazardous waste disposal and to hold polluters financially 

responsible for cleanup. CERCLA, also known as the "Superfund" law, includes reporting 

requirements connected to the relevant events. As S. 2421 clarifies, Congress did not intend for 

emergency air emission reporting to apply to day-to-day practices on agricultural operations, 

recognizing that low-level, continuous emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from 

livestock are a part of everyday life. 

In 2008, the EPA finalized a rule to exempt all agricultural operations from CERCLA reporting 

and small operations from EPCRA reporting requirements, recognizing that low-level, 

continuous emissions of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from livestock are not "releases" that 

Congress intended to regulate. When the rule was challenged in 2009, the Obama administration 

spent eight years defending this Bush-era regulation. In defending the lawsuit, the Obama EPA 

argued that CERCLA and EPCRA language does not explicitly exempt farms because Congress 

never believed that the continuous emissions of agricultural operations would fall into the realm 

of regulation. 

Unfortunately, in April 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

vacated the EPA's 2008 exemption, putting nearly 200,000 farms under the regulatory reporting 

authorities enshrined in CERCLA. Not only does this decision have the potential to bring nearly 

200,000 farms and ranches under federal regulatory authority, but it also will put our nation's 

environmental and public health at risk. Currently, Hazardous Substance release reports are taken 

by the National Response Center (NRC), run by the Coast Guard. This department has averaged 

28,351 reports per year over the last eight years. When farms from across the nation must 

suddenly report their low-level emissions, these reports from over 200,000 agricultural 

operations will inundate the NRC. This increase of over four times the average annual amount, in 

the weeks after the court's decision goes into effect, could prevent the Coast Guard from 

responding to actual hazardous waste emergencies, entirely defeating the primary purposes of 

CERCLA. 
61 


30052.043

The Court has stayed its April 2017 decision multiple times, with the latest stay slated to expire 

on May I, 2018. It is imperative that Congress takes action before May 1 to ensure that the EPA 

is not required to implement this overly burdensome court decision and open up hundreds of 

thousands of farms and ranches to activist lawsuits, while potentially creating a database of 

sensitive private farmer information. 

Farmers and ranchers are looking to Congress to act swiftly to protect their privacy and their 

businesses from the financial strain and burden of these unnecessary requirements to report 

ordinary activities on their land. The FARM Act does this by codifying EPA's 2008 CERCLA 

exemption for continuous, low-level livestock emissions. 

Farm Bureau appreciates and supports your effort, and will encourage other members of 

Congress to supportS. 2421. 

Sincerely, 

--<$-dJ 

Zippy Duvall 

President 
62 


30052.044

WYOMING STOCK GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

President~ Dennis Sun, Casper First Vice President· Scott Sims, McFadden 

Region I Vice President- JD Hill, Ranchester Region II Vice President- Steve Paisley, Wheatland 

Region III Vice President- Mantha Phillps, Casper Region IV Vice President- Brad Mead, Jackson 

Region V Vice President- Reg Philips, Dubois Executive Vice President- Jim Magagna, Cheyenne 

February 12, 2018 

Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment & Public Works 

Committee 

Young Producers Assembly- Kendall Roberts, Cheyenne 

Senator Tom Carper Senator Mike Rounds 

Ranking Member Chairman 

Environment & Public Works Superfund, Waste Mgmt., 

Committee Reg. Oversight Committee 

Dear Senators Barrasso, Carper and Rounds: 

The Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) represents livestock producer across the 

state. The vast majority of our members would be seriously impacted by the application of 

CERCLA to animal waste from agricultural operations as mandated by the2017 decision of the 

DC Circuit Court of Appeals. While we appreciate the efforts of the EPA in securing extensions 

of the time for compliance from the Court, permanent resolution of this clearly unintended 

application of this law rests with Congress. 

Wyoming has the largest average ranch size in acreage of any state. The vast majority of our 

members operations involve more than the 208 head threshold of cattle identified by some as 

the trigger for required reporting. Wyoming has very few confined feeding operations. Most of 

our ranching operations involve cattle on open ranges, often spread over thousands of acres for 

most of the year. Even during that season when cattle are fed hay, the hay is typically scattered 

over a relatively large area. 

There is currently no credible science or practical methodology for measure the release of 

hazardous substances from livestock dispersed in this manner. Furthermore, the amount of 

ammonia or hydrogen sulfide released by an animal, if any, will be influenced the type offeed 

being consumed and the movement patterns of the animal. 

The application of CERCLA to ranching operations is clearly an example of the Court applying 

the law in a manner that was never intended by Congress or by the responsible federal agency. 

We commend you for holding this hearing and look forward to timely action by Congress to 

address this misapplication of the law. 

Sincerely, 

;Pn;/1!~ 

Jim Magagna 

Executive Vice President 

"Shaping and Living The Code ofThe West" 

P.O. Box 206, CHEYENNE, WY 82003• PH: 307.638.3942 • FX: 307.634.1210 

EMAIL: INFO@WYSGA.ORG •WEBSITE: WWW.WYSGA.ORG • SLOG: WWW.REALRANCHERS.COM 
63 

Senator ROUNDS. With that—first of all, Mr. Mortenson, if I 

could just begin with you. I am familiar with where your ranch is, 

and I know it is on the Cheyenne River, and it overlooks the Oahe 

Dam and Reservoir. It is one of the most beautiful lakes in all of 

America, in my opinion; it is 180 miles long, 5, 6 miles wide in 

some areas, and you can go out and look down 10 foot and see the 

bottom. It is a couple hundred feet deep in a lot of areas, but it 

is absolutely beautiful, and the water is clear. 

America’s ranchers, just as you, are on the front line of the nation’s conservation efforts. Ranchers like yourself are truly our best 

stewards of the land. Can you talk about what you do to protect 

the environment and South Dakota’s natural resources and maybe 

also, on a brief basis, why you do it? 

Mr. MORTENSON. I will start with the last question, why you do 

it. It is the right thing to do because we all have to breathe the 

same air and drink the water. Like you said, we are on Lake Oahe, 

we are on the Cheyenne River arm of Lake Oahe, so what runs off 

my ranch basically goes all the way to New Orleans, so I am very 

cognizant of what that is and make sure that I am doing the best 

that I can to stop any pollution. 

Now, as Senator Rounds indicated earlier, SDSU, the college in 

Brookings, has done research on the ranch, quite extensively, and 

one of the research projects they had had to do with water quality, 

and what they found out is that the water running off our ranch 

is cleaner than the water that runs onto it from the neighboring 

farms and ranches. So we are very proud of that fact, that we are 

doing the right thing environmentally to clean up not only the 

water, but the air. 

We practice what we call holistic management, and that means 

we take into account everything on the ranch, from the people to 

the land to the wildlife, and all of those things are interconnected, 

and if any of them aren’t healthy, the whole system will fail. So 

we make sure that everything has a chance to thrive on the ranch, 

regardless of whether it is livestock or the trees, the shrubs, anything like that. We are very conscientious about the environment 

we live in. 

Senator ROUNDS. You are a volunteer fireman, as well. Can you 

comment a little bit about what it would do with regard to first responders if we actually had to try to get the Corps of Engineers to 

respond? I am not even sure where the nearest Corps of Engineers 

office is and how many hundreds of miles away it is from our part 

of the world, but can you comment a little bit about what the impact would be if your local emergency responders had to respond 

to the call each time one of these reports was to be filed? 

Mr. MORTENSON. Certainly. Not only am I a volunteer fireman, 

but I am also a first responder, EMS first responder, and it adds 

another layer, basically, of paperwork that you would have to do 

and potentially could slow down your response time. I am going to 

a Superfund site out in the middle of Stanley County somewhere; 

now I have to worry about, is it for real, or is it a chemical that 

I am worried about, or is it a cow pie that I might step in and slip 

and fall. 

Those are very real concerns because, as a first responder, your 

first duty is to make sure that the scene is safe. So you can’t enter 

64 

a scene until you have determined that, and this will just slow 

down that response time. 

Senator ROUNDS. Sometimes I think, when we get into these 

meetings here in DC, we start talking about manure, and we start 

talking about it as this thing which has little value. Can you talk 

about the value of manure as we see it, in terms of the ag operations and the value that we have with regard to manure? 

Mr. MORTENSON. Absolutely. In my operation, it is a pasture 

based operation, obviously, and there is a little bug that we monitor, it is called the dung beetle. And that dung beetle, when that 

pat hits the ground, those things come from all over the place. 

They have little antenna that they sense the smell and they zoom 

in on those cow pats. They make little balls, lay their eggs in these 

little manure balls, and then roll them into a hole. They roll them 

away from the cow pat, dig a hole, and down into it it goes. 

When the eggs hatch, the larvae feed on the manure, and then 

when they are big enough, they come out. What does that do? Several things: it fertilizes the ground, No. 1, and No. 2, it aerates the 

ground, it opens the ground up so the water percolates into the 

ground a lot easier. So the cow pat is very important to the overall 

health of our range land. 

Senator ROUNDS. Do you know any producers out there right now 

that actually don’t value manure in their operations? 

Mr. MORTENSON. None. I mean, with the cost of commercial fertilizer, this is, by far and away, the cheapest and the best product 

that is out there. And like I say, for me, Mother Nature is doing 

the work; she is the one that is putting the fertilizer into the 

ground. 

Senator ROUNDS. Mr. Mortenson, thank you. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, if it is OK with you, I am going 

to defer to my Ranking Member and my colleague. Before I do, I 

just want to ask unanimous consent to submit into the record materials from the Congressional Research Service analyzing the effects of S. 2421, the FARM Act. 

Senator ROUNDS. Without objection. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

65 


30052.045

·~ 

~ 

~Congressional Research Service 

Informing the legislative debate since 1914 ·----------------

MEMORANDUM March 7, 2018 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Attention: Kusai Merchant 

David M. Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy, dbearden@crsJoc.gov, 7-2390 

Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act/FARM Act (S. 2421) 

This memorandum responds to your request for an analysis of the potential effects of amendments to the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) proposed in the 

Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act or "FARM Act" (S. 2421), as introduced in the 115"' Congress on 

February 13, 2018. The bill would exempt air releases of hazardous substances emitted by animal waste 

at fanns from requirements under CERCLA to notify the National Response Center. These amendments 

also would have a bearing on the applicability of requirements under the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to notify state and local officials of such releases. However, 

EPCRA may continue to apply to the reporting of releases of separately listed extremely hazardous 

substances that are not contingent upon reporting under CERCLA, unless these releases may be covered 

by an exemption under EPCRA in current law for substances used in routine agricultural operations. 

Overview 

Whether the reporting requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA should be applied to air releases of 

hazardous substances from animal waste has been a long-standing issue addressed in multiple hearings 

and legislation in Congress. The purpose of reporting releases under these statutes is to infonn federal, 

state, and local emergency response officials if a response action were warranted to protect human health 

and the environment. Some have observed though that reporting may impose a compliance burden 

without a commensurate need if the relative risks of air releases would not warrant a response action in 

most instances. Although others may still value the infonnation gained from reporting to evaluate sources 

of air emissions for regulatory planning or other purposes, such utility would be incidental to the response 

objectives of CERCLA and EPCRA. Potential disclosure of release reports to the public also has been an 

issue, but certain protections are available in current law for sensitive and confidential information. 

During the George W. Bush Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a 

rule in 2008 to exempt air releases of hazardous substances emitted by animal waste at most farms from 

reporting under CERCLA and EPCRA, because of its expectation that the relative risks would make a 

response action unlikely or impractical in most cases. EPA did apply EPCRA to require reporting from 

large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) based on the number and type of livestock, in 

response to some public comments expressing desire for the infonnation. Litigation challenging EPA's 

authority to create this administrative exemption led to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 

decision inApril2017 (Waterkeeper Alliance, et at .. v. EPA) that vacated the 2008 rule. In response to 

Congressional Research Service 
66 


30052.046

Congressional Research Service 

petitions from EPA during the Trump Administration, the court subsequently stayed (i.e., delayed) the 

issuance of an order to lift the exemption in the 2008 rule until May I, 2018. 

EPA has released guidance that instructs farms to notiiy the National Response Center under CERCLA 

once the court issues its order, if air releases of hazardous substances emitted by animal waste are equal to 

or exceed reportable quantities. 1 The EPA guidance indicates that farms should not report releases to state 

and local officials under EPCRA though, based on the Trump Administration's interpretation that air 

releases from animal waste would be covered under the exemption for substances used in routine 

agricultural operations. The U.S. Court of Appeals April 20 I7 decision did not refer to this exemption. 

If enacted into law, S. 2421 would amend CERCLA to provide an exemption from the reporting of air 

releases of hazardous substances emitted by animal waste at farms. In turn, this amendment would have 

the effect of exempting such releases of hazardous substances from reporting under EPCRA that is 

contingent upon reporting required under CERCLA. However, the potential applicability of EPCRA to air 

releases of separately listed extremely hazardous substances may depend on whether the Trump 

Administration's interpretation of the exemption for substances used in routine agricultural operations is 

challenged. Any potential reporting requirements under state or local laws may continue to apply though, 

as neither CERCLA nor EPCRA would preempt such requirements. 

The following sections of this memorandum discuss the purposes of CERCLA and EPCRA in current 

law, the types of hazardous substances and extremely hazardous substances that may be released from 

animal waste at farms, the George W. Bush Administration 2008 rule, the D.C. Circuit April 2017 

decision that vacated this rule, the Trump Administration's guidance issued in response to the reversal of 

the rule, and how the amendments to CERCLA proposed in S. 242I may affect reporting requirements. I 

hope that this information is helpful to the Committee. I remain available if the Committee needs further 

assistance from CRS in consideration of S. 2421 and related issues. 

CERCLA 

Enacted in 1980, CERCLA authorized the Superfund program administered by EPA to remediate 

environmental contamination from releases of hazardous substances at sites elevated for priority federal 

attention in coordination with the states, and established the financial liability of"potentially responsible 

parties" (PRPs) associated with a release.' Congress has amended CERCLA in multiple laws over time to 

clarily the applicability of the statute to federal facilities, and to modifY various response, liability, and 

enforcement provisions to address issues that arose during the course of implementation. 3 Although risks 

posed by abandoned hazardous waste sites were a central topic in the debate of legislation that led to the 

enactment of CERCLA, the final bill that Congress enacted included language more broadly addressing 

past or present releases of hazardous substances across environmental media and industrial, commercial, 

and governmental sectors. 4 

1 For a summary of this guidance, see EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management, CERCLA and EPCRA Reporting 

Requirements for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms, 520~F~18-00J, February 2018, available 

at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/fact-sheet-cerda .. and·epcra-reporting-requirements·air-releases-hazardous-substances-animal. 

2 42 u.s.c. §§9601-9675. 

3 For a broader discussion of the scope and purposes of CERCLA than presented in this memorandum, see CRS Report R41 039, 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary ofSupeifund Cleanup Authorities and 

Re/(Jted Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden. 

4 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, A Legislative History of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund), Public Law 96-510, committee print, prepared 

by Congressional Research Service, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., 1983, S. Serial No. 97-14 (Washington: GPO, 1983). 
67 


30052.047

_Congressional Research Service 

Applicability to Releases 

CERCLA generally applies to the release, or the substantial threat of a release, of a hazardous substance 

into the environment within the United States or under the jurisdiction of the United States. The 

geophysical scope of the environment covered under CERCLA encompasses multiple media. The term 

"environment" is defined in Section I 0 I (8) to include surface water, groundwater, a drinking water 

supply, surface soils, sub-surface soils, or ambient air. 5 As defined in Section 10 I (22), the term "release" 

also is relatively broad in terms of the manner in which a hazardous substance may enter the environment, 

including spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, 

leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment. 6 

Section I 0 I (14) of CERCLA references specific categories of chemicals designated under other laws as 

hazardous substances subject to CERCLA. 7 Section I 02 authorizes EPA to designate additional hazardous 

substances that may present substantial danger to public health or welfare, or the environment, if a release 

were to occur' Section I 02 also authorizes EPA to esta!Jlish a quantitative threshold for each hazardous 

substance to determine when a release must be reported to the federal government. 9 Section I 03 requires 

the person responsible for a release to notifY the National Response Center, if the release is equal to or 

exceeds the reportable quantity during a 24-hour period. 10 Section 103(!) authorizes an exception to offer 

compliance flexibility for a continuous release that is "stable in quantity and rate," in which case notice 

may be provided to the National Response Center on an annual basis as an alternative to daily 

notification. 11 However, Section I 03(!) requires intervening updates during the year to report a 

"statistically significant increase" in the quantity of a release above that previously reported or occurring. 

Reporting requirements under CERCLA provide a mechanism through which the federal government may 

become aware of a release to determine whether a response action rna~ be warranted to fulfill the 

objective of the statute to protect human health and the environment. 1 Whether a response action is 

warranted generally would depend on the potential risks of exposure at the site where the release occurs. 

Reportable quantities merely serve as thresholds to determine the quantity of a release that is subject to 

notification, but do not necessarily indicate a particular level of risk. As for any chemical, the potential 

risks of a release would depend on the concentration, duration, and frequency of exposure {i.e., the dose), 

the conditions of exposure, and individual characteristics of the exposed individual. 13 

Once a release is reported, Section 1 03( a) requires the National Response Center to notifY EPA and other 

appropriate federal agencies, and the state in which the release occurs. 14 If warranted, Section I 04 

authorizes federal actions to respond to the release in coordination with the state, including enforcement 

of liability. 15 The federal response authorities of CERCLA are Presidential authorities delegated to EPA 

s 42 u.s.c. §960!(8). 

6 42 u.s.c. §9601(22). 

1 42 u.s.c. §9601(14). 

'42 u.s.c. §9602. 

9 Designated hazardous substances and reportable quantities are codified in federal regulation at 40 C.F.R. Part 302. 

10 42 U.S.C. §9603. The U.S. Coast Guard administers the National Response Center. 

11 42 U.S.C. §9603(f). Procedures for filing continuous release reports are codified in federal regulation at 40 C.F.R. §302.8. 

12 Releases reported under CERCLA also generate data that some may desire to evaluate sources of pollution for regulatory 

planning or other purposes, although this utility would be incidental to the statutory objective of CERCLA. 

13 For infonnation on risk assessment, see National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Science and Decisions: 

Advancing Risk Assessment, 2009, available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12209/science·and-decisions~advancing·risk~ 

assessment. This report updates the previous National Research Council risk assessment guidelines issued in 1983. 

14 42 U.S.C. §9603(a). 15 42 U.S. C. §9604. 
68 


30052.048

Congressional Research Service 

and other federal agencies on the National Response Team. 16 The procedures for taking response actions 

under CERCLA are outlined in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. 17 

Section I 07 of CERCLA establishes the categories ofPRPs who may be held liable for response costs, 

natural resource damages, and the costs of federal studies of potential health hazards that may be 

associated with a release. 18 Federal response actions are subject to annual appropriations but may be 

recovered from the liable parties. PRPs generally may include current and past site owners and operators, 

persons who arranged for the treatment, disposal, or transport of a hazardous substance, and transporters 

who selected a site for disposal. 

Section 104 also authorizes federal actions to respond to releases of other pollutants or contaminants that 

are not designated as hazardous substances, if the release would present an imminent and substantial 

danger to public health or welfare. However, CERCLA does not establish liability for such releases, nor 

does the statute require the reporting of such releases. 

Statutory Exemptions 

Although CERCLA is relatively broad in its applicability to releases of hazardous substances, Congress 

has excluded certain types of substances or releases from the statutory definitions in Section I 0 I that it 

did not intend to be subject to the statute. Section 1 07(b) of CERCLA also provides defenses to liability 

for certain conditions beyond a party's control such as an act of God, act of war, or an act or omission of a 

third party. 19 In the 1980 enactment and subsequent amendments, Congress also has exempted specific 

categories of parties, circumstances, or uses that it did not intend to be subject to liability or reporting 

requirements, but for which federal authority remains available to respond to a release if warranted to 

protect human health and the environment. 

Some of these exclusions or exemptions are based on practical considerations, whereas others are 

intended to avoid duplication or overlap with other laws that apply to the same releases. Among the 

exclusions or exemptions more directly relevant to the agricultural sector, Congress excluded the "normal 

application offertilizer" from the definition of the term "release" in Section 101(22) ofCERCLA, making 

such use not subject to the statute in its entirety. Congress also excluded hazardous substances that may be 

released as a result of the proper application of a pesticide from liability under the statute in Section 

1 07(i), 20 and reporting requirements in Section 1 03( e).21 The availability of the pesticide exemption is 

dependent upon proper application of the pesticide in accordance with federal registration requirements of 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 22 Congress included both the fertilizer 

exclusion and the pesticide exemption in the 1980 enactment. Congress has not since amended CERCLA 

to exempt the agricultural sector more broadly. 

EPCRA 

Once CERCLA required the reporting of releases of hazardous substances to the federal government, 

questions arose as to whether federal law also should require reporting of the same information directly to 

16 Executive Order 12580, SuperfUnd Implementation, January 23~ 1987. 

17 40 C.F.R. Part 300. 18 42 u.s.c. §9607. 

"42 U.S.C. §9607(b). 

20 42 U.S.C. §9607(i). 

21 42 U.S.C. §9603(e). 

22 7 U.S.C. §§l36-l36y. Demonstration of the proper application of a federally registered pesticide generally would be subject to 

documentation of its use. 
69 


30052.049

Congressional Research Service 

state and local governments to help facilitate their emergency response capabilities. 23 This question was 

among the prominent topics in the debate of the 1986 amendments to CERCLA. Although some state and 

local laws at that time addressed releases of hazardous substances, response authorities and capabilities 

varied among jurisdictions. Congress developed uniform federal requirements for the reporting of releases 

to state and local governments in EPCRA under Title Ill of the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-499). Title III enacted EPCRA as a separate law, and not as an 

amendment CERCLA. 24 

EPCRA addresses emergency notification of releases at the state and local level to complement the 

reporting of releases to the federal government under CERCLA. Similar in objective to CERCLA, release 

notification under EPCRA provides a mechanism for state and local governments to determine whether a 

response action may be warranted under their own respective authorities, or in coordination with a federal 

response. Reporting under EPCRA also provides an earlier opportunity for state and local governments to 

become aware of a release instead of relying upon subsequent notification from the National Response 

Center once a release is reported to the federal government. However, EPCRA does not authorize federal, 

actions to respond to a release, nor does the statute establish liability for releases. Federal response 

authorities and liability for releases are rooted in CERCLA. 

EPCRA also requires notification at the state and local level for emergency planning purposes if a facility 

stores extremely hazardous substances or other hazardous chemicals in excess of certain amounts. 25 These 

notification requirements are intended to enhance state and local emergency preparedness in the event of 

an actual release. Other provisions of EPCRA also require the reporting of toxic chemicals used at a 

facility in excess of certain amounts to EPA for public disclosure in the federal Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI). 26 These emergency planning and TRI disclosure requirements apply to the presence or use of 

chemicals at a facility, in addition to actual releases into the environment. 

Section 324 of EPCRA generally requires information on chemicals reported for emergency planning 

purposes, disclosure on the TRI, and followup emergency notices of actual releases to be made available 

to the general public. 27 CERLA does not include similar public disclosure requirements. However, 

followup emergency notices subject to EPCRA generally would include information on releases of 

hazardous substances that are subject to CERCLA. Section 322 of EPCRA authorizes the withholdin§ of 

certain sensitive or confidential information from disclosure to the general public under Section 324. 8 As 

a matter of practice, the National Response Center also maintains a publicly available database that tracks 

the nature and general location of releases of hazardous substances reported under CERCLA, but not 

private or confidential information. 29 The following discussion of EPCRA focuses on emergency 

notification of releases into the environment potentially relevant to air releases, and statutory exemptions 

from notification in current law. 30 

23 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, A Legislative History of the Superfimd Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499), committee print, prepared by Congressional Research Service, JOist 

Cong .• 2nd sess., !990, S. Prt. !0!·!20 (Washington: GPO, !990). 24 42 u.s.c. §§!1001-!!050. 

15 For emergency planning, reportable quantities of extremely hazardous substances are codified in federal regulation at 40 

C.P.R. Part 355, Appendix A, and of hazardous chemicals are codified in federal regulation at 40 CF.R. Part 370. 26 Threshold quantities subject to reporting for the TRI are codified in federal regulation at 40 C.F.R. Part 372. 

27 42 u.s.c. §!1044. 

"42 U.S.C. §11042. 

29 Information publicly disclosed from the database is available in reports that track releases by calendar year, available on the 

National Response Center's website at: http://nrc.uscg.mil. 

3

° For a broader discussion ofEPCRA than presented in this memorandum, see CRS Report RL32683, The Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA): A Summary, by David M. Bearden. 
70 


30052.050

Congressional Research Service 

Emergency Release Notification 

Section 30 I of EPCRA established the framework for the formation of State Emergency Response 

Commissions (SERCs) appointed by the governor of each state, and Local Emergency Planning 

Committees (LEPCs) within each state appointed by the respective SERC. 31 Section 302 authorizes EPA 

to establish quantitative thresholds for the reporting of releases of extremely hazardous substances into 

the environment. 32 Most of these substances also are listed as hazardous substances under CERCLA, but 

some of these substances are not designated under CERCLA. 33 Section 304 of EPCRA applies to 

emergency notification of releases into the environment. 34 This provision outlines three situations in 

which the reporting of releases of extremely hazardous substances or hazardous substances is required. In 

each situation, the person responsible for the release must notifY the SERC and the appropriate LEPC that 

covers the local jurisdiction where the release occurs. 

Two of these situations are contingent upon the release being subject to reporting to the National 

Response Center under Section I 03 of CERCLA. Section 304(a)( I) of EPCRA requires the notification of 

a release of an extremely hazardous substance to the SERC and the appropriate LEPC, if the release also 

would require notification as a hazardous substance under Section I 03 CERCLA. 35 If a substance is not 

designated as an extremely hazardous substance, Section 304(a)(3) requires the reporting of a release to 

the SERC and the appropriate LEPC if the release still would require notification as a hazardous 

substance under Section I 03 of CERCLA. 36 

Section 304(a)(2) ofEPCRA covers a third situation in which a substance is separately listed as an 

extremely hazardous substance, but is not subject to reporting under Section 103 of CERCLA. Section 

304(a)(2) requires the reporting of a release of a separately listed extremely hazardous substance in such 

instances, if the release: 

is not a federally permitted release as defined in Section I 0 I (I 0) of CERCLA, 37 

is in an amount in excess of a reportable quantity that EPA designated under Section 302, and 

"occurs in a manner" which would require notification under Section I 03 of CERCLA. 38 

With respect to the third criterion, the phrase "occurs in a manner" generally has been implemented over 

time to mean the nature ofthe release in terms of how the substance enters the environment. Section 329 

ofEPCRA defines the term "release" and "environment" similar in scope to CERCLA.39 The regulations 

that EPA promulgated to implement Section 304 reflect these statutory definitions. 40 

"42 u.s.c. §11001. 

32 42 u.s.c. §11002. 

33 Reportable quantities of extremely hazardous substances subject to emergency release notification under EPCRA are codified 

in federal regulation at 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Appendix A 

34 42 u.s.c. §11004. 

"42 U.S.C. §11004(a)(l). 

36 42 U.S.C. § 11004(a)(3). 

33 42 u.s.c. §9601(10). 

38 42 U.S.C. §II004(a)(2). 

39 42 U.S.C. §11049. The definition of the tenn "release" in EPCRA is nearly identical to that in CERCLA. The definition of the 

tenn "environment" in EPCRA is similar to CERCLA, but is more generally worded in its description to encompass "water, air, 

and land and the interrelationship which exists among and between water, air, and land and all living things." 

"' 40 C.F.R. §355.61. 
71 


30052.051

Congressional Research Service 

Statutory Exemptions 

In any of these scenarios involving extremely hazardous substances or hazardous substances, Section 

304(a)(4) exempts a release of either substance from reporting under EPCRA, if the release would result 

in exposure to persons solely within the site or sites on which a facility is located.41 Other factors also 

may determine whether a release is subject to reporting under EPCRA. In each instance of applicability, 

Section 304 refers to the reporting of a release at facilities where a hazardous chemical is produced, used, 

or stored. Conversely, if a hazardous chemical is not produced, used, or stored, at a facility, the reporting 

requirements do not apply. 

Section 311 (e) generally defines the tenn "hazardous chemical" to mean any such chemical regulated 

under the Occupational Safety and Health Act that is subject to federal requirements for hazard 

communication in the workplace. 42 However, Congress excluded certain uses from this definition in 

EPCRA, thereby exempting these uses from reporting requirements of the statute. Among those more 

directly relevant to the agricultural sector, uses of "any substance to the extent it is used in routine 

agricultural operations or is a fertilizer held for sale by a retailer to the ultimate customer" are excluded 

from EPCRA. The statute does not further describe or define the scope of these uses though. Section 

329(5) cross-references the definition in Section 311( e) for application of this exclusion across the 

requirements of the statute. Congress did not include a similarly broad exclusion from CERCLA for 

releases of hazardous substances used in routine agricultural operations. 

Animal Waste 

"Animal waste" per se is not designated in CERCLA as a hazardous substance or in EPCRA as an 

extremely hazardous substance. Numerous studies have examined the chemical constituency of animal 

waste, and associated chemical by-products that may be generated from decomposition of the organic 

matter. For example, a 2003 study by the National Research Council found that air emissions from animal 

waste commonly include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane, volatile organic compounds, and 

particulate matter that may consist of various chemicals." Of these chemicals, ammonia and hydrogen 

sulfide are designated as hazardous substances in regulation under CERCLA 44 and as extremely 

hazardous substances in regulation under EPCRA. 45 The threshold for the reportable quantity of a release 

of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide into the environment under either CERCLA or EPCRA is I 00 pounds 

during a 24-hour period into any media (e.g., air, water, or soils). 

If such quantity were released into the ambient air, the concentrations ,renerally would decline with 

increasing distance from the point of release as a result of dispersion. 4 The National Research Council 

2003 study noted that potential risks from air releases would depend on exposure that may vary by site 

and among individuals. The Council found "little scientific evidence" that exposures beyond the 

boundaries of animal feeding operations have significant effects on human health because the 

41 42 U.S.C. §11004(a)(4). 42 42 U.S.C. §ll02l{e). This provision ofEPCRA references the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's definition of 

a hazardous chemical codified in federal regulation at 29 C.F.R. §J910.1200(c) that means "any chemical which is classified as a 

physical hazard or a health hazard, a simple asphyxiant, combustible dust, pyrophoric gas, or hazard not othetwise classified." 43 National Academies, National Research Council, Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future 

Needs, 2003,263 pp. available at: https://~'WW.nap.edu/catalog/10586/air-emissions-from-animal-feeding...operations~currentw 

knowtedge..future~needs, 

.., 40 C.F.R. §302.4. 

45 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Appendix A. 

46 The rate of dispersion of a chemical released into ambient air would depend on multiple factors (e.g., properties of the 

chemical, wind, temperature, humidity, and interaction with other chemicals present in the atmosphere). 
72 


30052.052

Congressional Research Service 

concentrations "usually" are below threshold levels that would present a health risk. 47 The Council 

observed that risks of inhalation may be more significant within the boundaries of an animal feeding 

operation and within enclosed animal housing where concentrations are higher. The Council identified 

technical challenges in capturing and measuring air releases from animal waste for regulatory purposes, 

but recommended additional research and the development of best management practices to mitigate air 

releases. Additional studies have examined these issues since that time." 

EPA 2008 Rule 

As a matter of implementation, EPA historically has not applied CERCLA and EPCRA to air releases of 

hazardous substances from animal waste at farms, with the exception of large concentrated animal 

feeding operations (CAFOs) subject to EPCRA under a 2008 rule. On December 18, 2008, EPA finalized 

a rule during the George W. Bush Administration to establish an administrative exemption from reporting 

requirements of CERCLA for air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at all farms, and to 

apply EPCRA only to large CAFOs of certain sizes. 49 The rule specified thresholds for the maximum 

number of livestock by type that an operation could stable or confine to qualify for the exemption from 

reporting under EPCRA. The rule exempted air releases from animal waste oflivestock that are not 

stabled or confined. Operations that stable or confine livestock in numbers equal to or greater than the 

following thresholds were considered sufficiently large to make them subject to emergency notification 

requirements for air releases in excess of reportable quantities under EPCRA: 

700 marure dairy cows, whether milked or dry; 

I ,000 veal calves; 

1,000 cattle other than mature dairy cows or veal calves (cattle includes but is not limited 

to heifers, steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs); 

2,500 swine each weighing 55 pounds or more; 

10,000 swine each weighing less than 55 pounds; 

500 horses; 

I 0,000 sheep or lambs; 

55,000 turkeys; 

30,000 laying hens or broilers, ifthe farm uses a liquid manure handling system; 

125,000 chickens (other than laying hens), if the farm uses other than liquid manure 

handling system; 

82,000 laying hens, if the farm uses other than a liquid manure handling system; 

30,000 ducks (if the farm uses other than a liquid manure handling system); or 

5,000 ducks (if the farm uses a liquid manure handling system). 50 

41 National Academies, National Research Council, Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future 

Needs, 2003, p. 66. 

48 For example, see National Association of Local Boards of Health, Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 

and Their Impact on Communities, 20 l 0, prepared under a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, available at https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf. This study includes a bibliography 

of numerous other studies as well. 49 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "CERCLAIEPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of 

Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms," 73 Federal Register 76948·76960, December 18,2008. 

50 40 C.F.R. §355.3l(g). 
73 


30052.053

Congressional Research Service 

In the preamble to the final rule, EPA noted a petition submitted in August 2005 by the National Chicken 

Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry and Egg Association requesting an administrative 

exemption from CERCLA and EPCRA reporting requirements specifically for ammonia emissions from 

poultry operations. However, EPA indicated that the final rule was not a direct response to that petition. 51 

EPA stated that the exemption from reporting was warranted in its view because a response action would 

be "impractical" or "unlikely" in most instances, and that the exemption was consistent with the agency's 

goal of reducing the "burden" of reporting releases for which response actions most often are not 

expected." EPA explained that its decision to apply EPCRA to large CAFOs was based on a response to 

public comments on the 2007 proposed rule by some who expressed a desire for this information because 

of the potentially greater magnitude of air releases. 53 The proposed rule would have exempted CAFOs of 

any size from reporting requirements. 54 

The 2008 rule did not exempt air releases from animal waste at farms from liability under Section I 07. of 

CERCLA or otherwise restrict EPA's authority under Section 104 to take federal response actions if 

warranted to protect human health and the environment. The 2008 rule also did not exempt air releases of 

hazardous substances from other potential sources at farms, or releases of hazardous substances from 

animal waste into other environmental media (e.g., soil, groundwater, or surface water), if such releases 

were to exceed thresholds for reporting. 

However, releases from animal waste into surface waters in compliance with a Clean Water Act discharge 

permit would be treated as a "federally permitted release" under Section 101(10) ofCERCLA. 55 Section 

103(a) exempts federally permitted releases from reporting under the statute,'' and Section 1070) 

exempts federally permitted releases from liability under the statute. 57 Federally permitted releases 

exempt under CERCLA also are exempt from reporting under EPCRA. Exemptions for federally 

permitted releases are based on the presumption that regulation under another federal law would address 

potential risks. In current law, there is no similar permitting of air releases of hazardous substances from 

animal waste upon which to base a federally permitted release exemption. 

Litigation Challenging the EPA 2008 Rule 

The Waterkeeper Alliance and other organizations filed a petition for review in court to challenge EPA's 

authority to issue the 2008 rule, arguing against EPA's conclusion that the reporting of hazardous 

substance releases from animal waste at farms under CERCLA and EPCRA is "unnecessary."" On April 

II, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) granted the 

petition and vacated the exemptions from reporting in the 2008 rule. 59 The court held that Congress did 

not authorize EPA to exempt releases of hazardous substances from the statutory reporting requirements 

under CERCLA and EPCRA. 60 The court concluded that the information gained from this reporting 

51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "CERCLAJEPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of 

Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms," 73 Federal Register 76951, December 18, 200&. 52 Ibid., 73 Federal Register 76949. 

53 Ibid., 73 Federal Register 76950. 

54 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, '"CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of 

Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste," 72 Federal Register 73700~ 73708, December 28, 2007. 

"42 u.s.c. §9601(10). 

"42 U.S.C. §9603(a). 

51 42 U.S.C. §9607(j). 

58 Petition for Review, Waterkeeper Alliance v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 853 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 15, 2009) (No. 09-1017). 

"Waterkeeper Alliance v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 853 F.3d 527, 537-38 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 

""!d. at 534-36. 
74 


30052.054

Congressional Research Service 10 

would not have "trivial or no value," but that the infonnation could potentially provide "some real 

benefits" to the public and local emergency responders. 61 The court subsequently approved multiple EPA 

motions to stay (i.e., delay) the issuance of an order to lift the exemptions in the 2008 rule to allow more 

time to develop procedures for reporting and collecting release data, considering the potentially large 

number of farms that had not reported previously under the 2008 rule. The court granted the most recent 

stay on February I, 2018, extending it until May I, 2018. 62 

Trump Administration Guidance 

During the Trump Administration, EPA has issued guidance to instruct fanns that they should comply 

with the reporting of air releases under Section I 03 of CERCLA through filing annual continuous release 

reports with the National Response Center once the court order becomes effective after the expiration of 

the stay. 63 EPA has issued guidelines for fanns to estimate the quantity of continuous releases using 

various existing methodologies, and has announced that the agency is developing additional 

methodologies to better infonn emission estimates. This guidance for continuous release reporting and 

emission estimates applies to reporting under Section I 03 of CERCLA. 

EPA also has issued separate guidance outlining the Trump Administration's interpretation that fanns 

using substances in "routine agricultural operations" are excluded from emergency notification of releases 

under Section 304 of EPCRA. 64 Based on this interpretation, EPA has announced that farms are not 

required to report air releases from animal waste to state and local officials, and that the agency intends to 

conduct a rulemaking on its interpretation of this exemption. The George W. Bush Administration did not 

render an interpretation of the "routine agricultural operations" exemption in its 2008 rule and instead 

detennined that Section 304 ofEPCRA did apply to large CAFOs. The Apri12017 D.C. Circuit decision 

made no reference to this particular exemption in EPCRA. 

5.2421 

As introduced, S. 2421 would amend Section I 03( e) of CERCLA to exempt "air emissions from animal 

waste (including decomposing animal waste) at a farm" from reporting to the National Response Center 

regardless of the quantity of the release of hazardous substances in air emissions. The bill would define 

the tenn "animal waste": 

to mean "feces, urine, or other excrement, digestive emission, urea, or similar substances 

emitted by animals (including any fonn of livestock, poultry, or fish)," and 

to include "animal waste that is mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil, 

or any other material typically found with such waste." 

S. 2421 would define the tenn "farm" to mean a site or area (including associated structures) that: 

61 /d. at 535-38. 

62 Per Curiam Order, Waterkeeper Alliance v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 853 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. Feb. I, 2018) (No. 09-1017). 

63 During the Trump Administration, EPA has issued guidance for fanns to report air releases from animal waste once the court 

order becomes effective. See "CERCLA and EPCRA Reporting Requirements for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from 

Animal Waste at Fanns" available at: https://www.epa.gov/epcralcercla~and~epcra-reporting-requirements-air~releases~ 

hazardous~substances~animal~waste~fanns (as viewed on March 7, 2018). 

64 EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Does EPA interpret EPCRA Section 304 to require farms to report 

releases from animal waste?, October 25,2017, available at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/question-and-answer-epcra-reporting~ 

requirements-air-releases-hazardous-substances-animal. 
75 


30052.055

Congressional Research Service 

is used "for the production of a crop;" or "the raising or selling of animals (including any 

form of livestock, poultry, or fish);" and 

"under normal conditions, produces during a farm year any agricultural products with a 

total value equal to not less than $1,000." 

11 

S. 2421 would not exempt such air emissions from federal response authority under Section l 04 if action 

were warranted to protect human health and the environment, or potential liability under Section l 07. 

In current law, Section l 03(e) of CERCLA exempts the proper application of a federally registered 

pesticide from reporting. S. 2421 would strike Section l 03( e) in its entirety, reinsert this existing 

exemption, and add an exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms as defined in the bill. S. 

2421 would not alter the treatment of pesticides under CERCLA in current law. 

S. 2421 would not amend EPCRA. However, exempting releases of hazardous substances in air emissions 

from animal waste at farms from reporting under Section I 03 of CERCLA would have the effect of 

exempting such releases from reporting to state and local officials under Section 304(a)(l) and Section 

304( a)(3) of EPCRA. Reporting is required under both of these provisions contingent upon reporting of 

hazardous substances required under Section I 03 of CERCLA. Exempting a release from reporting under 

Section l 03 of CERCLA thereby would exempt the same release from reporting under these two 

provisions in Section 304 of EPCRA. 

Whether releases of extremely hazardous substances in air emissions from animal waste would remain 

subject to other provisions ofEPCRA would depend on two factors. First, Section 304(a)(2) applies to 

releases of separately listed extremely hazardous substances that are not subject to reporting as hazardous 

substances under Section 103 ofCERCLA. For example, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are listed 

separately as extremely hazardous substances under EPCRA, not only as hazardous substances under 

CERCLA. An exemption from CERCLA therefore may not necessarily apply to separately listed 

extremely hazardous substances covered under Section 304(a)(2) ofEPCRA. Second, if substances 

released from animal waste may be considered substances used in routine agricultural operations, such 

releases may be exempt from reporting under EPCRA altogether, as the Trump Administration has 

interpreted. 

If enacted into law, S. 2421 would amend CERCLA to provide an exemption from the reporting of air 

releases of hazardous substances emitted by animal waste at farms. In turn, this amendment would have 

the effect of exempting the same releases of hazardous substances from reporting under EPCRA that is 

contingent upon reporting required under CERCLA. However, the potential applicability of EPCRA to air 

releases of separately listed extremely hazardous substances may depend on whether the Trump 

Administration's interpretation of the exemption for substances used in routine agricultural operations is 

challenged. Any potential reporting requirements under state or local laws may continue to apply though, 

as neither CERCLA nor EPCRA would preempt such requirements. 
76 


30052.056

'~ 

~Congressional ~ Research Service 

Informing the legislative debate since 1914----------------

MEMORANDUM 

To: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Attention: Kusai Merchant 

Honorable Cory A. Booker, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight 

Attention: Adam Zipkin 

March 13, 2018 

From: 

Subject: 

David M. Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy, dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390 

Supplemental Analysis: Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act/FARM Act (S. 2421) 

This memorandum responds to your request for a more detailed discussion of the analysis presented in a 

CRS memorandum provided on March 7, 2018. CRS prepared this earlier memorandum to respond to 

your initial request for an analysis of amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act or "FARM 

Act" (S. 2421), as introduced on February 13,2018. As discussed in the March 7"' CRS memorandum, S. 

2421 would exempt air releases of hazardous substances emitted by animal waste at farms from reporting 

requirements under CERCLA, and would have a bearing on the applicability of reporting requirements 

under Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

This supplemental memorandum elaborates upon the analysis presented in the March 7"' CRS 

memorandum to outline circumstances in which the emergency notification requirements in Section 304 

ofEPCRA would apply under current law, and the bearing ofS. 2421 on the applicability of these 

requirements to air releases emitted by animal waste. The March 7"' CRS memorandum provides 

additional background information in support of this analysis, and offers a broader examination of how S. 

2421 would define the terms "animal waste" and "farm" for purposes of the bill. I hope that this 

supplemental memorandum is helpful to address your questions about circumstances in which EPCRA 

may continue to apply if S. 2421 were enacted. If you need further assistance from CRS in consideration 

of this legislation or related issues, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Section 304 of EPCRA 

As explained in the March 7'" CRS memorandum, Section 304 of EPCRA outlines three situations in 

which the reporting of releases of extremely hazardous substances or hazardous substances into the 

environment is required. 1 In each situation, the person responsible for the release must notify the State 

Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and the appropriate Local Emergency Planning Committee 

' 42 U.S.C. §II 004. 

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 1 www.crs.gov 
77 


30052.057

Congressional Research Service 

(LEPC) that covers the local jurisdiction where the release occurs. Two of these situations are contingent 

upon the release being subject to notification under Section I 03 of CERCLA for reporting to the National 

Response Center.' The third situation is not contingent upon reporting under CERCLA. The three 

situations covered in Section 304 of EPCRA are as follows. 

Section 304(a)(l) requires notification of releases of extremely hazardous substances listed under 

EPCRA, if the release would require notification for hazardous substances under Section 103 of 

CERCLA3 

Section 304(a)(3) requires notification of releases of other hazardous substances that are not 

separately listed as extremely hazardous substances under EPCRA, if the release would require 

notification under Section 103 ofCERCLA.4 

Section 304(a)(2) requires notification of releases of extremely hazardous substances listed under 

EPCRA (but that are not subject to notification under CERCLA), if three criteria are met.' 

In this third situation, releases of extremely hazardous substances listed under EPCRA would require 

notification under Section 304(a)(2), if the release: 

(A) is not a federally permitted release as defined in Section 101(10) ofCERCLA;6 

(B) is in an amount in excess of a reportable quantity that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) designated under Section 302 ofEPCRA;7 and 

(C) "occurs in a manner" that would require notification under Section 103 ofCERCLA. 

5.2421 

S. 2421 would amend Section I 03( e) of CERCLA to exempt "air emissions from animal waste (including 

decomposing animal waste) at a farm" from reporting to the National Response Center regardless of the 

quantity of the release of hazardous substances in air emissions. The bill would not amend Section 304 or 

any other provisions of EPCRA. Although S. 2421 would not amend this statute, the bill would have the 

effect of eliminating reporting requirements under Section 304(a)(l) and Section 304(a)(3) ofEPCRA for 

air releases of hazardous substances emitted by animal waste at farms, in so far as the terms "animal 

waste" and "farm" are defined in the bill. 

Both Section 304(a)(l) and Section 304(a)(3) ofEPCRA are contingent upon reporting required under 

Section I 03 of CERCLA. Exempting a release from reporting under Section I 03 of CERCLA thereby 

would have the effect of exempting the same release from reporting under Section 304(a)(l) and Section 

304(a)(3) ofEPCRA. TheApri12017 court decision referenced in the March 7'' CRS memorandum 

(Waterkeeper Alliance, eta/., v. EPA) described tWs statutory relationship in terms of"a release that 

triggers the CERCLA duty also automatically trips the EPCRA reporting requirements in subsections (I) 

and (3)" of Section 304.8 

2 42 u.s.c. §9603. 

3 42 U.S.C. §11004(a)(l). 

4 42 U.S.C. §11004(a)(3). 

5 42 U.S.C. §11004(a)(2). 

6 42 u.s.c. §9601(10). 

'42 u.s.c. §11002. 

'Waterkeeper Alliance v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 853 F.3d 527,537-38 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 
78 


30052.058

Congressional Research Service 

S. 2421 would not have a bearing on the reporting of releases of extremely hazardous substances under 

Section 304(a)(2) ofEPCRA though, as this provision is not contingent upon reporting required under 

Section 103 ofCERCLA. If the exemption from CERCLA inS. 2421 were enacted, the applicability of 

Section 304(a)(2) therefore would remain the same as in current law. An air release of an extremely 

hazardous substance emitted by animal waste at a farm would be subject to Section 304(a)(2) if all three 

statutory criteria for reporting were met. 

An air release of an extremely hazardous substance emitted by animal waste would satisfy the first 

criterion in Section 304(a)(2)(A) if it were not a federally permitted release. Section 101(10) ofCERCLA 

defines the term "federally permitted release" to mean releases regulated under other specific laws. 

Section 10 I ( 1 O)(H) authorizes a federally permitted release for "any emission into the air" subject to a 

permit, regulation, or State Implementation Plan, pursuant to the Clean Air Act.' CRS is not aware of the 

use of these authorities to regulate air releases emitted by animal waste upon which a federally permitted 

release presently could be based. If such air releases were permitted under the Clean Air Act, the releases 

would be exempt from reporting and liability under CERCLA as a federally permitted release, and 

thereby exempt from reporting to state and local officials under Section 304 of EPCRA. 

An air release of an extremely hazardous substance emitted by animal waste would satisfY the second 

criterion in Section 304(a)(2)(B) if the quantity of the release were to exceed the quantitative threshold for 

reporting that EPA designated in federal regulation pursuant to Section 302 ofEPCRA. 10 For example, 

EPA separately listed ammonia and hydrogen sulfide (substances commonly emitted by animal waste) as 

extremely hazardous substances, and designated I 00 pounds released during a 24-hour period as the 

threshold for reporting under Section 302 of EPCRA. Air releases of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide 

emitted by animal waste in excess of 100 pounds during a 24-hour period therefore would satisfy this 

second criterion in Section 304(a)(2)(B). 

An air release of an extremely hazardous substance emitted by animal waste (e.g., ammonia or hydrogen 

sulfide) would satisfy the third criterion of Section 304(a)(2)(C) ofEPCRA, if the release were to occur in 

the same manner as a "release" that would require reporting under CERCLA. As outlined in the March 7"' 

CRS memorandum, the term "release" in CERCLA is relatively broad with respect to the manner in 

which a hazardous substance may enter the environment, including spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, 

emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the 

environment.'' The term "environment" is defined in Section I 0 1(8) of CERCLA to include surface 

water, groundwater, a drinking water supply, surface soils, sub-surface soils, or ambient air. 12 Section 329 

of EPCRA defines the terms "release" and "environment" similar in scope to CERCLA. 13 The federal 

regulations promulgated under Section 304 ofEPCRA reflect these statutory definitions. 14 Both CERCLA 

and EPCRA generally treat emissions into the ambient air as releases into the environment. 

In implementation, EPA has treated the phrase "occurs in a marmer" in EPCRA Section 304(a)(2)(C) to 

mean the nature of the release in terms of how a substance enters the environment, not that reporting is 

required under Section 103 of CERCLA. Otherwise, Section 304(a)(2) would be rendered meaningless in 

9 42 U.S.C. §960I(!O)(H). 

10 Reportable quantities f-or extremely hazardous substances subject to emergency release notification under Section 304 of 

EPCRA are codified in federal regulation at 40 C.F.R. Part 355, Appendix A. 

"42 U.S.C. §9601(22). 

12 42 U.S.C. §9601(8). 

13 42 U.S.C. §l 1049. The definition of the tenn ''release" in EPCRA is nearly identical to that in CERCLA. The definition of the 

tenn "environment" in EPCRA is similar to CERCLA, but is more generally worded in its description to encompass "water, air, 

and land and the interrelationship which exists among and between water, air. and land and all living things." 

"40 C.F.R. §355.61. 
79 


30052.059

Congressional Research Service 

covering releases of extremely hazardous substances that do not require reporting as hazardous substances 

under CERCLA, while requiring reporting under CERCLA at the same time. 

The March 7"' CRS memorandum observed that the exemption from reporting under Section 103 of 

CERCLA in S. 2421 may not necessarily exempt releases of separately listed extremely hazardous 

substances from reporting under Section 304(a)(2) ofEPCRA. The applicability of this provision to a 

particular release would depend on whether all three statutory criteria outlined above are met. Regardless 

of these criteria though, Section 304 in its entirety may not apply to air releases from animal waste at 

farms if the Trump Administration's intewretation of the exemption for substances used in routine 

agricultural operations is not challenged.' S. 2421 would not have a bearing on this exemption. 

Also as noted in the March 7'h CRS memorandum, potential reporting requirements under state or local 

laws may continue to apply regardless of an exemption in federal law, as neither CERCLA nor EPCRA 

would preempt such state or local requirements. 

15 The March 71

n CRS memorandum provides further discussion of the Trump Administration's interpretation of the exemption in 

Section 311 ( e} of EPCRA for substances used in routine agricultural operations. This interpretation is outlined in the following 

agency guidance: EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Does EPA Interpret EPCRA Section 304 to require farms 

to report releases/rom animal waste?, October 25,2017, available at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/question~and~answer~epcra· 

reporting·requirements-air~releases-hazardous&substances-animal. 
80 

Senator CARPER. I want to thank my colleague for yielding and 

giving me this opportunity to ask some questions so I can get going 

to another important meeting. 

Thank you all for being here, for your testimony. 

I want to come back to something that Mr. Satterfield said, talking about I think it was the University of Georgia that you talked 

about, with the level of emissions with respect to the poultry industry. Was that the University of Georgia? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. University of Georgia, yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. In about 30 seconds, just give us that real quick 

synopsis of that study. 

And then what I am going to ask is Mr. Kuhn to compare and 

contrast what you presented to us today with what the University 

of Georgia is reporting here. Please. Just real briefly. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The University of Georgia study was looking 

at concentrations of ammonia outside of chicken houses, parts per 

million versus mass or volume of emissions that come out of the 

houses, so what is the air quality. And the study found that the 

measurements were made further and further away from the chicken houses, the ammonia detection levels kept going down and down 

and down. At no time during that study did the odor threshold levels exceed or meet OSHA’s standards. And even when there were 

ammonia levels detected, they were well below EPA’s standard. 

So, you have to understand that as you move farther away, you 

are not impacting the neighbors as much as some people would 

have you believe. And it is important to understand that inside the 

chicken house, if the ammonia is too high, those birds are not going 

to live. Taking care of the animal, the welfare of the animal is the 

No. 1 job of our growers, and preventing ammonia creation is 

among their top priorities. 

If the ammonia is over 25 parts per million, it is hazardous for 

the birds, obviously not good for the farmers who are in the houses 

working with the houses. So a lot of efforts are made to keep the 

ammonia levels low. Some of that is done through improvements 

in feed conversion, the conversion of the feed ingredients into meat. 

We see each year a better feed conversion, more of the nutrients 

being made into meat, which means there is less opportunity for 

nitrogen to come out the rear end of the chicken and eventually 

form ammonia. 

There are products available that can be put down in the chicken 

houses between flocks that will lower the pH, they are acid products that lower the pH, which discourages the formation of ammonia. That is an important part of the process. The U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service provides 

cost share money for that. 

Keeping the houses dry is important because the ammonia needs 

moisture to form. It is also good for bird health. 

And then we have a program, as you know because you have 

been out on some farms, where we have a full time employee whose 

job is to work with chicken growers to put up vegetative buffers 

around the chicken houses; trees, bushes, tall grasses. So those 

things help keep the ammonia levels low, keep them from dissipating to neighboring properties. As the Georgia study found, 

81 

even without all those things, there still is a low level moving off 

the property. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. Thanks very much. 

What Mr. Satterfield is talking about reminds me of our layered 

approach that we have for border security. It is not just one thing, 

it is like a whole host of things to enable us to keep bad people 

and bad products from coming across our borders. 

Mr. Kuhn, thank you very much for your testimony. It is great 

to have you here as well. Just react very briefly, if you will, I don’t 

have much time, just real briefly, maybe about a minute, to what 

Mr. Satterfield has said in the Georgia study. 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, certainly. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent 

the University of Georgia study that Mr. Satterfield has talked 

about be made a part of the record, please? 

Senator ROUNDS. Is there objection? 

Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

82 


30052.060

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: \'>··, ,'/'' ';''"< ,)\ C';lf,_; C:.;L't.'pUblK:\t10f, :':~:0:.: :~:1.{01 

Ammonia concentrations 

downstream of broiler operations 

Article ·, The Journal of Applied Poultry Research· September 2009 

DOl: 10.3382/japr.2008·00126 

CITATIONS 

4 

7 authors, including: 

Harper Consulting Co., Trace-Gas ... 

91 PUBLICATIONS 3,062 CITATIONS 

SEE PROFILE 

READS 

42 

All content following this page was uploaded by 

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. 

University of Georgia 

48 PUBLICATIONS 416 CITATIONS 

SEE PROFILE 

on 28 February 2016. 
83 


30052.061

02009 Poultry Science Association, Inc 

Ammonia concentrations downstream 

of broiler operations1 

B. D. Fairchild,*1 M. Czarick,t L.A. Harper,* J. W. Worley,t C. W. Ritz,* 

B. D. Hale,~ and L. P. Naeher~ 

*Department of Poultry Science, f Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, 

and t Department of Environmental Health Science, 

The University of Georgia, Athens 30602 

Primary Audience: Poultry Producers, Government Environmental Agencies, Researchers 

SUMMARY 

Within broiler production facilities, NH3 concentrations have always been of concern from 

a bird performance and worker health standpoint. However, NH3 emitted from poultry houses 

is receiving increased attention from the environmental and community nuisance perspectives. 

Studies on NH3 emissions from poultry operations found within the literature do not address 

how NH3 disperses or the actual concentrations observed at varying distances downwind from 

poultry houses. The objective of this study was to measure downwind NH3 concentrations emitted from broiler houses when ventilation rates would be at a maximum. Open-path laser spectrometers were utilized for this study and for period 1 were placed 100, 200, and 300 ft from 

the houses from 28 to 49 d and in period 2 were placed at 100, 200, and 500 ft from 50 to 56 d. 

Data were collected during the last 4 wk of a 56-d grow-out cycle in 2 periods during a summer flock on a 4-house broiler farm located in northeastern Georgia. Ammonia concentrations 

were lower as distance from the houses increased, with NH3 levels at 100, 200, 300, and 500ft 

being less than 1 ppm in approximately 60, 75, 85, and 90% of the observations, respectively. 

Ammonia concentrations extending to 100 ft from the houses were influenced by the tunnel 

fans themselves. Wind direction and wind speed were the factors that significantly influenced 

downstream NH3 concentrations beyond 100 ft. At no time did measured NH3 levels meet or 

exceed established Occupational Safety and Health Administration-US Environmental Protection Agency NH3 odor-detection threshold values during this study. 

Key words: wind speed, climate, wind direction, emissions 

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM 

Air emissions are important issues for the 

poultry industry from both environmental and 

nuisance viewpoints. The 2004 report from the 

2009 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 18:630-639 

doi: 1 0.3382/japr.2008-00 126 

National Academy of Sciences Ad Hoc Committee on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding 

Operations concluded that the existing data in 

the literature regarding NH3 emission rates from 

animal feeding operations was inconsistent and 

1

Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and 

does not imply recommendation or endorsement by The University of Georgia. 2

Corresponding author; brianf@uga.edu 
84 


30052.062

FAIRCHILD ET AL.: AMMONIA OUTSIDE OF BROILER HOUSES 631 

Figure 1. Study farm layout (not to scale). 

that more work needed to be performed in this 

area of study [1]. Studies in trace gas emissions 

from commercial poultry operations do not 

address gas concentrations once they are exhausted from the poultry house [2--6]. Litigation 

against growers has implicated NH3 and particulate matter as a nuisance or health-related issue 

[7]. Knowledge ofNH3 dissipation is needed for 

100 r ._ ... 

90 .. ..... ... ··~ 

80 . ..... 

!l .... .. .. 

Q "' 

.!:> 60 ·; .•. I . ........ · ...... 

Q 

.... 

Q 50 . 

~ 

!l 40 

~ .. 

::0.. "' 30 : ...... ... 

20 .... 1-· . 

10 ..... ..... ......... .. 

0 -~,~--- r ., ;; -7 ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; .; ;; ;; ;; 

'7 '7 '7 '7 '7 '7 ~ '7 .., 

ob '1. :::: ;!:: = ..... "' .... "' .... ..... ..... "' M "' .... N "' "' .... 

r 

poultry operations, poultry companies, and local 

governments when addressing nuisance complaints and lawsuits concerning these issues. 

One objective of this study was to measure 

NH3 concentrations at distances from the source 

of emissions (tunnel fans) on a commercial 

broiler farm during periods of high air exchange 

rates typically encountered during hot weather 

with near-market-age birds. A second objective 

was to determine how wind speed and direction 

influenced NH3 concentrations on a tunnel-ventilated broiler farm. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

This study was conducted on a 4-house 

broiler farm in northeastern Georgia, from July 

18 through August 12, 2007. The 40 x 500ft 

tunnel-ventilated, dropped-ceiling houses were 

orientated approximately east-to-west, with approximately 750ft of open pasture located on the 

east end of the 4 houses (Figure I). The houses 

sit on a fill with a gradual I O-ft drop-off occurI··· 

, . 

;; ~ 00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 = = = = = = = "' = = = = 1 -:: --;: -:: < l < J < ~ 1 = -:: ... , ;;:; ..... .;, ,.!. .!. "' .... ~ 

Date 

Figure 2. Percentage of usable NH3 data for each day used in the analysis. Useable data were defined as having 

an observation at each laser location and having at least 67% of the daily data present. 
85 


30052.063

632 

94 

92 

90 

88 

86 

G:'84 

~ 82 

= 80 s 1s 

5 76 

,::: 74 

72 

70 

68 

66 

64 

~ 

.... 

;; 

t 

.L' , ,. / ,.,J,./ 

v 

;; ;; ;; 

~ '7 

;:) ~ 

., ........... 

•' ...... .•. / 

' / ~ 

-./ 

;; ;; ;; '7 ;i: '7 ::; N ;;; 

Date 

JAPR: Field Report 

----~----~ / '\ . / '\ 

/ '\ 

~ 

-~ 

1!. 

0 

............ / "\ a ......._. '\ ,.:: 

'l; 

4 ~ s 

z " 

6'. 

:: 

~ 

0 

"' .. .. .. = = = = = "" = "" ~ -< -< < < ... J, .0 1 :!: 

...... outside temperature _.,._ tunnel fans 

Figure 3. Average daily outside temperature and tunnel fan operation. 

ring for the first 90 ft. The field was relatively 

flat, with a I% slope from I 00 to 500 ft. The 

houses were equipped with five 36-in. side-wall 

exhaust fans (approximately I 0,000 ft3 /min at 

0.05 in. of static pressure) and eight 50-in. tunnel fans (approximately 23,000 ft3

/min at 0.05 

in. of static pressure) [8], 6 of which were located in the eastern end wall and 1 of which was 

located on either side of the tunnel fan end wall. 

Evaporative cooling was provided by approximately 60 ft of 6-in. evaporative cooling pads 

located on each side wall of the western end of 

each of the 4 houses. 

Approximately 23,500 birds were placed 

in each of the 4 houses. The monitoring study 

was initiated when the birds were 4 wk old. The 

study was concluded when the birds were marketed at approximately 8 wk of age. The litter 

in the houses had been in place for 2 previous 

flocks. The farm manager operated the houses 

according to standard industry practices. 

Equipment was placed in the open pasture 

located to the east of the poultry houses. This 

position was chosen because of the open pasture location and the direction at which the air 

mass would be exiting the tunnel fans. To avoid 

confusion between downwind from the fans vs. 

ambient downwind, in this study, the direction 

of airflow from the fans was defined as downstream, whereas downwind was defined as the 

direction the ambient wind was blowing. Two 

weather stations [9] were placed on the farm to 

monitor temperature, RH, wind speed, and wind 

direction. Wind speed and direction sensors 

were placed 10.5 ft from the ground. 

Downstream NH3 concentrations were measured using open-path, line-averaged laser spectrometry [I OJ. These open-path lasers (OPL) use 

the principle of a single-line, fixed-wavelength 

radiation absorption within the near-infrared 

spectrum of I ,300 to I, 700 nm [II]. The OPL 

were tuned to I ,512 nm for the measurement 

of NH3• Such a narrow absorption line avoids 

mutual absorption interference of other gases 

such as C02, CH4, and water vapor. These instruments have been calibrated routinely at the 

factory and have an automatic internal reference 

procedure with a known NH3 standard, and calibration was checked on site with standard gases 

before and after the study to account for any instrument drift. 

Ammonia concentrations were measured 

downstream from the houses at I 00-, 200-, and 

300-ft distances from the houses for the first 

3 wk of the study (28 to 49 d). During the last 

week of the study (50 to 56 d), NH3 concentrations were measured at 100, 300, and 500ft from 

the houses to obtain measurements farther away 

g 
86 


30052.064

FAIRCHILD ET AL.: AMMONIA OUTSIDE OF BROILER HOUSES 633 

from the houses when the greatest amount of 

air was being exchanged. The line-average concentration was measured over a path length of 

approximately 180 ft at 56 in. from the ground 

and was centered on houses I and 2 to avoid the 

effects that the trees located on the south side of 

house 4 might have on airflow during periods 

with wind (Figure 1 ). 

All data were synchronized with house temperature, ventilation level (number of exhaust 

fans), and ventilation mode (tunnel vs. side-wall 

inlets), which were collected using a personal 

computer connected to the electronic environmental controllers in the houses. 

Data Analysis 

Measurements were taken and recorded per 

minute from weather stations and OPL. Oneminute data were then averaged on a IS-min basis for analysis. There were periods throughout 

the study when NH3 measurements could not be 

collected at I or more of the OPL locations, priTable 1. Average ammonia concentrations for the 2 

study periods 

Location (ft) Ammonia (ppm) SEM Observations' (no.) 

28to49d 

100 0.528 0.017 914 

200 0.479 0.016 914 

300 0.328 0.011 914 

50to56d 

100 0.492 0.052 221 

300 0.391 0.031 221 

500 0.251 0.021 221 

1 An observation is a 15-min average. 

marily because of rain, condensation on the reflectors, or foggy conditions. Because one of the 

primary objectives of the study was to determine 

how NH3 concentration varied with distance 

from the poultry houses, any IS-min period that 

did not have an NH3 data point at each of the 

3 OPL locations was not included for analysis. 

To represent average daily NH3 concentrations 

more accurately, study days that did not have 

-too• 

----200' 

- -300' 

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 

Ammonia Concentration (ppm) 

Figure 4. Cumulative percentage of observations with corresponding NH, concentration (28 to 49 d). 
87 


30052.065

634 JAPR: Field Report 

100 

90 

"' = .s 80 ~ .. ... 

"' 70 ., 

.0 

0 

.... 60 

~ " 

! 

= 50 

" --too• 

!! 

" 40 Q.. ----200' 

" ·E 

"' 30 

= e 

a 20 

u = 

10 

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 

Ammonia Concentration (ppm) 

Figure 5. Cumulative percentage of observations with corresponding NH, concentration (50 to 56 d). 

at least 67% of the data present were not used 

(Figure 2). 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The data indicated that the houses were in tunnel ventilation mode approximately 96% of the 

time. In tunnel ventilation mode, all fresh air enters the house through openings on the west end 

and is exhausted through the tunnel fans on the 

east end of the house. When not in tunnel mode, 

the houses were ventilated through a combination of side-wall air inlets evenly spaced down 

the length of the houses and a combination of 

side-wall exhaust fans and l or 2 tunnel fans. 

The average number of tunnel fans operating 

each day increased over the course of the flock, 

corresponding to flock age and average outside 

temperature (Figure 3). During the first week 

of the study, fewer than half the tunnel ventilation fans were required to maintain proper house 

conditions. During the last 2 wk of the study, essentially all the tunnel fans operated 24 h/d. 

Average NH3 concentrations during the 28-

to 49-d period when the OPL were located at 

100, 200, and 300 ft from the poultry houses 

are shown in Table I. Average NH3 concentration during the last week of the study (50 to 56 

d) when the OPL were 100, 300, and 500 ft are 

also shown in Table I. The highest NH3 concentrations during both study periods were at the 

100-ft OPL location and decreased with distance 

from the houses, ranging from approximately 

0.50 ppm at 100 ft to approximately 0.25 ppm 

at 500 ft. (Note that the daily averages shown 

in Table I are based on data from the last 4 wk 

of an 8-wk flock when NH3 production was at 

its highest.) It was expected that the downstream 

NH3 concentrations would be much lower during the first few weeks of the flock, when the 

amount of NH3 the houses emit is significantly 

lower, compared with the last 4 wk of the flock, 

because of reduced ventilation requirements, 

broiler size, and manure production. The overall 

tlock average at each site would be lower than 

the values listed in Table I. 
88 


30052.066

FAIRCHILD ET AL.: AMMONIA OUTSIDE OF BROILER HOUSES 635 

1.2 ----~--~--------~---------.~--------~~,-~" 

1.1 

e o.9·r ... 

.:: 0.8 = 0 

·.::: 

.. 

l:; 

.. = 0.6 "' 

100' 

.. = 

u 0.5; 200' 

.::: 

= 0.4 . 0 

s 

s 0.3 < 

0.2 

• "*' . A 

• 

300' 

0.1 

Figure 6. Daily average NH3 concentration (56 in. from the soil surface). 

Figures 4 and 5 show the cumulative percentage of observations vs. NH3 concentration at the 

different locations for the 2 study periods. For 

the first study period, NH3 concentrations were 

I ppm or less 64, 86, and 97% of the time at the 

I 00-, 200-, and 300-ft locations, respectively. 

For the second study period, NH3 concentrations 

were I ppm or less 76, 91, and 94% of the time 

at the I 00-, 300-, and 500-ft locations, respectively. 

During the 28- to 49-d period, the maximum 

recorded NH3 concentrations at the I 00-, 200-, 

and 300-ft locations were 2.9, 2.9, and 2.5 ppm, 

respectively. During the 50- to 56-d period, the 

maximum recorded NH3 concentrations were 

2.1, 2.4, and 1.6 ppm at 100, 300, and 500ft, 

respectively. Although the closer sites were 

somewhat lower during the second study period, 

when the emissions were higher, the climatic effects of wind speed, wind direction, and temperature also were associated with concentration. 

All the above maximum NH3 concentrations 

occurred only for a single 15-min measurement 

period during the night. For the first study period, the observed NH3 concentrations were 2 

ppm or greater for an accumulative time of 4 h 

at the I 00-ft location, 2 h at the 200-ft location, 

and I h at the 300-ft location. During the second study period, when the ventilation rate was 

higher, NH3 concentrations were greater than 

2 ppm for an accumulative time of I h or less 

at the I 00- and 200-ft locations. It is important 

to note that 2 ppm is well below the detectable 

NH3 odor threshold limit of between 5 and 50 

ppm given by the US Environmental Protection 

Agency [12]. 

Average daily NH3 concentrations downstream of the poultry houses increased over the 

course of the study (Figure 6). The general increasing trend was due to a combination of factors: NH3 emission rates increase as birds get 

older and excrete more manure, and ventilation 

rates increase in response to a larger bird heat 

load and (in this study) higher ambient temperatures. There were 2 deviations in the general trend: I) an ambient temperature decrease 
89 


30052.067

636 

1.4 

1.3 

e 1.2 

Q. !.I e 1.0 = .s 0.9 

~ 0.8 

~ 0.7 

= 0.6 e 

u 

.!! 0.5 

= 0.4 s "' 

e 0.3 

< O.l 

0.1 

o.o 

• aU other wind directions 

f!l! 190 - 300 degrees ---~·---"-<• -~~~><"<~M"-~< ··~-·~~··~ 

100' 200' 300' 

Oistance from Hou!r'es 

Figure 7. Average of 15-min NH3 concentrations with 

respect to general wind direction for 28 to 49 d. 

(July 22) with decreased tunnel ventilation and 

increased use of side-wall fans, creating greater 

dispersion of the exiting air, and 2) on August 

11, the average NH3 concentration at the 100-ft 

location being Jess than at either the 300- or 500-

ft location. (The most likely cause for the latter 

relatively low NH3 concentrations was an equipment error.) Average daily NH3 concentrations 

decreased more from the 100- to 200-ft measurement locations than from the 200- to 300-ft 

locations or from the 300- to 500-ft locations. 

This relatively rapid decrease in NH3 concentrations near the source is characteristic of the 

unstable air influence on dispersion. Variability 

in the rate of decrease is due to the influence of 

temperature, wind direction, and wind speed. 

Wind direction was a significant influence 

on downstream NH3 concentrations, despite the 

fact that the tunnel fans in the houses forced 

airflow toward the sensor sites. Ammonia concentrations were greatest when the predominant 

wind direction was from the houses toward the 

measurement locations. Because the tunnel fans 

were on the eastern end of the houses, it was 

expected that the highest observed NH3 concentrations would occur when the winds were 

blowing roughly west to east. Indeed, 90% of 

the observations when the NH3 concentrations 

were found to be greater than 0.5 ppm at 300 

ft occurred when the wind was blowing toward 

JAPR: Field Report 

a compass direction of 190 to 300° (Figure 7). 

Similar results were found 200 ft from the tunnel fans (92% ). The effect wind direction had on 

downstream NH3 concentrations was most notable at distances greater than 100 ft downstream 

from the tunnel fans. The reduced influence of 

wind direction at the 100-ft OPL location was 

due to a low but measurable wind velocity produced by the tunnel fans at the 100-ft location. 

It is important to note that this particular 

farm was selected in part because 6 of the 8 tunnel ventilation fans in the houses were located 

across the eastern end walls of the houses. This 

fan configuration created a single plume of air 

from each of the houses directed toward the field 

measurement sites. In most tunnel-ventilated 

poultry houses, the majority of the fans are not 

positioned in the end wall, but rather in the side 

walls in close proximity to the end walls. This 

side-wall fan configuration, in effect, creates 

2 air masses exiting at right angles to the long 

axes of the poultry houses, potentially resulting 

in more mixing of the house air with the outside environment and creating less of an exhaust 

plume effect. 

During the first study period, 59% of the 

measurements were taken when the wind was 

from 190 to 300° (in the direction of the measurement locations). Average NH3 measure-

• aU other wind directions 

1.4 l9U- 300 dc~rccs 

1.3 

1.2 

g_ 1.1 

e 1.0 = 

~ 0.9 

e 0.8 

~ 0.7 

= c (1.6 

~ 0.5 ·;; 

¢ OA 

= e 0.3 < 0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

100' lfl()' 300' 

llistnncc from Houser, 

Figure 8. Average of 15-min NH, concentrations with 

respect to general wind direction for 50 to 56 d. 

g 
90 


30052.068

FAIRCHILD ET AL.: AMMONIA OUTSIDE OF BROILER HOUSES 637 

2.75 

2.50 ~ ... 

'[ 2.25 X 

-= 2.00 .. 4 ... 

.

g_ I'~~: ... 1.75 .... 

b 1.50 ·a~ .. t. -•-~­ ~ ~ 1 .. 25 

-·- 8 

0.25 

0.00 

I . ..-~-----:-----~- --1 ~" l- . .l 

! l 

-·--+--··· ·r----i I . I •~~•vv __ , ___ "'._ v-•~~-~--L-•~v~.l 

l 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 

Wind Speed (mph) 

Figure 9. Ammonia concentration and wind speed at 300 ft downstream from the broiler houses. 

ments were approximately twice as high at the 

I 00-ft location when the wind was blowing in 

this same direction, as compared with all other 

directions (Figure 7). The differences increased 

nearly 4-fold at the 200- and 300-ft locations, 

suggesting a major influence of wind direction 

on measurement site concentrations. During the 

second study period, 37% of the measurements 

were taken when the wind was blowing between 

190 and 300°. At the 100-ft location, there was 

nearly a I 0-fold increase when the wind was 

blowing between 190 and 300° compared with 

when it was blowing from all other directions 

(Figure 8). The difference decreased to approximately 3-fold for the 300- and 500-ft locations, 

further indicating the influence of the fans on 

the closest measurement site compared with the 

effect of climate (wind speed and direction) on 

more distant downstream sites. It is important 

to note that average NH3 concentrations at the 

200-, 300-, and 500-ft locations remained well 

below 1 ppm in both wind direction scenarios. 

Figure 9 shows the relationship between ammonia concentration and wind speed. The highest average concentrations occurred when wind 

speed dropped below 2 mph. This suggests that 

less mixing of the air is occurring as the wind 

speed decreases and the dispersion of the emitted NH3 is reduced. The highest downstream 

NH3 concentrations occurred at night between 

the hours of 5 p.m. and 7 a.m. because of stable nighttime weather conditions and low wind 

speeds. The diurnal variation was most clear for 

the 200- and 300-ft locations, where the measurement sites were less affected by the airflow 

produced by the tunnel fans compared with the 

100-ft location. The average daytime (6 a.m. to 

6 p.m.) and nighttime (6 p.m. to 6 a.m.) NH3 

concentrations for both study periods are shown 

in Figures 10 and 11. Nighttime NH3 concentrations were approximately twice as high as 

daytime concentrations for both study periods at 

distances from the poultry houses of 200 ft or 

greater. 
91 


30052.069

638 

0.7 

e 0.6 

~ 

" 0.5 ·3 

i 0.4 

" 0 fl.3 ...; 

. 

" 0.1 

s 

e 0.1 < 

o.u 200' 

•Day 

~Night 

300' 

Dist!HH.'<: from Poultry Houses 

Figure 10. Average of 15~min NH3 concentrations 

(day and night) at 200 and 300 ft downstream for 28 

to49d. 

Over the course of the 4-wk study with nearmarket-age birds, the maximum 15-min average downstream NH3 concentrations during 

the observation periods at distances I 00 fl or 

greater from the poultry houses were detected 

as greater than 2 ppm for only short periods of 

time (first study period, 4 h at the I 00-ft location, 2 h at the 200-fl location, and I h at the 

300-ft location; second study period, I h at the 

I 00 fl location and less at the 200-fl and more 

distant locations). These concentrations reflect 

the effect of climate on downwind dispersion 

and are concentrations that are less than the EPA 

detectable odor threshold range of 5 to 50 ppm 

[12]. Average NH3 concentrations for both study 

e 

.. 

= 

= .: 

e 

~ § 

v 

.~ 

" 0 

s 

s 

< 

0.7 

!1.6 

0.5 

(1.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

ll.!l 300' 

a nay 

•l'•aght 

500' 

Distance from l'ouliry Houses 

Figure 11. Average hourly NH3 concentrations at 300 

and 500 ft downstream for 50 to 56 d. 

JAPR: Field Report 

periods at distances of 200 ft or greater were 

less than I ppm. Ammonia concentrations were 

I ppm or less for approximately 85, 90, and 95% 

of the measurements made at 200, 300, and 500 

ft downstream, respectively. Peak downstream 

NH3 concentrations occurred when wind speeds 

were less than 2 mph. The highest downstream 

NH3 concentrations occurred between the hours 

of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., which are typically associated with low wind speeds and thermally stable 

weather conditions. 

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 

I. Ammonia concentrations decreased rapidly in the first 300 ft downstream from 

the broiler house. 

2. Wind direction and wind speed had a 

large influence on NH3 concentrations 

downstream from poultry houses. 

3. Although I farm and I flock were all 

that were monitored during this study, 

these data provide the first measurements ofNH3 concentrations downwind 

from poultry houses. More work is needed on this topic in the future to examine 

the impact that housing design and other 

farm management practices might have 

on NH3 concentrations outside poultry 

houses. 

REFERENCES AND NOTES 

1. National Research Council. 2003. Air emissions from 

animal feeding operations. Nat!. Acad. Press, Washington, 

DC. 

2. Burns, R. T., K A. Armstrong. E R. Walker, C. J. 

Richards, and D. R. Raman. 2003. Ammonia emissions from 

a broiler production facility in the United States, Pages 88-

95 in Proc. Int. Syrup. Gaseous and Odor Emissions from 

Animal Production Facilities. Commission Intemationale du 

Genie Rural, Harsens, Denmark. 

3. Burns, R. T., H. Xin, R. Gates, H. Li, S. Hoff, L. 

Moody, D. Overhults, and J. Earnest. 2007. Tyson Broiler 

Ammonia Emission Monitoring Project: Final Report. Iowa 

State University, University of Kentucky. May l, 2007. [Re~ 

port on emissions study sponsored by Tyson Foods Inc.] 

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/airquality/reports.html Accessed Oct. 2008. 

4. Lacey. R. E., J. S. Redwine, and C. B. Parnell Jr .. 

2003. Particulate matter and ammonia emission f3ctors for 

tunnel-ventilated broiler production houses in the soutl1em 

U.S. Trans. ASAE 46:1203-1214. 

5. Liang, Y., H. Xin, E. F. Wheeler, R. S. Gates. l S. 

Z~jaczkowski. P. Topper, H. Li, and K. D. Casey. 2005. Ammonia emissions from U.S. laying hen houses in Iowa and 

Pennsylvania. Trans. ASAE 48:1927-1941. 

0 

aci 
92 


30052.070

FAIRCHILD ET AL.: AMMONIA OUTSIDE OF BROILER HOUSES 639 

6. Wheeler, E. F., K. D. Casey, R. S. Gates, H. Xin, J. 

L. Zajaczkowski, P. A. Topper, Y. Liang, and A. J. Pescatore. 

2006, Ammonia emissions from twelve U.S. broiler chicken 

houses. Trans. ASABE 49:1495-1512. 

7. Secrest, C. 2003. US District Court, Northern District 

of Ohio, United States of America (USEPA) vs. Buckeye 

Egg Farm, L.P., Croton Farm, LLC, and Anton Pohlmann. 

Civil Action No. 3:03CV7681, Dec. 2003. 

8. Model CGSBC50 tunnel fans, and model CGSBC36 

exhaust fans, Cumberland, Assumption, IL. 

9. Weather station part number H21-002, Onset Computer Corporation, Buzzards Bay, MA. 

I 0. GasFinder Open Path Monitor, Boreal Laser Inc., 

Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada. 

II. Bauer, J., J. Tulip, P. Kain, M. Paulson, andJ. Ondrak. 

1999. Results of the application of a new laser based open~ 

path spectrometer for the measurement of fugitive emissions 

from gas processing plants. Pages 186-196 in Proc. Conf. 

Optical Sensing for Environmental and Process Monitoring. 

Air and Water Waste Manage. Assoc., Dallas, TX. 

12. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Haz· 

ards of ammonia releases at ammonia refrigeration facilities 

(update). http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/chem/ammonia.pdf 

Accessed Oct. 2008. 

Acknowledgments 

This research was funded by a grant from the US Poultry 

and Egg Association Harold E. Ford Foundation (Tucker, 

GA). The authors thank the host producers for their support 

and suggestions. 
93 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Kuhn. 

Mr. KUHN. Yes. Thank you, Senator Carper. The results of documented research in Iowa are different than what Mr. Satterfield 

has described. Really, when the manure that is contained in one 

of these buildings is agitated and applied to the land, there is 

about 1 million—— 

Senator CARPER. You are talking about poultry or one of the 

hog—— 

Mr. KUHN. This is the hog CAFO like this. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, I understand. 

Mr. KUHN. There is about 1 million gallons of liquid manure underneath that building. 

Senator CARPER. One million gallons? 

Mr. KUHN. One million gallons. And numerous Iowa farmers 

have lost their lives due to high level of toxic gases. They really 

emit four different types of toxic gas: one, ammonia, which is constantly there; carbon dioxide; hydrogen sulfide; and methane. We 

have had numerous instances where farmers have gone in to repair 

something in the bottom of the pit, they have been asphyxiated; 

their son goes in to get them, they are asphyxiated. This is very 

sad, but true. 

It should come as no surprise that when thousands of animals 

are confined in a building directly on top of all the manure they 

produce, it is going to stink. The farmer will tell you it is the smell 

of money, but the neighbor would say it stinks to high heaven. 

If the pharmaceutical plant in my hometown has a release of a 

toxic chemical, they are required to notify local, State, and national 

officials. Why should it be any different for corporate factory farms? 

We want all of our corporate citizens to be good stewards of our 

precious natural environment. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very, very much. 

And I want to again thank Senator Booker for letting me go 

ahead of him. Thanks so much. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Satterfield, it is my understanding that there is a regulatory 

framework already in place for producers to comply with environmental rules and laws at both the State and the Federal level. In 

your experience, would including the additional reporting requirement under CERCLA result in any environmental benefit? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Senator Fischer, I don’t believe so. This is a 

law dealing with emergency responses; it is not a law to measure 

emissions, to quantify and aggregate emissions, to then make policy decisions on whether additional regulations are needed because 

those levels may meet a certain threshold. So I don’t see any environmental benefit or human health benefit, at least from the chicken industry perspective, and that is all I can speak from, from 

keeping the requirement that farmers have to report. 

With our chicken farms, the families live on the farm; they are 

family owned farms. They live there, their children live there, and 

it is not a corporate operation. It may be with hogs in Iowa, I don’t 

know, but for us, the families live there. And if conditions were 

94 

that bad, they would do other things to keep those ammonia levels 

low and inside the houses. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Mortenson, you stated in your testimony that complying with 

this reporting requirement is a multi-step process, and it takes 1 

year to comply. This is followed by additional reporting any time 

you add cattle to your operation. 

I am a cattle rancher from Nebraska, and I understand the problems that ranchers are going to face, given that moving cattle between pastures under a plan of grazing system that we have could 

trigger additional reporting, among other problems, with the compliance, so this just sounds like a bad deal, and it is applying a law 

to agriculture that was never designed to be applied to production 

agriculture. 

When the court issues its mandate on May 1st, walk me through 

the process that you are going to have to go through to comply with 

this new law. 

Mr. MORTENSON. Thank you for the question, Senator Fischer. 

The first step is reporting to the National Response Center through 

the Coast Guard. And after that you have 30 days to send your 

written report in to the EPA, your regional EPA office, and for me, 

that would be in Denver. And then after a 1 year anniversary, you 

have 30 days again to re-report and note any changes or anything. 

Now, for me, there is no scientific basis out there to gather that 

material. On a pasture based system like I run, there is just nothing out there, so I am not going to be able to provide any sort of 

accuracy to the information that I supply. 

As you said, I move the cattle around. I am in three different 

counties. During the spring, after they calve and are processed, the 

cows go to six different leases, so am I going to have to report that 

again? And when the cows are calving, my numbers go from one 

number, they just double, so what am I going to do now, do I have 

to report that I have baby calves on the ground? 

It is just a reporting nightmare, and the EPA, on their page that 

you have to kind of go through, says it can take up to 10 hours to 

do this report in May. I don’t have 10 hours to sit around and 

make guesstimates in May; it is just a busy time of the year for 

farmers and ranchers. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. Do you believe that the FARM Act is 

going to address that cumbersome process? 

Mr. MORTENSON. Yes, I do. I have great confidence in it. 

Senator FISCHER. You also discussed concerns about Federal 

agencies having a database on farm and ranch locations, and justifiably, you note the concerns of supplying the Federal Government with personal information regarding the location of these operations, which in many cases coincides with exactly where we 

raise our families. Can you please explain why this is concerning 

for producers who can gain access to this information and what you 

believe the FARM Act can do to alleviate some of those concerns? 

Mr. MORTENSON. I think it is very dangerous when you start putting personal information out there for the public to digest. In this 

case, a Superfund designation on my ranch I think would attract 

a lot of attention; and not only on my ranch, but all the other 

ranches around the country. You are giving them your location, you 

95 

are giving them the number of cattle you run, so, to me, it puts 

me in a very dangerous situation, I feel. 

I think this FARM Act will address that; we won’t have to report, 

so, therefore, the numbers and where the cattle are will remain, 

you know, as personal information. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and 

the Ranking Member and my colleagues. 

And to all the witnesses who are here, appreciate your testimony. 

I joined with Senator Carper and a number of my colleagues on a 

letter to Scott Pruitt at the EPA asking them to ask the court to 

continue the stay while we try to figure this out. I am trying to understand all the testimony and read through a lot of material. 

Mr. Mortenson, I think you make a very good point, differentiating between the concentration of certain emissions, like ammonia, versus the mass of emissions, because from a human health 

perspective, of course, it is the concentration that has the biggest 

impact on human health, and I think that is a very important 

point. 

Mr. Satterfield, welcome, and thank you for all you do on behalf 

of the Eastern Shore’s economy in Maryland. You drew the distinction and said that CERCLA never anticipated that the CERCLA reporting requirements would apply to ‘‘low level emissions’’ from 

these ongoing operations. What is the threshold for low level emissions, and what is beyond that? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I do not have a numeric threshold for low level 

emissions versus higher level emissions. I don’t have it in front of 

me. We can do some research and find out. But my point was that 

there is very little ammonia coming out of those chicken houses because there is very little ammonia in the chicken houses if the 

birds are being properly cared for and the house is being properly 

managed. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Right. So I think those are all really good 

points. You drew this distinction, and from a human health perspective there is a distinction, right? So what I am trying to figure 

out, if we say that there is no obligation to report emissions under 

any circumstances, would that mean that even if there were concentrated emissions, maybe they weren’t doing the job properly in 

one of the poultry houses, and there were emissions that were concentrated to a point that it could have an impact on human health 

to the neighbor? If we pass this, what duty would remain with respect to farmers and reporting on those kind of emissions? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Well, as I tried to point out, this is an emergency response bill. Does the admission of emissions trigger the 

need for emergency responders such as Mr. Mortenson to come out 

and do something? 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Right. And I agree. And probably 99 percent of the cases would never reach that concentrated level. I think 

it is a really important point on the concentration. You have a big, 

spread out farm, you may have a lot of emissions, but they are not 

concentrated enough to have impact on human health. 

My question is, if you remove this requirement, in the event 

there was something that was not a low level emission, that was 

96 

a high level concentrated emission, if we get rid of this entirely, is 

there any duty to report? 

And my understanding is, if you get rid of it entirely, there is 

no duty to report something that we might all agree could have an 

impact on human health. So I am just trying to understand this 

provision, and you had used that term, and I have seen it used before, low level emissions, so then the question is if there was not 

an intent to apply this to low level emissions, does that mean there 

was an intent to apply it to high level, concentrated emissions. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I just cannot imagine from a chicken house 

there would be an escape of ammonia that would endanger the 

community. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. OK. And I defer to your expertise on that. 

Mr. Kuhn, I don’t know if, in your experience with some of the 

other concentrated feed lots, non-poultry, pork, whatever, in your 

experience, have there ever been emissions that would trigger a requirement to protect human health? 

Mr. KUHN. Most certainly there have been. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Outside the boundary of the operation. Because testimony on OSHA regulations is interesting testimony. 

With respect to impact on human health outside the perimeter of 

a farming operation. 

Mr. KUHN. In my earlier remarks I referenced attempts to establish regulations and thresholds for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. 

The DNR did extensive testing over a period of years to determine 

at the property line or at the separated distance, that means at the 

place of the residence, were there direct, verifiable emissions of 

odors that affect human health, and they found there were. 

In Iowa, 1,000 animal units is equal to 1,000 live cattle. Unlike 

Mr. Mortenson, in Iowa they are built in confined feeding operations, 1,000 cattle, and certainly in some cases there are emissions 

that would threaten public health at the property line. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one 

more, because the CRS report that I believe the Ranking Member 

asked to be put in the record has not yet arrived at the Committee, 

is that correct? 

Senator ROUNDS. That would be correct. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. OK. And I understand one of the questions 

here is whether or not this legislation also eliminates the requirements to report under Community Right-to-Know. And I received 

a document, I believe from the Ranking Member, who is a co-sponsor of the bill, that indicates that under the legislation, under Senator Fischer’s legislation, that the reporting requirements under 

the Community Right-to-Know Act would remain in place under 

this legislation with respect to large farms and medium farms. It 

says those would still be required. And maybe this is a question 

Senator Fischer and I can talk about later. 

But Mr. Satterfield, what is your understanding of the impact of 

this legislation under the Community Right-to-Know requirements? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It is my understanding, Senator Van Hollen, 

that the FARM Act does absolutely nothing to the Community 

Right-to-Know Act. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. OK. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It just deals with CERCLA. 

97 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. And the last comment I will make, Mr. 

Chairman, because I really am trying to figure this out with you, 

is in the decision, in the court decision, the judge said, in the final 

rule, that cutting back on CERCLA reporting requirements had the 

automatic effect of cutting back on Community Right-to-Know reporting and disclosure requirements. Is there something I am missing here, that is it an automatic flow through? In other words, it 

doesn’t touch that statute, but the Community Right-to-Know statute is directly linked with the CERCLA statute in terms of triggering reporting requirements? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. My understanding is that, under CERCLA, the 

reports go to the National Response Center operated by the Coast 

Guard, and then 30 days later a written report to the regional EPA 

office. Under the EPCRA, the Community Right-to-Know, it is my 

understanding that those reports go to the local and State emergency responders, not necessarily to the Federal people. So there 

are two different reporting systems, two different purposes. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. And they are totally independent, so this 

legislation, while it may impact CERCLA requirements, would not 

impact the Community Right-to-Know requirement? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is my understanding, sir. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. All right. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

very much for being here. 

Mr. Mortenson, something that is problematic about the new reporting requirement is that it likely affects over 200,000 agriculture producers across the country. Traditionally, as we have 

talked about, EPA regulates the large concentrated animal feeding 

operations, but the court decision goes way beyond that. We are 

talking about feed lots, cow calf producers, stockers, poultry, et 

cetera, et cetera. There doesn’t seem to be a limit on who is impacted by the new requirements. 

Tell me what your buddies are thinking, in the sense of can they 

comply with this? What is their concern? You know, again, the solution to these problems need to come from the ground up, rather 

than a judge or somebody that has never been on a farm making 

some very, very important decisions. Tell me about your buddies. 

Mr. MORTENSON. Thank you, Senator Boozman, for the question. 

For the most part, the people that I have talked to, my neighbors, 

don’t have any idea that this is even coming, so if nothing is done 

by Congress, on the first of May a big surprise is coming to them, 

and they are not going to be happy, to say the least, to be labeled 

as polluters, when all they are doing is the same agriculture that 

has been going on in this country for hundreds of years, grazing 

cattle. 

There are a lot more people who will be regulated under this that 

have no contact with the government. Not everybody signs up for 

a government program. There are a lot of people up there that step 

away from them just so they can keep their private business private. So now you are going to net those people that don’t have any 

98 

contact with the government as far as regulations, and I don’t 

think that is the intention. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. 

Mr. MORTENSON. And again I will go back to the anger issue. 

When people learn, when this gets out in the country widespread, 

everybody understands what is going to be required. We went 

through the animal ID thing a few years ago when you saw the 

anger there. I think this will be 10 times worse, because basically 

it gives the government the same kind of information that the animal ID was going to give, and the anger in the country will be tremendous. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Satterfield, Arkansas produces a lot of chickens, a lot of 

poultry, much like the Delmarva Peninsula; we have that in common. Again, we talked about this, but tell me, tell the Committee 

how poultry growers keep their ammonia levels low. I know that, 

again, my experience has been that these are not huge, corporate 

owned entities, these are family farms that people work in, young 

people are out there working in and participating. Tell me how you 

strive to do that. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And tell me about the success in striving, 

what you are accomplishing. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. These are family owned farms on the Delmarva Peninsula who have contracts with the chicken companies, 

and the chicken companies have certain animal welfare standards, 

and the grower’s primary job is to make sure the conditions in 

those chicken houses are good for the birds; one, because it is the 

right thing to do and because if there are problems because of high 

ammonia levels, that is not good for the animal. That does not 

allow the bird to grow to its full potential, and that cuts into the 

income of the families. 

So keeping moisture levels low in the houses is important because moisture is necessary in the creation of ammonia. About 20 

years ago, the watering systems in these chicken houses—and the 

birds are raised on the floor, they are not in cages—the watering 

systems changed from open troughs or open pans to a nipple drinker system kind of like a water fountain. The bird pecks at it, the 

drop comes down, so you have less water going onto the litter, less 

potential for human conditions, less potential for the development 

of ammonia. So that has been an important poultry health step. 

The USDA provides cost share money for acidic products to go 

in the chicken houses on the bedding material, when the birds are 

not in there, to reduce the pH, which will nullify the creation of 

ammonia, so that is important. 

The feed conversion I mentioned, the more of the feed that goes 

into the creation of meat, less nitrogen is coming out the rear end 

of the bird, less opportunity for ammonia to be created. 

So those are the big ones. And then we have our buffers program 

to capture the emissions once they come out of the chicken houses 

in low levels. Remember, the birds are down here on the floor; a 

human being up here. If he is smelling a lot of ammonia, imagine 

what the little chick is smelling. If there is too much ammonia, it 

impairs the quality of the bird and the quality of the paws, the feet 

99 

of the birds, which are a very valuable export product. So high ammonia levels reduce the quality of the product that the companies 

want to sell, so everybody has an interest in keeping those ammonia levels down. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So the reality is, through science and technology, there has been tremendous advancement in recent years in 

that regard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate it. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Markey, I know you just pulled in. Are you prepared to 

ask some questions at this time? 

Senator MARKEY. Yes, I am. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Mr. Kuhn, do you agree that high doses of emissions can pose a 

health hazard to workers and nearby communities? 

Mr. KUHN. Certainly. 

Senator MARKEY. According to the CDC, these emissions can 

cause ‘‘chemical burns to the respiratory tract, skin, and eyes; 

chronic lung disease; and even death.’’ 

Mr. Kuhn, do you agree that nearby communities should be able 

to find out whether they are being exposed to high quantities of 

these chemicals? 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, I do. 

Senator MARKEY. The CERCLA reporting requirements are triggered for farms that emit more than 100 pounds of ammonia or hydrogen sulfide a day. Some of these larger farms emit as much as 

2,000 pounds of ammonia daily, and these are dangerous chemicals, and animal agriculture operations account for about threequarters of our national ammonia pollution, according to the EPA. 

Unfortunately, the bill we are considering here would permanently 

keep the public from understanding where that pollution is coming 

from by removing reporting requirements. 

Mr. Satterfield, since the D.C. Circuit Court decision last April 

that farms should report hazardous emissions from animal waste 

as directed under CERCLA, have farmers had success in working 

with the EPA to get clear guidance put in place to explain how to 

report their emissions? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. No, sir, they have not. 

Senator MARKEY. And to what do you attribute that? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Part of the problem is the difficulty in measuring emissions from chicken houses. There was a study done in 

2007, the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study, to develop 

emission factors that would allow farmers, on their farms, to calculate it. When the data were collected, it went to the EPA Scientific Advisory Committee, which said these are not good data. We 

don’t have a real good way to measure the emissions and to share 

the measurement techniques with the farmers, because the emissions depend upon the age of the bird, the breed of the bird, the 

age of the bedding material on the floor, whether it has been 

around for years or just months, the climate, the humidity. 

So one size fits all does not work for every chicken house. So 

until EPA figures out what is the best method to give to every 

grower for him or her to measure emissions, there is no way that 

that person accurately can measure the emissions. 

100 

Senator MARKEY. So do you think that the Trump EPA should 

do a better job in working with farmers, collaborating with the 

farmers to make the reporting work for everyone, is that what you 

are saying? The Trump EPA is not collaborating well with the 

farmers? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Well, I am not saying they are not collaborating. And I think a new study is underway. I think that was on 

the EPA Web site in late 2017 or early 2018, that efforts are underway to develop—— 

Senator MARKEY. I appreciate that. But what you are saying, 

right now, the farmers are left to muddle through the issues themselves, without getting the full cooperation from the Trump EPA, 

and they are just leaving the farmers out there on their own and 

in a state of confusion, almost like chickens with their heads cut 

off, right? They don’t have a direction that they are being given by 

the EPA. 

CERCLA actually does require the communities to have information they need to protect themselves. If industries emit dangerously 

high levels of hazardous chemicals, they should be reporting that 

under CERCLA. If we carve out a huge industry, we will cut into 

the safety of American families. 

So, Mr. Kuhn, how would you solve this problem? What do you 

think the EPA should be doing here so that we can keep the standards which we have, but ensure that there is much closer collaboration going on between the Trump EPA and the farmers? 

Mr. KUHN. Well, I would like to mention that the ability already 

exists to measure hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and even odor. After 

the passage of the legislation in 2004, the DNR was required to do 

studies on emissions of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. They are 

trained in doing that. Inspectors were even taught about 

scentometers, where they could determine on a regular basis the 

odor that is emitted from these. 

So I am a little concerned that we talk about technology at one 

time, and then we say we don’t have the ability to test it. Certainly, we do. So I just don’t believe that—I am not really trusting 

the EPA when they promulgate the guidance on their new rule 

that would eliminate this. There needs to be it somewhere, and it 

is not coming from the State, and it is not coming from CERCLA. 

It is not going to come from EPCRA. Who is going to provide it? 

People like the Schwartzkopfs are still suffering. 

Senator MARKEY. I agree with you, and I think the EPA should 

just, in the words of Bill Belichick, do their job, get it done, cooperate, send clear guidance, and I think we would be in a much better 

position. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman; I thank the Ranking Member. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me apologize to the Committee here. I have been chairing the 

Armed Services Committee, and I fear that what I am going to ask 

has already been covered, but it hasn’t been covered to me yet, so 

if there is a little redundancy here, I do apologize for that. 

The FARM Act, I am a cosponsor of that, it exempts the registered pesticide products in air emissions from animal waste from 

101 

reporting requirements. In December the EPA published a final 

rule to exempt all farms from reporting these. The rule was struck 

down last April by the U.S. Court of Appeals, the D.C. Circuit. 

This would be to Mr. Mortenson. In your testimony you say that 

the biggest challenges in your industry are urban encroachment, 

natural disasters, and government overreach. I know a little bit 

about that, the lengths of government, what they can do and control every aspect of American life. I spent a number of years 

chairing this Committee, and we lived through that. 

I find it interesting that the last Administration agreed that 

these reporting requirements weren’t needed or wanted by agencies 

tasked with responding to emergency situations. Yet, the environmentalists sued, and you have to wonder why, as you stated in 

your written testimony, there is no environmental benefit, but it 

seems there is a lot of very specific information that is required in 

reporting these emissions. 

So I would ask you, is there concern among your community, the 

farmers and ranchers, about how this information could be used to 

someone’s disadvantage if it were in the wrong hands? 

Mr. MORTENSON. Thank you for the question, Senator Inhofe. 

Yes, there is. We are quite proud of our environmental record not 

only on the ranch, but as a State. We have done a very good job 

of keeping the waters—— 

Senator INHOFE. That is interesting you start off with that, because that is so obvious. The ones who are really concerned are the 

ones who own the land, and yet there is this idea that Government 

has to come in and tell you how to make your land look right and 

farm right. 

But go ahead. 

Mr. MORTENSON. Absolutely. One thing I would like to mention, 

our ranch was one of four that was featured in a Smithsonian exhibit called Legacy of the Land, and it ran for 6 months, and then 

it was taken by the Library Association throughout the country on 

a 4 year tour. So, you know, we are trying to do the right thing 

by the environment. It is very important to us; we make our living 

off it. 

So the problem I see coming is that people don’t know this thing 

is coming; a lot of them are unaware of it. And on May 1st it is 

going to hit the fan, you know, the manure is literally going to hit 

the fan, because they then have 30 days to report, and where is the 

information? Where do I get information on pasture based livestock 

to make any kind of judgment on how much ammonia or hydrogen 

sulfide my cattle are producing, and how does that change over the 

seasons? 

I talked about the dung beetle earlier. They are burying that cow 

pat within an hour of it hitting the ground. In the wintertime, obviously, they are not, but there is so much science that is lacking 

here that there is no way I can make accurate report, and if you 

get junk in, you get junk out. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. I am very familiar with your area; I spent 

some time with the Chairman there. There is a lot of beauty there, 

and I was not aware that you were singled out and honored in such 

a way, and I am very proud of you. 

102 

Mr. Satterfield, your testimony addresses the fact that information that would be reported is viewed by the EPA as essentially 

useless. I know the Coast Guard shares this view. Yet your industry and the rest of the ag community will be charged with reporting these largely unknown and low level emissions. 

Is there concern among the industries as to the ability or inability to report this information accurately and the potential legal liability that they would be exposed to if they don’t? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The method does not exist to give chicken 

growers the formula on how to measure emissions from their 

houses. EPA, as I mentioned to Senator Markey, put on its Web 

site it is in the process of trying to figure this out again. There was 

an effort a dozen years ago or more, millions of dollars spent to try 

to figure this out, and it couldn’t be figured out. 

So EPA, according to its Web site a few months ago, is going to 

try again, and then—and only then—will the growers, the chicken 

growers, the family farmers have the tools they need to figure out 

what their emissions are. 

One of the concerns we have is that a lower threshold is to be 

reported based on the EPA current guidance, an upper threshold, 

and then a yearly total. Well, the activists often take the numbers 

that best suit their purpose, which would be the upper threshold, 

and say that is it, for every chicken house, for 365 days a year, we 

have a huge problem out there, when in fact, when a little itty 

bitty chick in a house of them, 25,000 to 30,000 birds, is not producing the upper threshold, which is at the maximum time coming 

out of the houses. 

There are times between flocks there is no ammonia being sent 

out of the houses. So that is a concern, that the numbers are going 

to be turned by the critics of the animal agricultural industry to 

suit their purposes. 

Senator INHOFE. And they seem to be in charge, too, quite often. 

Let me just end on a positive note. Mr. Mortenson, you are probably familiar with the partnership program. We did this program, 

it was back during the Obama administration, and they came out 

and they inspected, at our request, in fact, I made this a requirement, to get confirmation that they make at least two trips to my 

State of Oklahoma and really spend some time on the farms and 

the ranches. 

They came up with the conclusion that they are the ones who are 

really concerned about their own land, about the environment. I 

thought that was a great discovery, because that kind of broke the 

ice for the first time in my memory that Government doesn’t know 

as much about your land as you do. 

Mr. MORTENSON. Absolutely. We hosted the regional—— 

Senator INHOFE. Was that Fish and Wildlife you hosted? 

Mr. MORTENSON. No, it was the EPA Administrator out of Denver, and I can’t remember what her name is. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, OK. 

Mr. MORTENSON. Very fine lady. But we gave her a tour of the 

ranch, and she was really taken aback by what is going on on the 

land, and the care that we not only give livestock, but the land and 

the water, and our concern for the health of it all, how it all works 

103 

together as a system, and if part of it isn’t healthy, none of it is 

healthy. 

So it is very important to us, and I speak for myself, and I think, 

the industry as a whole, that the environmentalist part of it is the 

most important part. We are trying to do the right thing, and I believe we are. 

Senator INHOFE. I believe you are, too. 

Mr. Chairman, pardon the interruption, Senator Booker. Thank 

you for your tolerance. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Booker, I think you have outlasted everybody else on 

your side. I think it is your turn. 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate that, sir, and again, thank you 

very much for this hearing. 

Mr. Kuhn, could we just go real quick and just give a general answer of do you support this bill, S. 2421, and why or why not? 

Mr. KUHN. No, I do not, as it is currently written. I think it is 

a step backward. People like the Schwartzkopfs and thousands of 

neighbors like them in Iowa have waited a long time. I explained 

the process through which the State of Iowa went, when they attempted to establish meaningful air emission standards for Iowa, 

and that failed. 

I understand that the U.S. Coast Guard might not be the best 

place for this type of information to be presented, but for the 

Schwartzkopfs and other families like them, they want it somewhere, and they are not getting the answers they need now. 

Neighbors do have the right and the need to know. When the 

manure is spread on the fields—I mentioned about a million gallons from a typical tank—it can be spread immediately adjacent to 

a neighbor’s residence or their private drinking water well, and the 

CAFO operator is given up to 24 hours to incorporate it into the 

soil. 

During that time, the smell from literally hundreds of thousands 

of gallons of liquid manure can be overwhelming, and both the 

State representative and county supervisor have been called many 

times by my constituents, who have no place to turn but leave their 

homes. 

Second, neighbors also need to know everything they can about 

dangerous air emissions so they can provide that data to their doctor when explaining the symptoms that affect their personal 

health. Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emissions can have serious 

short and long term consequences. Neighbors need to be able to 

document that exposure so they can receive proper treatment for 

their conditions. The conditions that the Schwartzkopf family suffers from are real. 

And finally, as I stated in my written remarks, there is a real 

reason why eliminating dangerous air emissions would be detrimental to a neighbor. Last year, Governor Terry Branstad signed 

a law that limits damages that can be awarded to a person who 

wins a lawsuit against a CAFO. The new law requires ‘‘objectively 

documented medical evidence and proven to be caused by the facility.’’ That terminology would eliminate studies and research done 

by universities and rely on actually documented research that the 

neighbors have to find for themselves. If reporting requirements 

104 

under CERCLA and EPCRA are eliminated, good neighbors like 

the Schwartzkopfs will not be able to access information, and 

therefore, denied any chance for justice in Iowa against the powerful CAFO industry. 

Senator BOOKER. And I think it is important the trends. New 

Jersey actually has a lot of farms. We actually are the Garden 

State and produce a lot of this nation’s produce. But there is a 

trend going through farming in America, which is small and midsized farms are getting fewer and far between, and these massive 

operations, massive agribusinesses are coming about. You are seeing that in the poultry industry and the pork industry. 

As you said, some of these massive companies are not even 

American companies, like Smithfield, which is a Chinese owned 

company; and these concentrations mean the imagery I grew up 

with of farming and the farmers that I know a lot of in New Jersey, which are small farmers and not producing the kind of waste 

that we are talking about, but these massive agribusinesses do create these hazards. 

And the expansion you talked about in your earlier remarks of 

what is happening in Iowa, one thing you didn’t mention on the 

record, as we look out the front yard of the Schwartzkopfs, the 

CAFO there has the right to expand; they could literally put another CAFO. As we see the pork industry growing in the State of 

Iowa, this expansion could have even a bigger deleterious effect on 

average Iowans, correct? 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, it does. This particular CAFO did not require 

what is called a master matrix application because it falls one pig 

short of 1,000 animal units, and typically the industry builds them 

at that level so they don’t have to go through this county process. 

But when they expand, as this site did attempt to expand, they 

have to go through the county for a hearing, and the county goes 

out, and it is actually the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors 

to ensure that that application meets all separation distances and 

passes a minimum threshold, sort of a pass-fail test. 

Well, in this case, when the operator decided to expand his 

CAFO, he was required to come before the county board, and at 

that time, according to the laws of the State of Iowa, another site 

closer to this one was approved; and the only reason it is not in 

this picture is because the operator failed to start construction 

within 1 year. If they did, we could have seen another CAFO, 

which would have been about 1,878 feet from the bedroom window 

of the Schwartzkopfs. 

So that is the problem we have. The owners of the CAFO don’t 

live near it; the owners of the pigs don’t live near it. But the 

Schwartzkopfs and the rural residents do. 

Senator BOOKER. Well, I don’t know if this is real or not, that 

you introduced legislation in the Iowa legislature that would have 

said that people who own CAFOs have to live near them. Probably 

would have solved the problem real quick if that became the issue. 

I just want to finish, because I have a lot of respect for Mr. 

Mortenson and the industry that you are in, the cattle industry. In 

New Jersey it is a common saying to say someone is all hat and 

no cattle, but sir, you are hat and cattle, and I have a lot of respect 

for that. 

105 

In my opening statement, I agree, I said, I hope you heard, that 

pasture based ranchers like you should not have to do this kind of 

emissions reporting; it really, to me, as you said, it borders on the 

absurd or crossed over into the border of the absurd. But there is 

a fundamental difference between the type of livestock raising that 

you do and what goes on in these large CAFOs with huge manure 

lagoons where numerous people have died. 

And I want to put into the record, I only grabbed one article of 

the death as a result of these CAFOs. If I may put that into the 

record. 

Senator ROUNDS. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOOKER. As a direct result of emissions. But you know 

that there is a fundamental difference between what Mr. Kuhn is 

talking about and the kind of animal agriculture that you do, sir. 

Mr. MORTENSON. Yes, I do. I understand the difference. And I am 

not an expert on that end of it, the CAFOs; I have no experience 

with them. I am just here to tell you about a ranch in Stanley 

County that is scared to death of this thing. 

Senator BOOKER. And I respect that. 

And I want to say for the record that the Chairman has not invited me to come out and visit your county. I hope he does. I try 

to pull him to Jersey all the time. 

But your testimony says that there are no large CAFOs in your 

county, and I respect that, but someone in another State, who lives 

just a couple thousand feet from a huge CAFO, whose health and 

whose children’s health are having to deal with the stench, have 

to deal with not being able to put clothing on the line, have to deal 

without having to open their windows. 

You can understand why someone living next to that would be 

begging for the help of the government. And governments were established in this nation, if you read our founding documents, for 

the protection of the citizenry. You can understand why folks would 

be appealing to the government to please do something about the 

health and safety risks that they are experiencing as a result of 

these CAFOs, is that correct? 

Mr. MORTENSON. Yes, I can understand that. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, sir. 

And the last point I want to make is that reasonable regulations—as a former mayor, I had to cut through so much unreasonable regulations to deal with trying to get things done and help 

people get jobs, and economic opportunity is so important. 

But what we see often here, and I see this in the river in Newark, New Jersey, is often what businesses do is they externalize 

their costs onto other people, and they internalize their profits. 

That is not the free market; that is finding ways to do shortcuts 

that are hurting Americans. It is perverting capitalism and the free 

market by pushing costs out to the commons and internalizing 

profits. The river in Newark, New Jersey, is polluted because of the 

bad practices of businesses. Large corporations, through a type of 

corporate villainy or theft from the future, did that. 

Right now, I talked to the head of the EPA in our hearing that 

the Illinois River is being polluted by a lot of the waste of animals 

that have been pouring into those rivers. 

106 

So I am just hoping, Mr. Chairman, that we can find a balance, 

or I should really say to rebalance the scales to get rid of unneeded 

regulations on the people and ranchers, but to make sure that families, now a growing number of American families, as these CAFOs, 

as you said, in Iowa, are becoming more prevalent in our society 

as folks like the Chinese are finding very creative ways to 

outsource their pollution onto Americans and import the finished 

product into their countries, that we find a way to rebalance the 

scales for health and safety for suffering families suffering from 

respiratory diseases, cancers, and the like, and to undo the undue 

regulations that are ranchers like Mr. Mortenson. I believe we can 

find that balance, but I think we still have work to do. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

I think, just to wrap this up, first of all, the idea behind the Subcommittee is to really be able to get in to look at the issues, learn 

a little bit more about the legislation involved, and to recognize 

that sometimes, as Mr. Kuhn has brought out there, there are 

issues that many cases your local units of government, as a mayor 

would understand, as a State legislator would understand; I am a 

former State legislator, that the question in many cases is where 

do you best address some of the issues, where is the best place to 

go. 

One size does not fit all. We have different sizes here, different 

types of activities, all of which are trying to be addressed by one 

single piece of legislation. 

I think what we have learned today is, No. 1, there is a need to 

address the challenges that are found within the legislation or 

found within the rulemaking processes of the EPA today. The second part is that there is room for not just Federal, but also State 

and local zoning, and rulemaking to be involved in this as well. 

I have appreciated what all three of you have had to offer to this 

process today. The legislation before us is, in my opinion, a very 

good attempt to try to fix what is an impending disaster for a lot 

of small farms across this entire country. At the same time, we recognize the need to try to address the concerns of all of our citizens 

across the country as well. 

So I want to thank Senator Booker for his participation in this, 

as well as the rest of our Committee members. I would really like 

to thank all of our witnesses today for their testimony; you have 

all provided valuable information to us as we move forward. 

So, at this time, I would once again say that the record for this 

Subcommittee will be open for 2 weeks, and that would bring us 

until Thursday, March 22nd. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

107 


30052.071

AC<H<NHCMWf} liS G()\tRNMENT 

jf\;fORMAT!ON 

GPO 

115TII CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S.2421 

II 

To amend the Comprchensivt> Emironmcntal Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Aet of 1980 to pnwide an exemptioH from certain notice requirements and penalties for r·eleases of hazardous substances from animal 

waste at forms. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STA'l'ES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2018 

Mrs. FISCHER (for her-self, Mr. DONl\"EI.LY, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. 

ROBERTI>, Ms. HEITKAlviP, :VIr. COOKS, Mr. CARPER, lVfs. DUCKWORTH, 

:\Ir. ISAKRON, Mr. WARNER, Mr·s. ERNST, Mrs. MCCARKILL, Mr. INHOFE, 

Mr. ::VL\NCHJN, Mr. MORA'I, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. WICKER, Ms. SMITH, 

Mr. I-IOEVEN, Mr. CAREY, and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Hesponse, Compensation, and I.1i.ability Act of 1980 to provide an exemption from certain notice requirements and penalties 

for releases of hazardous substances from animal waste 

at farms. 

Be ·it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 t·ives qf' the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Fair Agricultural ReS porting· Method Act" or the "FARM Act". 
108 


30052.072

2 

SEC. 2. EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN NOTICE REQUIRE· 

2 MENTS AND PENALTIES. 

3 Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Re4 spouse, Compensation, and IJiability Act of 1980 ( 42 

5 U.S. C. 9603) is amended by striking subsection (e) and 

6 inserting the following: 

7 "(e) APPLICABILITY TO REGISTERED PESTICIDE 

8 PRODUCTS AND AIR E;viiSSIONS FRO;vi ANIJ'vlAL WASTE AT 

9 FARl\IS.-

10 "(1) IN GENERAh-This section shall not apply 

11 to12 "(A) the application of a pesticide product 

13 registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fun14 gicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et 

15 seq.) or the handling and storage of such a pes16 ticide product by an agricultural 'producer; or 

17 "(B) air emissions from animal waste (in18 eluding decomposing animal waste) at a farm. 

19 "(2) DEI<'INITIONS.-In this subsection: 

20 "(A) k"\Jll\lAL WASTE.-

21 "(i) IN GI<JNERAL.-The term 'animal 

22 waste' means feces, urine, or other excre23 ment, digestive emission, urea, or similar 

24 substances emitted by animals (including 

25 any form of livestock, poultry, or fish). 

•S 2421 IS 
109 


30052.073

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

3 

"(ii) Il'\CLUSIONS.-The term 'animal 

waste' includes animal waste that is mixed 

or commingled with bedding·, compost, 

feed, soil, or any other material typically 

found with such waste. 

"(B) FARi\L-The term 'farm' means a 

site or area (including associated structures) 

that-

"(i) is used for-

"(I) the production of a crop; or 

"(II) the raising or selling of animals (including any form of livestock, 

poultry, or fish); and 

"(ii) under normal conditions, produces during a farm year any agricultural 

products with a total value equal to not 

17 less than $1,000.". 

18 SEC. 3. APPLICATION. 

19 Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this 

20 Act affects, or supersedes or modifies the responsibility 

21 or authority of any Federal official or employee to comply 

22 with or enforce, any requirement under the Comprehensive 

23 Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

24 of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), other than the haz25 ardous substance notification requirements under section 

•S 2421 lS 
110 


30052.074

4 

10:3 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 960:3) with respect to air emis2 sions from animal waste at farms. 

0 

•S 2421 IS 
111 


30052.075

March 7, 2018 

The Honorable John A. Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Mike Rounds 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee, 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste 

Management and Regulatory Oversight 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Cory Booker 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee, 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste 

Management and Regulatory Oversight 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

RE: Opposition to S.2421, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act." 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Booker, and 

members of the Environment and Public Works Committee: 

In light of the March 8, 2018 hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee 

on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, the following comments were 

submitted in opposition to S.2421, the so-called, "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act." These 

individuals and organizations represent rural community members, farmers, and other 

constituents who strongly believe that: 

• Americans have a right to know about hazardous substances emitted near their homes and 

workplaces-no matter what the source. 

• Instead of protecting rural communities from toxic chemical releases, S.2421 would 

exempt all concentrated animal feeding operations ("CAFOs") from reporting their 

emissions of hazardous substances into the air like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. 

• Hydrogen sulfide is hydrogen sulfide whether from an industrial power plant or an 

industrial concentrated animal feeding operation ("CAFO"). 

• There is no reason that people should be denied information about the poisonous 

emissions they are exposed to simply because the emissions come from a CAFO, where 

hundreds or thousands of animals are confined for long periods in facilities where their 

waste is concentrated and stored in high volumes, rather than being dispersed naturally 

across pastures. 

1 
112 


30052.076

ARKANSAS: 

1. "Yes. Drinking water is a crucial issue for the health of every person. Nitrates, phosphorus, 

and residues of metals and hormones, etc. in the supply from leaked CAFO waste is a real 

threat. Our air quality is already degraded by excess particulates and smoke from prescribed 

Forest Service burnings. Adding the noxious ammonia and hydrogen sulfides produced from 

CAFOs into the mix makes it intolerable. The smell alone should be enough to prohibit them. 

No one can be a good neighbor if they produce smells that stink so badly that their neighbors 

can't breathe the air outside their homes. In our area, a CAFO has been placed near a school 

and along a tributary to the Buffalo National River where primary contact could be 

dangerous. Asthma is a real concern. We ask that you, as our elected representative, care for 

your constituents and prohibit air emissions and that endanger the health of our children and 

our neighbors."- Marti and Larry Olesen 

2. "Around 2010, the ADEQ in the State of AI(, allowed a hog CAFO to be built in Newton County, 

near the Mt. Judea community, with a partially completed permit application and forged 

signatures of surrounding property owners, etc. and without proper notification to the 

surrounding community. 6,500 hogs, spraying waste in a mountainous, karst landscape, on 

the banks of Big Creek, which flows downstream about five miles into the Buffalo National 

River, at which point adds 10% water volume to the river. Downstream from this junction 

algae blooms are rampant and the smell of hog waste is terrible. Wells and springs, which 

these families have used as their water source for hundreds of years, are polluted; the tiny 

town and school are in eye-sight of and directly across Big Creek from the spray fields. It is a 

HORRIBLE situation. Our state department is totally responsible for allowing this and our 

Governor refuses to admit they should NEVER have allowed this CAFO to be built."- Ellen 

Mitchell 

3. "The proliferation of poultry houses means that truckloads of litter are spread in our area. A 

large swine CAFO in the watershed of the Buffalo National River was placed within view (and 

smell) of a public school in Mount Judea, AR. Studies have shown that enclosed metal 

buildings spew toxic fumes than would kill the swine within minutes if the exhaust fans 

stopped working. Instead it is expelled, along with the smell, where it can impact some of the 

area's most vulnerable inhabitants."- Un Wellford, Ozark River Stewards 

4. "We have one in the watershed of the Buffalo National River which is threatening its viability 

as a public resource and driver of tourism."- Brian Thompson 

5. "!live on a river where there is often fog. In the evening, the fog wraps us in moisture and 

traps the chicken and hog CAFO's air beneath the fog. Because people want to farm they 

think they can make it big with thousands of animals on little acres so Tyson, Cargill, JBS, 

Smithfield and other factory animal producers sign contracts that help them build their 

factories and buy their animals. 

The owners of these small acres with large CAFOs have little or no training on the 

environmental effects of these operations, they believe they have a right to farm regardless of 

what the definition is because the Farm Bureau or Park Producers or others have told them 

they are farmers. Due to low income, lack of outside influences and poor quality of education 

2 
113 


30052.077

they are prime set up for these factory farms that are running the real farmer out of business. 

The lack of education makes it easy for them to blame others for what these factory farmers 

and industry are actually doing to real American Farmers."- Carol Bitting 

ARIZONA: 

1. "We have petitioned A TSDR to conduct air monitoring for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide due 

to health concerns from these emissions from Hickman's Egg Ranches. Modeling of the 

releases indicates there is likely a health threat."-Stephen Brittle, Don't Waste AZ 

2. "/live near a CAFO and am a prisoner of my house more often than not. There are days that 

the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide is so strang that the simple task of going to the car about 

20 feet away from the door is enough to trigger an asthma attack. I can no longer sit on my 

patio or ploy with the doors in the yard because of the toxic air around my house. When they 

are processing the manure you can see particulate matter being thrown into the air and it 

doesn't just settle back down, it spreads out across the valley obscuring the view of the 

mountains. if I cannot see through it, what is it doing to my lungs? Imagine young preschool 

and elementary children playing on the playground during recess located about three miles 

from this facility. What irreparable damage is being dane to their developing lungs? They are 

much mare susceptible. 

The public needs to know what they are exposed to and what they can do to protect 

themselves from these dangers. if you take away our right to know and our right to be 

protected, are you going to be responsible for the doctors trying to decipher their symptoms 

and the cause? Emissions need to be monitored, regulated and reported. Only by knowing 

what we are being exposed to can we take precautions and make informed choices and help 

the doctors find the root cause. If it was your child or family being harmed wouldn't you want 

to know or would you prefer that the offenders hide behind dangerous rulings? Think about 

that, vote with your heart and conscience. We have a right to equal protection under the law. 

We are important and we matter. Our lives matter more than allowing these farm factories to 

continue unchecked. They have the right to farm, not the right to harm! Please vote no to 5. 

2421, DO THE RIGHT THINGr- Lorna Proper 

3. "When Hickman's Family Egg Farms are dane there will be 8 million hens in one farm and 8 

million hens in another, about 16 miles apart. We have feathers blown about in the desert, 

and ammonia, dander, and hydrogen sulfide in the air that we breath. Our complaints fall on 

deaf ears as Clint Hickman, VP of Sales for the family business, is also our county District 5 

Representative." -Kelly Reed, VP, Tonopah Valley Community Council 

4. "It is next to impossible to go to the Post Office without gagging. The smell is horrible; plus, 

when you add the flies, it's next to impossible to sit out at any time because you are buzzed 

constantly. My wife and I have to take allergy medicine so that our eyes won't water and to 

prevent our noses from running. There is constant truck traffic, hauling chicken waste on our 

roads leaving a smell in the air. 

if this law passes the rural community will be without any recourse to stop this abuse being 

down by land owners who don't live in the city. Hickman's Egg Factory officers should be 

3 
114 


30052.078

jailed far lying to the public and residents of Tonopah. The worst part is that part owner, Clint 

Hickman, is on the Board of Supervisors and he's recused himself from helping out the area 

that he's responsible for. This is a double standard and illegal. Don't pass this bill as it will kill 

the rural community."- Uoyd Rogers, STOPP Tonopah 

5. "Where are the honest, caring representatives? The ones we elected to speak and vote on our 

behalf? It's very important to monitor and control emissions from mass feeding farms. There 

are schools between the egg farm and my home. if the air is bad enough here to cause 

nonstop scratchy throat, runny noses and coughs, then what about all our children and 

teachers? Don't let big business get away with more cost cutting at the expense of 

innocents."- Elaine Kotzyba-Morgan 

6. "Huge Chick Ranch's is built close to and near communities through manipulation of county 

officials. Huge lobbying efforts have degraded rural communities in the mast populous county 

in AZ, and the effects are affecting communities to the North East as the prevailing winds for 

the area are from the South West." 

- Robert Samson 

7. "Our rural community is suffering from a commercial chicken raising operation that is fouling 

the air and polluting the ground with waste and chicken feathers. It is within 1/4 mile of our 

small town and tourist a reo." -Cynthia Bradley 

8. "An egg CAFO has developed two miles from my ranch and is producing dander and ammonia 

in the air; the groundwater may be affected."-Timothy Avilla, Goat Ranch 

DELAWARE: 

1. "There are many chicken raising farms in my area of So Sussex Ca. Since moving to So Sussex 

Co., I and ather neighbors suffer increased respiratory illnesses." -Pamela White 

ILUNOIS: 

1. "After purchasing my retirement home and living in it for only two years, I found aut that two 

CAFOs (18,000 hogs) were going up within 1 U- 2% miles from my home! I can see the 

buildings from my home. Now, the air I must breathe is toxic and I don't have a right as a 

taxpayer to know that?! See you at the Capital and on election day!"- Linda Green 

2. "A wealthy investor tried to build an 11,000 head dairy facility within a few miles of several 

communities, churches, nursing homes, schools, and a state park. According to state water 

experts, the 200,000,000 gallons of manure produced annually would destroy our water 

supply, while the ammonia and other gases released from the 68 acres of manure lagoons 

would foul our air, cause acidic rain, and destroy the health and lifestyle of rural residents."-

Matthew Alschuler, HOMES (Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards) 

3. "We have our 4th Swine CAFO within a 3-mile radius and they will expand into our small 

community in Farmersville. The hardest part is the smell and flies. You can't "plan" to go 

outside to mow, tend animals, or have friends and family over. The odor is crippling and when 

they spray the fields it is unbearable and it is best to leave your home for a few days. Then, if 

4 
115 


30052.079

you speak out, there is the theft, destruction, of your home and property and the phone calls. 

It makes it difficult to breath, not just with the hog smog, but the chemicals put on by a 

corporate farmer. I can't sell my home, and I can't afford to leave. I don't want to be forced by 

our government to live like this."- Kelly Robbins 

4. "A CAFO is located 1/4 mile uphill from our city's water reservoir."- Patty Weyhrich 

5. "We live in a community with a Federal Superfund site that has been contaminated with 

proven highly volatile contaminates that both federal and state {IL) enforcement programs 

are ineffective. Now, the /EPA, with USEPA, is allowing the suction extraction of these 

pollutants from the ground, and the blowing of them, untreated, into the air around the 

industrial/residential neighborhood. Citizens need help!"- Vincent Koers 

6. "You can smell a hog barn (CAFO) for miles down wind. The manure lagoons are very 

hazardous, and if not managed properly, a leak can not only kill the wildlife in our streams, 

but poison our water. Clean drinking water is a fundamental protection all Americans 

deserve."- Catie Gregg 

7. "A local CAFO had a manure spill. It killed 80,000 fish in Stoney Creek and the Salt Fork River; 

fishing has not been the same. We have kids and family members who swim and recreate on 

the river. Protecting our streams and rivers has more value to the community than a 

corporation making a quick and dirty buck." 

-Dave Thornton, Thornton Farms 

8. "Two CAFOs are trying to move into our area. The County in which /live has 11 CAFOs 

already, one not even 5 miles from my residence, which is already polluting the area next to it. 

Besides that, the Illinois EPA only knows of six of these CAFOs. Tell me how the IL EPA can 

monitor what they don't know."- Connie King, Bernadette Township 

9. "I am a very concerned citizen who lives a quarter of a mile from a 25,000 chicken CAFO. My 

family has directly been affected by this farm. We have had to leave our home several times 

because the smell was so bad. We have contacted the EPA several times. We have been told 

that unless we have dead fish, or unless my husband and I or children get sick there is nothing 

they can do. We have a 3-acre pond stocked full of fish we cannot eat due to the run off of 

chicken manure into our pond. The air we breathe is polluted, our pond is polluted. We 

deserve fresh air."- Tanisha Jones 

10. ''There is a CAFO above the City of Carbondale reservoir of Cedar Lake. People opposed it, but 

it did not change anything."- Carla Womack 

11. "Our country and certainly our state and local communities need more disclosure by CAFOs 

about their emissions, not less. Clearly, by definition, any bill that moves to less disclosure of 

harmful substances is aiming to protect the polluter and not the citizens that the government 

was elected to serve. In response to a CAFO recently built on the edge of Cedar Lake, our 

city's, Carbondale's main source of drinking water, a group of concerned citizens, including a 

number of members of the Shawnee Sierra Club, collected comments from local farmers, 

5 
116 


30052.080

brewery owners, and tourist industry folks who feel their livelihood is threatened by such 

industrial animal production facilities and their assumptions that they don't have to be 

accountable for the pollution that impacts the air we breathe and public's sources of water. 

Also on record protesting the unwanted impact of this CAFO are families that live close to it. 

In one case, the family members can't go outside on certain days given the strong stench and 

their daughter has developed a rash after having spent time outside. The government needs 

to take notice of the people's voice and not just of the country's polluters."- Jane Cogie, Sierra 

Club Shawnee Group 

INDIANA: 

1. "There is a large CAFO 3/8 miles east. We get a strong odor sometimes strong enough you 

can taste it, or on a calm evening when the dew sets, the hog smell comes and we have to go 

inside and close the windows. People living next to a CAFO are, in my opinion, considered 

collateral damage by the powers that be. It is something I would not wish on anyone and 

what really upsets me is that the odor could be reduced. Feed the world and the hell with your 

neighbor."- Kevin Williams 

IOWA: 

1. "Most days, even in town, we smell pig shit!" -CindyCapellen 

2. "Iowa counties with many CAFOs have very visible air pollution from factory farm emissions. 

However, no one is monitoring it- not the DNR or the EPA. I and my elderly mother had to 

leave our home and move to town to get away from the factory farm emissions from 1.5 

million chickens and 8,000 hogs 2 miles from my home and the surrounding manure fields 

that were causing multiple health problems for both of us. Now, we only experience those 

symptoms when the wind is blowing air pollution from the areas with factory farms and 

manure fields. Clean air and water are prerequisites for good health. Our government needs 

to regulate CAFOs and require them to reduce or eliminate their toxic emissions."- Joan Olive 

3. "Our water is polluted, along with our air. I am a rural resident of Northwest Iowa, and I am 

so tired of hauling bottled water home for drinking and cooking and the expense!"- Roberta 

Carpenter 

4. "As a 20-year business owner in Lime Springs, Iowa, I have witnessed a rapid decline of the 

community since the evolution into factory forming started. What was once a great place to 

raise a family, operate a business, and interesting destination for people to visit has become 

almost desolate. Most tragically, we've lost our school. Our stores are vacant and people 

rarely take time to drive into town, often stating their goal is to just get through Iowa. If this 

continues, not only will the communities fail to entice families to move or stay here, the state 

will feel the impact as well provided the interests for the greater good, rather than the few 

are at heart."- Jana Hartzell, Hartzell Wood Stock 

5. "After building our dream home in 1983, in rural Carroll County, Iowa, we became surrounded 

by mare than 30,000 hags in CAFOs, built between 1995 and 2014. The air quality was foulsmelling most days, and aver the years, DNR readings of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and 

particulates had climbed to danger levels that persist to this day. After suffering from asthma6 
117 


30052.081

like symptoms, and my wife with severe and persistent migraines, we eventually sold our 

home to the county conservation service. To this day, nearly 5 years later, we have been told 

that there is still no one living in that home, which is sad. if that was not enough, we now live 

in Adel, Iowa and now have a water quality problem with high nitrates and other pollutants. 

We also have an air quality problem, as does all of Iowa according to the latest DNR results. I 

am a regular attendee at DNR-EPC meetings and participate in the public comment session of 

those meetings."- Vern Tigges 

6. "We live directly south of Rathbun Lake and get our water from RRWA. Of course we're 

impacted, anyone who drinks water or breathes in this state is impacted."- Nancy Jones, 

Plano City Council 

7. "I have asthma and life-threatening allergies. I stepped outside twice in my life and couldn't 

breathe, which was very frightening and I couldn't identify the cause. My son also has 

allergies and childhood exercise-induced asthma."- Maria Houser Conzemlus, Iowa Citizens 

for Community Improvement 

8. "Our concerns are many. Our neighborhood is known for shallow wells, 100 feet and under. 

Living on karst terrain, we are well aware that our abnormal water quality tests are being 

influenced by CAFOs in the area. We also have several people who are very concerned about 

the air quality- one with a lung condition, one with allergies to air pollutants in hog 

confinements, and numerous farmers, including Amish who spend many hours outside, 

unable to escape the smells. Our lists include loss of quality of life and not being able to be 

outside without the fear of which way the wind blows smells our way."- Sue George, 

Northeast Iowans for Clean Air and Water 

9. "We have many members across the state of Iowa who have personal impact stories related 

to air quality, water quality, public health impact, and loss of quality of life."- Adam Mason, 

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement 

10. "I drove back to Northwest Iowa a couple of weeks ago, and the air stunk so heavy and full of 

manure that I had to cover my nose with a cloth and alii could think about was the poor 

people living there, especially kids that have no choice. Horrible stench!' -Sue Biederman 

11. "!may be forced to move to keep my health. My home has already lost value and my orchard 

and blueberry enterprises are in jeopardy. I am the 5th generation an a Century Farm, I can 

prove who was here first. All the hog CAFOs in my rural neighborhood are owned by absentee 

land owners who care nothing about the neighbors. We are suffering from hydrogen sulfide 

headaches! I cannot open the windows in the house and have been driven inside many times 

when outside conditions are unbearable. /live on a river bottom where the stink HOVERS!"-

Kim Andersen, Blueberry Bottom 

7 
118 


30052.082

KANSAS: 

1. "KDHE, the very people who ore there to protect our health, hove sponsored 58 405 to change 

the broiler conversion rate to 0.003. This will also decrease the setback from the present 4000 

feet to just 1320 feet. This bill just came out of the Agriculture and Resource committee, ond 

if it passes, our state will become overrun with chickens and chicken manure."- Cecelia Pruitt 

2. "/lived in Garden City, KS for 11 years and hod respiratory issues and headaches while /lived 

there. When I moved to Clearwater, KS in 2009, my health improved. I am convinced that is 

because I am no longer exposed to emissions from CAFOs."- Susan Lamberson 

3. "Kansas is under attack by our desperate state government to bring in business revenue after 

our now former Governor ruined our state budget with reckless tax cuts. Bringing CAFOs into 

our state is not the answer, and would very likely ruin our air and water quality, not to 

mention our pristine countryside."-Teresa Reichart-Vernon 

MARYLAND: 

1. "I have three children and one granddaughter. When I moved to the Eastern Shore of MD, 

besides the beauty of the region, I noted to two disturbing facts: 1) there is an alarming 

amount of cancer patients- both young and old, and 2) there are so many children with 

asthma or respiratory diseases. While my family has no history of these diseases, my 

youngest daughter was prescribed an inhaler almost two years ago. Do you know what it's 

like to see your child struggling to breathe and not to know why? She has had five 

comprehensive allergy tests the last few years- all negative. My daughter and 

granddaughter both break out in unexplained rashes. They live in the same city, sa what could 

it be? I believe, it's something in the air. 

The Eastern Shore region has been encroached upon by large concentrated animal feeding 

operations known as CAFOs. These monstrosities house 100,000 plus chickens each producing 

tons of ammonia and of course tons of manure. These operations each have 18 industrial fans 

releasing toxins into our air for our children to breathe and they are not monitored or 

required to be filtered. These operations are being placed dangerously close to neighborhoods 

and schools in spite of the large amounts of land available on the shore that is not near 

anyone. One CAFO was placed right across from the playground of my daughter's school! My 

protests went unheard, and I was labeled anti-poultry! I am not anti-poultry, farming or 

industry. I am a mom fighting for the future of my children, grandchildren and all others who 

can't fight for themselves. If the industry is truly being good neighbors, they would welcome 

air monitoring because there would be nothing to hide. We need your help. Please help us 

send the message that all lives matters. Not just chickens."- Monica Brooks, Concerned 

Citizens Against Industrial CAFOs 

2. "Eastern Share has the highest concentration of paultry CAFOs. The Eastern Shore also has 

the highest numbers of lung cancer, COPD, asthma in children and ather respiratory 

problems, more than anywhere else in MD."- Gabby Cammarata, Concerned Citizens Against 

Industrial CAFOs 

8 
119 


30052.083

3. "I've lived in the same house my entire life, in a suburb composed of many types of people. 

We live less than a mile away from the biggest factory farm in our county. This so-coiled 

'facility" is also located less than two miles away from an elementary school and a retirement 

area. I think everyone here deserves to know what we're breathing and what has an impact 

on our health. This area was zoned not just for agriculture. After going in front of our County 

Council and Zoning Board, we fee/like the good old boy network is alive and well. Please help 

us have some type of protection."- Nicole Kopnisky 

MISSOURI: 

1. "A 4K piggery was approved in my neighborhood last summer, with no notice to even the 

closest neighbors. It also sits nearly directly by the little country church I attend. No one asked 

us. No one told us. Yet now, we will deal with the health impacts even while in church. And 

now, "they" (big agriculture) want to make the rules even more lax? I don't think so!"-

Tammy Williams 

2. "My family lives about 10 miles from severo/large egg laying facilities and other CAFOs have 

moved in nearby, as well. The stench from the facilities on days when the wind blows from the 

east is intolerable. Other days that the farmers are spreading manure all over their fields, the 

stench is just as bad if not worse. It is polluting and killing out our local streams from the 

runoff off of their fields or overflows from the CAFO's. Please help and allow regulations and 

provide enforcement of them to prevent harm to MO citizens."- Angela Corson 

3. "There are 5,000 hogs located three miles from my house and they want to expand to 

20,000. "-Ron lhler 

4. "There are polluting the air, water, soil and streams in my county, and proposed a 7,500 head 

farrowing operation coming within 1.5 miles of our home."- Bill Embry 

MONTANA: 

1. "Our town is under the threat of an incoming massive slaughterhouse with CAFOs to follow. 

We know it will utterly destroy our community, a community my family Has lived in far six 

generations. I don't eat meat from CAFOs and don't want them in my state. Buying loco/from 

small businesses should be the goal not HUGE monopolies."- Renae Munson 

OHIO: 

1. "Nearly each year, Lake Erie and many of Ohio's other waterways, contend with bright green 

mats of toxic algae. In 2011, Lake Erieexperienced one of the worst toxic algae seasons on 

record, unti12015 when the green slime was so severe it ranked a 10.5 on a 1 -10 scale. That 

same year, toxic algae stretched over 650 miles of the Ohio River. 

But the landmark event that most people remember is the weekend in early August 2014 

when nearly half-a-million Toledo residents were told not to drink their tap water. Toxin 

concentrations from Lake Erie's algae made the city's water too dangerous to use and sent 

people scrambling to find bottled water, which quickly sold out in the metro-area." 

Visit our website for some stories: https://theoec.org/clean-water/toxic-alqae!- Krlsty 

Meyer, Ohio Environmental Council 

9 
120 


30052.084

OKLAHOMA: 

1. "Poultry CAFOs are all around my area and they smell horribly. People complain of health 

issues that live close to these units. Once I visited a farmer that lived next to a hog CAFO that 

polluted his stream and the smell so horrible that when I came to his door he was in his chair 

with a wet rag an his face because of the bad odor. He was in his 80s. His neighbor, a woman, 

had asthma and was struggling because of the odor. She was too poor to afford air 

conditioner. Like him, she kept wet rag over her face, but that did keep her from dying the 

night before I arrived. I have many more stories like this. People hove lost their ability to have 

family gatherings at their forms and homes because of nearby CAFOs due to the smell. Rural 

folks can't have grandchildren over to spend the night or weekend any more. Outdoor BBQs 

are out of the question. These emissions have changed the lives of folks living in communities 

affected."- Earl Hatley, Grand Riverkeeper/LEAD Agency, Inc. 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

1. 'There are weak county ordinances with poor setback distances. The underfunded and 

understaffed State DENR have NO authority to levy fines and enforce regulations."- Phillip 

Tau 

2. "Yankton County is allowing numerous CAFO permits with families that live with lf to J4 miles 

from these factories."- Daniel Grant 

3. "You know it is unhealthy to drive on highways when off you can smell is manure! From my 

home in South Dakota to my old home in Iowa is like running a gauntlet of horrific smells. 

CAFOs are taking the joy out of living!"- Dianna Torson 

4. 'We have two CAFOs within five miles of our property with 7,000 hogs. When the wind 

changes it becomes unbearable to breathe. God only knows what it's doing to our water 

supply since they knowingly built it on a wetland."- Mace Roberts, Uttle City Farms 

5. "When will corporate greed stop selling out the right to quality of life for the environment and 

our citizens?"- Jane Grant 

6. "My quality of air is being affected by these corporations having 1970s style curtain barns 

being constructed for CAFOs near my house without any type of air pollution control because 

of the corrupt Yankton County Commissioners."- Alexis Grant 

VIRGINIA: 

1. "This is one of the reasons why we don't buy commercial meats. If the air is dangerous to 

humans, think about the animals. Wake up! This is not good for any of us." -Jill Averitt 

2. "I walk outside of my house now and the stink is horrendous between every flock and also 

when they burn the carcasses."- Robert Cold 

10 
121 


30052.085

WISCONSIN: 

1. "!live 1 Y, miles from a CAFO. Multiple times in the summer, I cannot sit outside and enjoy my 

property because of the odor of manure/ammonia. It is very seldom that I can open my 

windows. Sometimes even in the winter the odor is very strong. Emissions need to be 

regulated with statutes, not just self-reporting or monitoring. There are air monitoring 

devices, and they should be required on all CAFOs. CAFOs should be protecting their own 

workers as well as my air!" -VAJ. Drath, Retired Dairy Farmer and Member of Wisconsin 

Farmers Union 

2. "I don't wont to be a victim of an out of state CAFO owner destroying our county."- Phil 

Fransen 

3. "Every time the farmers start farming in our community, I have severe allergic reactions with 

my eyes, my skin and my breathing. It's horrible. I have friends that are having the same 

issues. Please do not allow this bill to pass."- Robin Taylor 

4. "There is a prominent stench whenever the wind is out of the south. There are also hundreds 

of manure trucks going by that contribute to poor air quality."- Judy Jolin 

5. "I nearly died from E. coli poisoning a jew years ago. There was no way to know where I had 

come in contact with it, but it was antibiotic resistant and nothing was working. The doctors 

finally decided they had to try what they called o "last resort" antibiotic because there was a 

risk af permanent kidney damage. Thankfully, it worked and I still have to take medications to 

prevent even the slightest of UTis that may put me at risk again. After a jew months, we 

learned of a restaurant in our neighborhood that had to replace their well because it was 

contaminated with E. coli. I told my husband that every time we ate there I felt sick and it was 

just a jew days after eating there for the last time that I ended up in the hospital with E. coli 

poisoning. There are several wells in our county that have tested positive for nitrates, and 

even some with E. coli after a major spill that went unreported for several months by a CAFO 

in the same township as the restaurant I spoke of. I do not believe it is a coincidence." -Carol 

Johnson 

11 
122 


30052.086

March 9, 2018 

The Honorable John A. Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Mike Rounds 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee, 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste 

Management and Regulatory Oversight 

United States Senate 

41 0 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Cory Booker 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee, 

Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste 

Management and Regulatory Oversight 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Re: Opposition to S. 2421, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act." 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Booker, 

and members of the Environment and Public Works Committee: 

In light of the upcoming hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on 

Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, the undersigned organizations, rural 

community members, farmers, and impacted constituents from across the country submit this letter 

in opposition to S.2421, the so-called, "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act." Instead of 

protecting rural communities from toxic chemical releases, S.2421 would exempt all concentrated 

animal feeding operations ("CAFOs") from reporting their emissions of hazardous substances into 

the air like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. 

As individuals and organizations representing rural community members, farmers, and other 

constituents, we strongly believe that communities have a right to know about toxic air 

emissions near their homes and workplaces-no matter what the source. Hydrogen sulfide is 

hydrogen sulfide whether from an industrial power plant or an industrial concentrated animal 

feeding operation ("CAFO"). There is no reason that people should be denied information about 

the poisonous emissions they are exposed to simply because the emissions come from a CAFO, 

where hundreds or thousands of animals are confined for long periods in facilities where their 

waste is concentrated and stored in high volumes, rather than being dispersed naturally across 

pastures. 

Animal waste at medium and large CAFOs regularly emit ammonia and hydrogen sulfide at levels 

above the health-based 100 pounds per day reportable quantity under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the Emergency 
123 


30052.087

Planning and Community Right-to Know Act ("EPCRA"). Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide 

emissions from CAFOs can cause serious health impacts such as exacerbation of asthma, scarring 

of the respiratory tract, and even death. Many of our members live in communities near these 

animal factories, and we know all too well the real-life meaning of these harms. Large CAFOs 

have been required to report these hazardous emissions for decades. Repealing this reporting 

requirement would prevent rural residents, some of whom live on and operate family farms, from 

knowing about poisons in their air simply because the poisons come from CAFOs. 

Because of EPA's illegal 2008 reporting exemption, CAFOs did not have to report their releases 

under CERCLA. However, large CAFOs have consistently been required to report their releases 

to state and local officials under EPCRA. Last April, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the CERCLA 

exemption is illegal and upheld the requirement that large CAFOs report under EPCRA. The 

Court's decision protects rural communities by ensuring they have information to help protect their 

families from toxic chemical releases. As the D.C. Circuit recognized, the risk of harm from AFOs 

"isn't just theoretical; people have become seriously ill and even died as a result" of their 

emissions. Our members must close doors and windows to keep out the stench from CAFOs. 

They get headaches and feel nauseous when they go outside. They suffer from burning airways 

and decreased lung capacity because of the toxic emissions that emanate from CAFOs every day. 

Congress long ago made clear that communities deserve to know what toxic chemicals are being 

released in their midst. They also deserve to know that their local emergency responders have that 

information and that they can therefore effectively protect their communities. Our organizations, 

many of which have members from rural communities across this country, deserve the right to 

know about polluters in our neighborhoods just like those in urban America who live amidst 

facilities that have been reporting their emissions under these laws for decades. 

The undersigned therefore strongly urge the Senate to oppose S.2421, and to remain steadfast in 

requiring CAFOs to disclose their emissions so that we can better protect our health and our 

communities. 

Respectfully, 

NATIONAL 

Animal Legal Defense Fund 

Animal Welfare Institute 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Center for Food Safety 

Clean Water Action 

Earthjustice 

Environmental Working Group 

Environment America 

Food & Water Watch 

Four Paws International 

Friends of the Earth 

Greenpeace 

2 

Humane Society of the United States 

In Defense of Animals 

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy 

League of Conservation Voters 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Public Citizen 

Public Justice 

Sierra Club 

The Impact Fund 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Waterkeeper Alliance 
124 


30052.088

ALABAMA 

Gasp, Inc. 

Cahaba River Society 

Black Warrior Riverkeeper 

John Wathen 

ARIZONA 

Don't Waste Arizona 

SunHarvest Solar 

Broken Gait Ranch 

Goat Ranch 

Propers Sales & Service 

Daniel Mack 

Rhonda Mack 

Lorna Proper 

Lloyd Rogers 

Elaine Kotzyba-Morgan 

Robert Samson 

Cynthia Bradley 

Gerald Morgan 

Kelly Reed 

ARKANSAS 

White River Waterkeeper 

Ozark River Stewards 

Buffalo River Watershed Alliance 

Taylor Family Farm 

My Blue Heaven Cabin Rentals & Rivendell 

Gardens 

Deborah Bird 

Dane Schumacher 

Marti and Larry Olesen 

Ellen Mitchell 

Brian Thompson 

Jack Stewart 

Carol Bitting 

CALIFORNIA 

Natural Heritage Institute 

Endangered Habitats League 

Warehouse Worker Resource Center 

3 

COLORADO 

Western Colorado Congress 

Save EPA 

Oceti Sakowin Oyate 

Inland Ocean Coalition 

DELAWARE 

Greer Stangl 

Katherine Bohs 

Pamela White 

FLORIDA 

Suncoast Waterkeeper 

GEORGIA 

Environment Georgia 

ILLINOIS 

Helping Others Maintain Environmental 

Standards (HOMES) 

Citizens Against Ruining the Environment 

Illinois Council-Trout Unlimited 

Sierra Club - Shawnee Group 

40 Acre Farm 

Thornton Farms 

Lisa Powell 

Connie King 

Blake Wells 

Linda Green 

Mary Burnitz 

Joseph Turrise 

Heidi Hamelka 

Kelly Robbins 

Kris Kringle 

Jenifer Garlitz 

Patty W eyhrich 

Priscilla Reynolds 

Barbara McKasson 

Patricia Livingston 

Vincent Koers 

CatieGregg 

Kathleen Crombez 

Joyce Harant Harant 

Tanisha Jones 
125 


30052.089

Carla Womack 

Teresa Cox 

INDIANA 

Kevin Williams 

Hoosier Environmental Council 

IOWA 

Northeast Iowans for Clean Air and Water 

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement 

Hartzell Wood Stock 

Blueberry Bottom 

Nancy Jones 

Stacie Lancaster 

Cindy Capellen 

Joan Olive 

Roberta Carpenter 

Vern Tigges 

Daryl Kothenbeutel 

Maria Houser Conzemius 

Mark Edwards 

Mardene Lien 

Kim Nelson 

Margaret McDonnell 

Sue Biederman 

Tom Willett 

KANSAS 

Friends of the Kaw 

Charlea Davis 

Cecilia Pruitt 

Connie Mann 

Charlene Zink 

Linda Vanderweide 

Susan Lamberson 

Teresa Reichart-Vernon 

Dierdra Little 

Christine Parker 

Janet Hofmeister 

MARYLAND 

Concerned Citizens Against Industrial 

CAFOS 

Moms Across America Eastern Shore 

Lower Shore Progressive Caucus 

Potomac Riverkeeper Network 

4 

Upper Potomac Riverkeeper 

Waterkeeper Chesapeake 

ShoreRivers 

Henry S. Cole & Associates 

Monica Brooks 

Charles Denton 

Cheryl Sidwell 

Nicole Kopnisky 

Jane Robinson 

Lane Bennett 

Jane Robinson 

Shannon Evans 

MASSACHUSETTS 

350 Mass 

Attleboro Land Trust 

Baypath Humane Society 

Berkshire Environmental Action Team (BEAT) 

Berkshire Humane Society 

Berkshire Voters for Animals 

Better Future Project 

Billerica Cat Care Coalition 

Clean Water Action Massachusetts 

Dakin Humane Society 

Just Roots Farm 

Massachusetts Sierra Club 

Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of 

Cruelty to Animals (MA-SPCA) 

Nantucket Island Safe Harbor for Animals 

(NiSHA) 

Poodle Rescue of New England 

Red Lentil Restaurant 

Sustainable Westford's Healthy Kids Coalition 

Toxics Action Network 

Western Mass Animal Rights Advocates 

(WMARA) 

MICHIGAN 

Environment Michigan 

MINNESOTA 

Land Stewardship Project 

MISSISSIPPI 

Pearl Riverkeeper 

MISSOURI 

Joan Keck Farm 
126 


30052.090

Shirley Kidwell 

Angela Corson 

EricRahm 

Susanna Frazier 

Tammy Williams 

Susan Williams 

Bill Embry 

Linda Brooks 

Ron Ihler 

MONTANA 

Robbie Regennitter 

Marie May 

Stephanie Kern 

Renae Munson 

NEBRASKA 

Nebraska Chapter Sierra Club 

George Cunningham 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Stacia Clinton 

NEW JERSEY 

Hackensack Riverkeeper 

NEW YORK 

Big Reuse 

Gas Free Seneca 

Seneca Lake Guardian, a Waterkeeper 

Affiliate 

Kate Newburger 

Gail Musante 

Melissa Bishop 

Diane Macinnes 

NORTH CAROLINA 

NC Environmental Justice Network 

Mountain True 

Environment North Carolina 

Green Riverkeeper 

Cape Fear River Watch 

Sound Rivers, Inc. 

Broad Rivers Alliance, a Waterkeeper 

Affiliate 

Ayo Wilson 

5 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Dakota Resource Council 

Janelle Engstrom 

Terry Engstrom 

OHIO 

Ohio Environmental Council 

OKLAHOMA 

Grand Riverkeeper & LEAD Agency, Inc. 

OREGON 

Renee Wrede 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Pennsylvania Council of Churches 

Mountain Watershed Association 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Edisto Riverkeeper 

Winyah Rivers Foundation, Inc. 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Dakota Rural Action 

Phillip Tau 

Helena La Batte 

Daniel Grant 

Carmen Tieszen 

Laura! Bidwell 

Rebecca Terk 

Dianna Torson 

Cathy Wellner 

Jane Grant 

Jonathan Riibe 

Alexis Grant 

Ariana Terry 

Donna Wenzlaff 

Catherine Hoss 

Bryan Bortnem 

Valerie Hevle 

Patrick Anderson 

Lora Johnson 

Mogens Mark 

Prairie Coteau Farm 
127 

Æ 


30052.091

Fruit of the Coop 

Little City Farms 

Shady Grove Cabin 

TENNESSEE 

Tennessee Riverkeeper 

Harpeth Conservancy 

TEXAS 

San Antonio Bay Estuarine W aterkeeper 

VERMONT 

Laurie Ristino 

VIRGINIA 

Health Care Without Harm 

Potomac Riverkeeper 

Shenandoah Riverkeeper 

Frederick Calhoun 

Karen Adams 

John Robertson 

James McGrath 

Jill Averitt 

Robert Cold 

WASHINGTON 

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance 

WEST VIRGINIA 

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition 

WISCONSIN 

Milwaukee Riverkeeper 

Sustain Rural Wisconsin Network 

Virginia J. Drath 

James Brennan 

Sarah Caldwell 

Wayde Lawler 

Phil Fransen 

Rhonda Carrell 

Robin Taylor 

Judy Jolin 

Carol Johnson 

Victoria Rogers 

Randy Skinner 

David Higgins 

6 

Shandra Dodd 

Patrick Stoffel 

Mary Christenson 

James Gitter 

Helen Kees 

WYOMING 

Upper Green River Network, a Colorado 

Riverkeeper Affiliate