Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469-1359
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-12-18T05:00Z

Response to Comment Document 

CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of
Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms

40 CFR Part 302

December 12, 2008

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Emergency Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Response to Comments for CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemption
for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste at Farms

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835226"  Introduction	 
PAGEREF _Toc216835226 \h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835227"  I.  	Proposed Definitions	  PAGEREF
_Toc216835227 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835228"  A.	Proposed Definition of “Animal
Waste”	  PAGEREF _Toc216835228 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835229"  B.	Proposed Definition of “Farm”	 
PAGEREF _Toc216835229 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835230"  II.  	Proposed Expansion of Reporting
Exemption to Other Facility Types	  PAGEREF _Toc216835230 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835231"  III.  	Proposed Elimination of Reporting
Requirement	  PAGEREF _Toc216835231 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835232"  A.	Support Proposed Elimination of
Reporting Requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc216835232 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835233"  B.	Support - Citing Issue Related to
Risk, Harm, and Exposure	  PAGEREF _Toc216835233 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835234"  A.	Oppose Proposed Elimination of
Reporting Requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc216835234 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835235"  B.	Oppose - Citing Issue Related to
Risk, Harm, and Exposure	  PAGEREF _Toc216835235 \h  23  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835236"  C.	Possible Situations that Would
Necessitate a Response	  PAGEREF _Toc216835236 \h  27  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835237"  V.	Regulatory Flexibility Act	  PAGEREF
_Toc216835237 \h  28  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835238"  VI.      Other	  PAGEREF _Toc216835238
\h  29  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835239"  VII.	Comments that Indicate a
Misunderstanding of the Proposed Rule	  PAGEREF _Toc216835239 \h  32  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835240"  Appendix A – Table of Commenters	 
PAGEREF _Toc216835240 \h  33  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc216835241"  Appendix B – Summary of Attachments
Submitted by Environmental Integrity and Earthjustice to Docket
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469-531	  PAGEREF _Toc216835241 \h  64  

 

Introduction

Purpose of this Document

On December 28, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a notice of proposed rulemaking titled “CERCLA/EPCRA
Administrative Reporting Exemption for Air Releases of Hazardous
Substances from Animal Waste” (72 FR 73700).  This rule would provide
an administrative reporting exemption from particular notification
requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, and the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known
as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
 Specifically, the proposed administrative reporting exemption would
apply to releases of hazardous substances to the air where the source of
those hazardous substances is animal waste at farms. Nothing in the
proposed rule, however, would change the notification requirements if
hazardous substances are released to the air from any other source other
than animal waste at farms (e.g., ammonia tanks) or if hazardous
substances from animal waste are released to any other environmental
media (e.g., soil, ground water, or surface water) when the release of
those hazardous substances is at or above its reportable quantity per 24
hours.

The Agency decided to finalize the CERCLA section 103 administrative
reporting exemption portion of the proposed rule and to a limited extent
the EPCRA section 304 administrative reporting exemption.  EPA is
exempting certain releases of hazardous substances to the air from the
notification requirements of CERCLA and to a limited extent EPCRA
emergency notifications, as implemented in 40 CFR 302.6 and 40 CFR Part
355, Subpart C-Emergency Notification Requirement, respectively. 
Specifically, we are exempting those hazardous substance releases that
are emitted to the air from animal waste at farms.  The exemption to the
CERCLA section 103 notification requirements will apply to all releases
of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms.  However,
to respond to comments expressing the desire to receive information
regarding releases from large concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs), EPA is bifurcating these administrative reporting exemptions in
order to continue to require EPCRA section 304 emergency notifications
for those CAFO operations that confine the large CAFO threshold of an
animal species or above, as defined in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program regulations.   As such, the exemption
to EPCRA section 304 emergency notification requirements will apply to
air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms that are
below the thresholds in 40 CFR 355.31(g) and for those farms that have
animals that are not stabled or confined.  (See 40 CFR 355,31(h))  For
the purposes of this rule, EPA considers animals (i.e., cattle) that
reside primarily outside of an enclosed structure (i.e., a barn or a
feed lot) and graze on pastures, not to be stabled or confined, and thus
are exempted from the reporting requirements under EPCRA Section 304.  

The purpose of this document is to summarize public comments received on
the proposed rule.  

Development of This Document

To develop this response to comment document, we reviewed each
submission made to public docket number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469.
Submissions to the public docket for this rulemaking appear in their
entirety at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
http://www.regulations.gov .  We organized the relevant comments
according to the Agency’s specific requests for public comment in the
proposed rule and other topics in the proposal (72 FR 73700, December
28, 2007).  

This document includes a summary of comments received and EPA’s
associated responses to the comments provided for the CERCLA/EPCRA
administrative reporting exemption for air releases of hazardous
substances from animal waste at farms. The specific comment excerpts
that are included in this document were taken verbatim from the
submissions to the docket received by the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS). Comment excerpts are included to substantiate the comment
summaries and provide additional information on commenter statements and
opinions.  Document identification numbers, as assigned by FDMS, are
provided in parentheses next to cited text.  Submissions that make
similar statements and appear in the same format or include slightly
modified wording in similar formats, or are identical are considered
form letters.  Form letters are cited once using the FDMS identification
number of the first identified submission.  Table 1 lists the FDMS
identification numbers of the original form letters as identified by
FDMS, the first and last name of the author when provided, the author
affiliation, and a count of the number of identical submissions
(including the first identified submission).

We also received comments that addressed issues outside the scope of the
proposed rule and the associated request for comment.  While EPA
appreciates these comments, we responded to them to the extent they are
relevant to the rulemaking. Appendix A of this document lists the author
names and affiliations, when provided, for all submissions received by
FDMS for public docket number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469.  Appendix B of
this document is a summary of attachments submitted by the Environmental
Integrity Project and Earthjustice to the docket
(EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469-531).

Table 1.  Form Letters Identified by FDMS	 

FDMS ID	First Name	Last Name	Affiliation	Count

310	Sarah	Alexander	Private Citizen - Mass Mail Campaign	4,310

405	Martha	Rhoades	Private Citizen - Poultry Mass Mail Campaign	2,537

85	Linda	Judd	Private Citizen - Sierra Club Mass Mail Campaign	2,040

535	Mat	Thomas	Private Citizen - Mass Mail Campaign	1,405

390	Henrietta	Hildebrand	Private Citizen - Cattle Mass Mail Campaign	370

242	Gareth	Mackrill	Private Citizen - Mass Mail Campaign	327

539	J.	Weber	Private Citizen - Pork Mass Mail Campaign	234

538	Illegible	Illegible	Private Citizen - Poultry Mass Mail Campaign	140

534	Carolyn	Davis 	Private Citizen - Poultry Mass Mail Campaign	121

537	J.	Davis	Private Citizen - Mass Mail Campaign	106

1141	Mitchell	Aaron	Private Citizen - Mass Mail Campaign	16

1350	Steven	Frischknecht	Private Citizen - Mass Mail Campaign	15

404	Thomas	Porter	Private Citizen - Egg Mass Mail Campaign	13

403	Cal 	Jackson 	Private Citizen - Mass Mail Campaign	13

1283	Amber	Pool	Private Citizen - Mass Mail Campaign	5

536	Stacey 	Maloney	Private Citizen - Mass Mail Campaign	3

Several submissions provided explicit support for comments submitted by
other organizations, as identified below.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture comments
(533) are supported by: 

South Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture (522, 523)

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Commonwealth of
Virginia (1042)

State of Delaware Department of Agriculture (1058)

Arkansas Agriculture Department (1059)

West Virginia Department of Agriculture (1101) 

The National Milk Producers Federation and the National Council of Farm
Cooperatives comments (657) are supported by:

Land O’Lakes, Inc. (656)

United Dairymen of Arizona (889)

Dairy Farmers of America (892)

Western United Dairymen (886)

Foremost Farms USA (896)

The National Association SARA Title III Program Officials comments (990)
are supported by: 

Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Commission (OHMERC)
(994)

One private citizen (999)

CERCLA and EPCRA Comments

The proposed rule, “CERCLA/EPCRA Administrative Reporting Exemptions
for Air Releases of Hazardous Substances from Animal Waste,” applied
to both CERCLA section 103 notification requirements and EPCRA section
304 emergency notification requirements and many of the comments
received during the public comment period apply to both CERCLA and
EPCRA.    COMMENT SUMMARY & RESPONSE

I.  	Proposed Definitions

A.	Proposed Definition of “Animal Waste” 

Issue: EPA proposed to add a definition for “animal waste” to the
Code of Federal Regulations that only pertains to regulations
promulgated pursuant to CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304,
specifically 40 CFR §302.3 (definitions) and 40 CFR §355.20
(definitions). The Agency is not aware of any existing definition for
animal waste and thus seeks comment from the public on the
appropriateness, clarity and completeness of this definition. 

Support Proposed Definition

Comment

Generally Support.  Several commenters expressed general support for the
proposed definition of “animal waste”. (565, 730, 815, 1201)  One
expressed support based on personal knowledge (82) while others
expressed support by stating, “As long as it is understood that this
definition is used solely for the purposes of EPCRA/CERCLA, the basic
parts of the definition are fine.” (529,1160)  Though agreeing with
the substance of the definition, several commenters proposed to change
the term "animal waste" to "animal nutrients" to reflect that manure is
a valuable resource for livestock and crop producers. (557, 1023, 1294)

Response

EPA intends for the definition of animal waste to be limited to use in
CERCLA section 103 notification requirements.  

EPA disagrees with commenters (557, 1023, and 1294) that proposed to
change the term animal waste to animal nutrients.  This rule is not
intended to make any statements regarding the value of manure as a
resource for livestock and crop producers.  We are providing the
exemption because the Federal government is unlikely to respond to such
notifications.  

Other Suggested Definitions

Comment

Requests to clarify definition. Several commenters requested
clarification regarding treatment of compost material, and specifically
whether composted manure is included in the definition. (469) 
Similarly, other commenters suggested that EPA clarify that manure-based
compost is included in the definition of animal waste. (479, 718, 883,
1230)  Another questioned the trigger for reporting emissions of compost
writing, “[i]t is not clear if the definition is meant to include some
forms of compost and exclude others or what may trigger a requirement to
report emissions from compost. Because manure is often the basis for
compost, we believe that EPA should clarify the definition to include
manure-based compost in the exemption from reporting.” (589)  Several
commenters requested clarification on whether the soil in a field that
has been supplemented with animal waste is considered animal waste. 
(529,1160)

Response

Commenters’ (469, 479, 529, 589, 718, 883, 1160, 1230) that requested
clarification regarding the treatment of compost material, whether
composted manure and manure based compost, and soil in a field that has
been supplemented with animal waste is considered animal waste, are
included in the definition.  With respect to composted manure and manure
based compost, EPA considers both to be included in the definition of
animal waste.  With respect to soil in a field that has been
supplemented with animal waste, to the extent that the animal waste is
being used as a fertilizer and not as a mechanism for disposal of the
animal waste, EPA would consider that supplementation to be a normal
application of fertilizer; hence, not considered a release into the
environment.  (See CERCLA section 101(22)(D).

Comment

Alternative definitions. Several commenters submitted proposed
alternative definitions.

To reflect the need for controlling emissions of dangerous and toxic
emissions, a commenter suggested that “animal waste” be defined as
"manure (livestock produced feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding
that has not been composted), digestive emissions, and urea, which emit
dangerous and/or toxic gases in any quantity.  This definition includes
animal waste when mixed or comingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil
and other materials typically found in animal waste.” (72)   

One commenter suggested an alternate definition which would define
animal waste as "all constituents and byproducts of the decomposition of
manure (feces, urine, other excrement, and bedding, produced by
livestock or poultry that has not been composted), digestive emissions,
and urea."  The definition would also include "animal waste when mixed
or commingled with water, bedding, compost, feed, soil and other
materials typically found with animal waste." (983)  

Another commenter contributed the following definition for animals
waste, "manure (feces, urine, or other excrement produced by livestock,
and including bedding), and any other livestock digestive emissions,
regardless of how stored, handled, composted or otherwise stockpiled.
The definition includes animal waste used in biogas production or other
treatment processes, or when mixed or commingled with bedding, compost,
feed, soil, and other materials typically found with animal waste."
(894)

Response

EPA disagrees with commenters (72, 894, and 983) that proposed
alternative definitions for the term animal waste.  The definition does
not need to account for controlling emissions of dangerous and toxic
emissions because CERCLA notification requirements apply to hazardous
substances.  The exemption is from CERCLA notification requirements and
to a limited extent EPCRA emergency notification.  The definition does
not need to include all constituents and byproducts of the decomposition
of manure.  EPA believes that the exemption of air releases of hazardous
substances is appropriate with respect to the regulations under CERCLA
and includes constituents and byproducts of the decomposition of manure
if they are hazardous substances.  Finally, the definition does not need
to include animal waste used in biogas production or other treatment
processes.  The administrative reporting exemption applies to animal
waste at farms.  The suggested alternative definitions would serve to
broaden the facility (farm) that is covered under the regulation to
other operations; EPA does not agree that broadening the facilities
covered by the exemption should be done through the definition of animal
waste.

Comment

Definition needs to be broadened.  One commenter suggested the
definition be broadened to "reflect manure in all forms used in
agricultural operations."  This would include composting material and
"ponds and land application of animal waste during routine farming
operations." (492) Another commenter suggested the definition include
emissions from all animals' manure, stating, “We do not see any
meaningful distinction between animal waste produced on the farm and
animal waste produced on non-farm facilities… We believe that EPA is
heading down a slippery slope when it tries to distinguish one
animal’s manure from another’s…” (479)

Response

EPA disagrees with commenters (479, 492) that suggested that the
definition be broadened to “reflect manure in all forms used in
agricultural operations,” or emissions from all animals’ manure.  As
discussed immediately above, EPA does not agree that broadening the
facilities covered by the exemption should be done through the
definition of animal waste.

Proposed Definition of “Farm” 

Issue: EPA proposed to add a definition for “farm” to the Code of
Federal Regulations that only pertains to regulations promulgated
pursuant to CERCLA §103 and EPCRA §304, specifically 40 CFR §302.3
(definitions) and 40 CFR §355.20 (definitions). For this proposed
exemption only, EPA defines “farm” by adopting the definition found
in the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Census of
Agriculture. Also, the Agency recognizes that Federal and state research
farms utilizing farm animals are subject to the conditions experienced
on other farms; therefore, EPA proposed to include Federal and state
poultry, swine, dairy and livestock research farms. The Agency seeks
comment on the proposed definition for a “farm”, and whether an
alternative definition may be more appropriate.

Support Proposed Definition

Comment

Generally Support.  Several commenters expressed general support for the
definition of farm. (82, 479, 557, 565, 589, 730, 815, 894, 1023, 1201,
1230)  Other commenters found the proposed definition acceptable since
it is the definition used by USDA and promotes continuity in definitions
between agencies. (529,1160)  Several commenters stated that the
definition is an accurate description of a commercial agricultural
enterprise for this regulation only. (718, 883, 1230) 

Response

EPA recognizes commenters (82, 479, 529, 557, 565, 589, 718, 815, 883,
894, 1023, 1160, 1201, and 1230) who generally supported our definition
of farm, especially those that found the definition acceptable since it
is used by USDA and promotes continuity in definitions between agencies.
 However, see response to commenter (72) immediately below.

Oppose Proposed Definition

Comment

Conflicting definitions within the same agency. One commenter indicated
that the proposed definition is inconsistent with the definition at 40
CFR Part 112 (Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure rule) (71 FR
77266, December 26, 2006): " …a facility on a tract of land devoted to
the production of crops or raising of animals, including fish, which
produced and sold, or normally would have produced and sold, $1,000 or
more of agricultural products during a year."  The commenter states,
“The concept of two differing definitions of the same entity by the
same Agency places a hardship on the regulated community.  It also gives
the regulated community the impression the Agency is picking and
choosing definitions to favor politically powerful communities.  We do
not necessarily support the Part 112 definition, but [at] least there
should be only [one] definition within the one Agency.” (72)

Response

As noted by commenter (72), the definition proposed is different from
that used by the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
rule (71 FR 77266, Dec. 26, 2006).  Our proposed definition added
specific facilities, namely “Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or
livestock research farm,” to the USDA definition of farm.  EPA agrees
with this commenter and thus, we have decided to use the same definition
of farm as the definition used in the SPCC rule.  EPA believes that this
final rule definition is broad enough so as to cover “Federal or state
poultry, swine, dairy or livestock research farm,” without explicitly
stating as such; thus keeping a clear and consistent definition used
within the Agency.

Comment

No need for the $1,000 sales limit in definition of farm. One commenter
notes that there is no reason to have the limitation because "such small
operations would not need to report anyway because the amount of
emission would not reach any known reportable quantity." (492)

Response

EPA disagrees with the commenter (492) that stated noted that there is
no reason to have the $1,000 sales limit in the definition of farm
because such small operations would not need to report anyway because
the amount of emission would not reach any known reportable quantity. 
First, EPA does not have information as to whether farms with sales
under $1,000 would trigger the CERCLA reportable quantity.  Second, EPA
wants to have consistency between the definition of farm in its
regulations.

Other Suggested Definitions

Comment

Provide additional specifications. One commenter agreed with the terms
of the definition and suggested adding language to include "[any]
operation that produces eggs, poultry, swine, dairy, or other livestock
in any amount.”  The commenter also suggested that the definition
should include all production areas and land application areas. (983)

Response

EPA disagrees with the alternative definition suggested by the commenter
(983) to add language to include “[any] operation that produces eggs,
poultry, swine, dairy, or other livestock in any amount,” and to
include all production areas and land application areas.  EPA believes
that this final rule definition is broad enough so as to cover those
specific concerns, without explicitly stating as such; thus keeping a
clear and consistent definition.

Comment

Expand definition to include non-Federal or State research facilities. 
One commenter pointed out that the Agency recognized that State and
Federal facilities utilize farm animals and are therefore subject to the
reporting of releases under CERCLA and EPCRA.  “These regulations
apply to all research facilities generating animal waste.” (1352)

Response

EPA recognizes the alternative definition suggested by the commenter
(1352) to include non-Federal or State research facilities;
specifically, “these regulations apply to all research facilities
generating animal waste.”  The final rule definition of farm does not
include, “(b) a Federal or state poultry, swine, dairy or livestock
research farm.”  EPA believes that this final rule definition is now
broad enough so as to cover the specific concerns of the commenter. 
Thus both Federal and non-Federal and State facilities that meet the
final definition of farm would be included in these regulations.

II.  	Proposed Expansion of Reporting Exemption to Other Facility Types

Issue: The Agency is aware that animal waste is also generated at other
facilities, such as zoos and circuses. Because the focus of this
proposal is on animal waste generated or found at farms, EPA is not
proposing to expand the reporting exemption beyond such facilities.
However, the Agency requests comment on whether the reporting exemption
should be expanded to other types of facilities that also generate
animal waste, and if so, what other types of facilities should be
included in the reporting exemption. 

Support and Suggest Other Facility Types to be Provided Exemption

Comment

Exclude other facilities that produce animal manure from reporting
requirements. “While the rule needs to remain narrowly focused, it
would seem reasonable to expand this rule to other animal operations
that generate animal waste as well… Again, given that the purpose of
reporting these emissions to local, state, federal authorities is so
that proper human health can be safeguarded… it is hard to envision
how having such facilities as zoos and circuses making these reports
would advance these goals…  As such, the rule should stay narrowly
focused but should include other facilities that produce animal
manure.” (529, 1160)  

Response

While EPA agrees with the commenters (529, 1160) that there are other
facilities that produce animal manure; however, we do not believe that
broadening the facilities to operations that generate animal waste is
appropriate, because the Agency has not studied these other facilities,
such as zoos and circuses, which are very different facilities than
farms., and did not receive meaningful comments on those other
facilities.

Comment

Explicitly exclude “all animal activities” rather than facilities
from reporting requirements.  The scope of the rule should also include
other facilities.  “[Commenter] believes it is better to exclude all
animal activities and not leave it ambiguous as to whether or not
circuses, zoos, golf courses need to report.” (492) 

Response

CERCLA section 103 notification requirements are that owners or
operators of vessels or facilities report releases.  Since CERCLA and
EPCRA notification requirements don’t regulate activities, use of the
phrase “all animal activities” could add regulatory confusion.

Comment

Exempt reporting of emissions for all animals’ manure rather than
specific facilities. Several commenters stated that because the
generation of manure is a normal biological process, all animals' manure
should be excluded. (589, 883, 1230)   “As referenced earlier, NFBF
believes normal animal biological processes are not an emergency threat
to human health or the environment, whether those events and animals
reside on-farm or off-farm at other locations (i.e. fairs, zoos,
circuses, racetracks or other non-commercial sites). We encourage EPA to
include emissions from all animals' manure in the proposed exemption
recognizing these are normal biological processes.” (883)

Response

Even if manure is the result of a normal biological process as
commenters (589, 883, and 1230) suggest, they are still hazardous
substances that are emitted from the manure.  EPA believes that the
exclusion should stay narrowly focused and therefore has limited the
exemption to animal waste at farms because the Agency has not studied
those other locations and did not receive meaningful comments on them.

III.  	Proposed Elimination of Reporting Requirement

Issue: The Agency believes it is appropriate to propose eliminating the
reporting requirement under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 for
hazardous substances released to the air at farms where the source of
those hazardous substances is animal waste.

Support Proposed Elimination of Reporting Requirements 

Comment

Generally Support.  Many commenters expressed general support for the
proposed elimination of reporting requirements under CERCLA section 103
and EPCRA section 304 for hazardous substances released to the air at
farms where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste.  

Response 

EPA acknowledges the commenters’ general support for the proposed
elimination of reporting requirements.

Comment

Rationale also applies to Federal or State research facilities.  One
commenter expressed support and “feel[s] that this rationale also
applies to Federal or State research facilities.  Experience has shown
that there have been no National Response Center (NRC) responses
triggered from releases of hazardous substance from farm waste which
includes animal research facilities.”

Response

As discussed in the response to comments under I.B., above, EPA believes
that the final rule definition for farm is broad enough so as to cover
those specific concerns, without explicitly stating as such; thus
keeping a clear and consistent definition.

Comment

Reporting is not of value.  Many commenters expressed support for the
proposed elimination of reporting requirements, stating that reporting
emissions is of little value.  In particular, one commenter stated that
“[o]ur county is well aware that routine agriculture operations…
release natural by-products such as ammonia at generally low
concentrations on an ongoing basis. We believe the public is also well
informed that such releases occur regularly… given these
circumstances, our county does not believe such notifications would be
of value in performing our mission, and in fact may prove to be a
hindrance.” (458) 

Response

While EPA received comments that the public is well informed that
releases from animal waste occur regularly, we also received comments
that the notifications would be of value.  As such, we have bifurcated
the final rule to have an exemption to CERCLA section 103 notification
requirements and a limited exemption to the EPCRA section 304 emergency
notification requirements.  The limited EPCRA section 304 exemption
provides an exemption to those farms that are below the animal threshold
for large CAFOs, as defined in 40 CFR 122.23(b)(4).

Comment

Reporting is costly.  Many commenters stated that emissions reporting is
costly and could put them out of business should they have to adhere to
such a regulation. Specifically, one commenter, a flock supervisor,
stated that “[m]ost of my growers would not be able to adhere to this
policy and would have to close down their operation. With high fuel and
feed prices already hurting their bottom line this would push most of
them over the edge. We can’t risk an abundant, affordable food supply
in the name of low-level ammonia. I firmly believe this would put many
family farms out of business and be terrible for the already struggling
American family farm.” (655)  

Response

EPA agrees that complying with reporting requirements of CERCLA section
103 and would create an additional expense for those facilities that are
new to reporting.  Although compliance with the regulations for
reporting releases (i.e., 40 CFR 302) does not require monitoring the
releases, some may choose to do so and that could prove to be costly for
those operations.

Comment

Adoption of the proposed exemption is vital to prevent further state
actions and lawsuits from attempting to subject animal agriculture to
CERCLA and EPCRA release and reporting provisions. One commenter stated
that, “in the past, a small number of states, lawsuits, and activists
have moved to expand federal Superfund provision to regulate family
farms and ranches. Whether justified or not, animal agriculture, the
storage of manure, and the application of manure as a natural fertilizer
are already regulated by various comprehensive federal and state laws
including the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.  Adding CERCLA and
EPCRA provision would create even more regulatory burdens for those that
proactively work to produce food and fiber for our nation.” (77)  

Response

While EPA is aware of such lawsuits, they have no bearing on this
rulemaking.  EPA is exempting these releases because we believe that a
response to the releases is impracticable.

Comment

Exempt CAFOs from requirements until science is more sound. Many
commenters stated that accurately quantifying emissions would be
difficult as would be the burden of proof to validate the measurements. 
One commenter suggested that “[f]arms should be exempt from monitoring
and reporting pollutant releases until measuring and testing procedures
become more accurate… We recommend the adoption of the proposed rule
until feasible monitoring practices may be enacted.” (82)  Another
commenter provided support for the proposed rule, stating that
“putting these further regulations on rural growers is unfair when the
science surrounding ammonia releases is uncertain.” (444)

Response

EPA recognizes the commenters’ concerns with accurately quantifying
emissions.

Comment 

Congress never intended to require cattle producers to report these
emissions from manure. “CERCLA was intended to provide for cleanup of
hazardous waste sites like Love Canal and Times Beach. To this end,
Congress created the Superfund to tax the building blocks (such as
petrochemicals, inorganic raw materials, and petroleum oil) used to make
all hazardous products and waste. Manure and urea are clearly not among
these materials. In addition, ‘[a]mmonia when used to produce or
manufacture fertilizer or when used as a nutrient in animal feed’ is
specifically exempted from the tax due to the ‘unnecessary burden’
it would place on agriculture. A similar exemption is in place for
pesticides. In fact, the definition of ‘hazardous chemical’ excludes
‘any substance to the extent it is used in agriculture
operations.’…These releases pose no threat to public health or the
environment, and it would be an utter waste of public resources for
authorities to investigate and consider remedial action when it would
never lead to any such action." (494, 815) Similarly, one comment stated
that the Clean Air Act is an appropriate vehicle to attain important
environment objectives, not CERCLA/EPCRA. (1249)

Response

CERCLA section 103(a) requires any person in charge of a vessel or
facility from which a hazardous substance has been released into the
environment in a quantity equal to or above its reportable quantity to
immediately notify the National Response Center of the release. 
Similarly, EPCRA section 304 requires the owner or operator of a
facility to immediately report to state and local authorities the
release of an extremely hazardous substance above its reportable
quantity from the facility.  Based on the language of these statutes,
there is no indication that Congress meant to exclude emissions from
manure from reporting requirements under CERCLA section 103(a) and EPCRA
section 304.  With respect to manure that is used as fertilizer, as we
stated above in Section I.A.2. of this document, the normal application
of fertilizer is not a release under CERCLA section 101(22)(D) and hence
would not be subject to reporting under CERCLA section 103(a) or EPCRA
section 304.    

Comment

It is logical to extend exemption from synthetic fertilizer to
manure-based fertilizer.  One commenter pointed out that CERCLA/EPCRA
reporting laws already exempt releases of similar or identical
substances if a farmer uses synthetic fertilizer; it is only consistent
and logical to apply the same provision for manure based fertilizer.
(528)

Response 

The definition of a release under CERCLA excludes the normal application
of fertilizer.  That exclusion would also apply to EPCRA.  That
definition does not differentiate between synthetic and manure-based
fertilizer.  However, not all manure is used in the normal application
of fertilizer and as such releases from animal waste, which includes
manure, are not always considered to be excluded as a release under
CERCLA.  Therefore, we believe that the administrative reporting
exemption under CERCLA, and to a limited extent EPCRA, is necessary.  

Support - Citing Issue Related to Risk, Harm, and Exposure 

Comment

General.  Many commenters provided general comment to the effect that
emissions from CAFOs pose no threat to public health or the environment.
(390, 435, 458, 466, 494, 852, 1010, 1281, 1305)  One commenter
expressed concern over the burden of liability from estimating
emissions. (397)   One commenter from Kansas also cited the good
relationship between federally permitted animal feeding operations and
the local emergency services saying, “there is a good understanding
that there are few if any risks from these facilities releasing
hazardous substances, particularly from animal wastes.” (469)

Response

EPA appreciates the perspective of these commenters; however, EPA has
not made any independent determinations regarding the risk associated
with air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste at farms. 
The rationale for this exemption is based on the Federal government
likelihood of response to a CERCLA section 103 notification of release. 
The limited exemption under EPCRA section 304 was made to address
concerns raised in public comment about emissions from large farms.

Comment

Adverse impact to humans is unlikely.  Many commenters submitted
comments stating that there is no evidence or studies that emissions
pose any public health risks or have environmental impacts that would
warrant emergency release reports from farms at the federal level.  One
commenter stated that “it is highly improbable that any amount of
animal waste on a farm could produce air emissions so concentrated or
hazardous that they could threaten an acute exposure to humans or the
environment, thus requiring an emergency cleanup response. Commenter
agrees with USEPA that emissions from animal waste on farms would occur
into the air over a broad, open-space area. This fact alone
significantly reduces the potential for exposure to high concentrations
of air emissions. Not only do concentrations dissipate quickly in open
spaces, but the threat of human exposure is reduced by the fact that
fewer people populate rural areas.” (83) Another commenter added that
“[t]here is no documented incident of deaths occurring as a result of
these releases to the atmosphere. Furthermore, there are no records that
we could find in the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH).” (592)

Response

While EPA received comments that there is no evidence or studies that
emissions pose any public health risks, we also received comments
opposing the rule that include studies which argue the opposite. 
However, EPA’s basis for this proposed rule does not consider the
level of risk associated with air releases of hazardous substances from
animal waste at farms.   The rationale for this exemption is based on
the Federal government likelihood of response to a CERCLA section 103
notification. The limited exemption under EPCRA section 304 was made to
address concerns raised in public comment about emissions from large
farms.

Oppose Proposed Elimination of Reporting Requirements

Comment

Generally Oppose.  Many commenters expressed general opposition to the
proposed elimination of reporting requirements under CERCLA section 103
and EPCRA section 304 for hazardous substances released to the air at
farms where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste.

Response

EPA acknowledges that commenters that have expressed general opposition
to the elimination of reporting requirements under CERCLA section 103
and EPCRA section 304 for hazardous substances release to the air at
farms where the source of those hazardous substances is animal waste.

Comment

EPA does not have the authority to grant exemptions.  Several commenters
stated that CERCLA and EPCRA do not give EPA the authority to grant
reporting exemptions (772, 932, 989, 1004, 1311) by any means other than
by de-listing the substance as hazardous or creating different
reportable quantity thresholds for different mediums. (990)  “EPA has
provided no legal justification that would allow it to carve out the
proposed exemption from these statutory requirements.” (758)  “In
this case, using the example of ammonia, although it applies to all
statutorily regulated substances, there is no authority in either statue
to exclude certain types of ammonia discharges.” (1004) Another
commenter made a similar argument, that “EPA incorrectly states that
because many of the releases from animal waste are continuous, they need
not be reported.  The court in Sierra Club v. Tyson specifically
rejected this argument when made by Tyson, citing EPA’s own guidance
documents on the subject. See Sierra Club v. Tyson Foods, 299 F. Supp.2d
at 711-12. The court went on to say that the statute requires only
reduced reporting requirements when releases are continuous, but to
qualify for reduced reporting, there must be reporting in the first
place. Id.  In this rule, EPA ignores this part of EPCRA and CERCLA
entirely.” (1004)  Another commenter stated that it is the
responsibility of the National Response Center to determine whether a
response is warranted, therefore “the EPA is in no position to remove
the primary assessment responsibilities from the expert agency charged
with evaluating such releases.” (1238)

Response

EPA disagrees with the statement that CERCLA and EPCRA do not give EPA
the authority to grant reporting exemptions by means other than by
de-listing the substance as hazardous or creating different reportable
quantity thresholds for different mediums (990).  The Agency relies on
CERCLA sections 102(a), 103, and 115 (the general rulemaking authority
under CERCLA) as authority to issue regulations governing CERCLA section
103 notification requirements.  CERCLA section 102(a) states that EPA
“shall promulgate and revise as may be appropriate” regulations
designating hazardous substances and their reportable quantities. 
CERCLA section 115 gives EPA (through the President) powers to
“promulgate any regulations necessary to carry out the provisions”
of CERCLA.  The Agency relies on EPCRA section 304 as authority to issue
regulations governing EPCRA section 304 notification requirements, and
EPCRA section 328 for general rulemaking authority.  EPCRA section 304
references EPCRA section 302, which authorizes the EPA to publish and
revise a list of extremely hazardous substances.  EPCRA section 304 also
provides for the establishment of reportable quantities, which is one
pound “[u]nless and until superseded by regulations.”  The Agency
will continue to require certain reports under EPCRA section 304,
specifically for those facilities that meet the size thresholds in 40
CFR 355.31(g) Based on these authorities, EPA could set an unlimited or
infinite reportable quantity, which would have the effect of a reporting
exemption.

EPA has on two other occasions exercised its authority to extend
administrative reporting exemptions to certain well-defined release
scenarios.  For example, on March 19, 1998, the Agency issued a final
rule (see 63 FR 13459) that granted exemptions for releases of naturally
occurring radionuclides.  The rule entitled, Administrative Reporting
Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide Releases (“Radionuclide ARE”),
granted exemptions for releases of hazardous substances that pose little
or no risk or to which a Federal response is infeasible or inappropriate
(see 63 FR 13461).  Then on October 4, 2006, the Agency issued a final
rule (see 71 FR 58525) that broadened the existing reporting exemptions
for releases that are the result of combustion of less than 1,000 pounds
of nitrogen oxide (NO) and less than 1,000 pounds of nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) to the air in 24 hours (“NOx ARE”).  The NO and NO2 exemptions
were granted for releases of hazardous substances at levels for which
the CAA regulates nitrogen oxides that are considerably higher than 10
pounds. 

For this rule, EPA has made a determination that these reports are
unnecessary because we would not respond to them since the Agency
believes there is no reasonable approach for the response.  As stated in
the preamble of this final rule, however, EPA is currently overseeing a
comprehensive study of CAFO air emissions (air monitoring study) that is
being conducted by an independent, non-profit organization.  The purpose
of the air monitoring study is to develop methodologies to estimate
emissions from all animal agricultural operations.  Two of the outcomes
of the study will be to help ensure that animal feeding operations
comply with applicable environmental requirements and to gather
scientific data the Agency needs to make informed regulatory
determinations.

Finally, the Agency believes it has clearly defined the universe of
facilities that are included in the exemption from CERCLA section 103
and to a limited extent EPCRA section 304 notification requirements to
be those that release hazardous substances to the air from animal waste
at farms.  In addition, the Agency does not go so far as to exempt all
hazardous substance emissions to air because there could be instances
where it would be feasible to respond to an air release (i.e., releases
from tanks, valves, pipes, etc.).

Comment

Reports provide valuable documentation. Many commenters opposed the
proposed elimination of reporting requirements on the grounds that
reports provide good documentation, even if the content is not reviewed
and enforcement is lacking.  “… the decision to respond should not
be taken out of the hands of local officials based on an assumption that
agencies are not likely to respond. Even if local agencies typically
choose not to respond, notice of releases provides valuable information
to the public.” (497)  Several commenters stated that reporting
information about emissions enables citizens to hold companies and local
governments accountable in terms of how toxic chemicals are managed
(614, 758, 1335) and even allows agencies to identify a facility’s
proximity to schools where children may be at higher risk of adverse
health effects due to exposure. (1004)  In a similar vein, one commenter
noted that in November 2007, the American Public Health Association
adopted a policy which opposes federal or state efforts to exempt
agricultural sites from regulations and enforcement, including those
related to airborne emissions. The APHA policy calls for improvements in
“data collection on food animal production emissions and waste” as
well as monitoring and control technologies. (614)

Response

EPA agrees that some consideration should be paid to the usefulness of
the reports, particularly from the largest CAFOs for citizens at the
local level.  Although EPA does not anticipate ever responding to a
notification under CERCLA section 103, we do recognize from the comments
received that communities may have an interest in the reports under
EPCRA section 304.  In response to that concern, EPA has limited the
administrative reporting exemption from EPCRA section 304 emergency
notification requirements to those farms that are below the size
threshold for a large CAFO.  

Comment

EPA is providing incentive to pollute.  By giving large livestock
operators immunity from this reporting, EPA would be creating an
incentive to pollute instead of promoting and rewarding good stewardship
practices. (311, 480, 636, 678, 1320)

Response

EPA disagrees with commenters that assert that by giving large livestock
operators immunity from reporting that we are creating an incentive to
pollute instead of promoting and rewarding good stewardship practices. 
This rule is an administrative reporting exemption from CERCLA section
103 and to a limited extent EPCRA section 304 notification regulations. 
EPA is not limiting the Agency’s authority under CERCLA sections 104
(response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any
other provisions of CERCLA to address releases of hazardous substances
from animal waste at farms.  EPA is also not limiting any of the
Agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

Comment 

EPA's Proposed Exemption is Contrary to the Congressional Intent of
CERCLA and EPCRA. Several commenters expressed the belief that Congress
intended for the public to have the right to know about large releases
of toxic chemicals, and that this proposed regulation directly
contradicts the intent of Congress. (94, 927) Many comments also
specifically cite this proposed rule is a violation of the
Community-Right-to Know Act. (539, 579, 595, 610)

Response

The intent of the reporting requirement of CERCLA section 103(a) is to
serve as a trigger for informing the Federal government of a release so
that Federal personnel can evaluate the need for a response in
accordance with the National Contingency Plan.  Similarly, EPCRA section
304(a) provides release notification to state and local authorities so
that they can assess whether a response action is appropriate.  As
explained in the preamble to the final rule, the rule is narrowly
written to exempt from CERCLA section 103(a) reporting the release of
hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms because,
based on EPA experience, a Federal response would be unlikely.  However,
in response to comments expressing concerns over such releases, the EPA
is maintaining EPCRA section 304 reporting requirements for farms that
meet or exceed the size thresholds promulgated in 40 CFR 355.31(g) so
that such information will still be available to state and local
authorities.   

Comment

Proposed exemption is in direct opposition to mission of EPA. Several
commenters indicated that exempting farms from reporting requirements
violates Americans’ right to breathe and the Agency’s mission to
protect human health and the environment. (243, 246, 329, 335, 433,
1210, 1247) “EPA has broad authority to write rules, but it does not
have authority to write rules in direct conflict with the plain language
of the statutes. CERCLA and EPCRA provide that releases of certain
substances (as determined by EPA), and in certain amounts (as determined
by EPA) must be reported to appropriate agencies.”  Also, “in 2005
and 2006 EPA entered into Air Quality Compliance Agreements with
thousands of farms in over forty states. The purpose of these
agreements, according to EPA, was ‘to ensure that AFOs comply with
applicable environmental requirements and to gather scientific data the
Agency needs to make informed regulatory and policy determinations.’
… While this monitoring is still ongoing, EPA is proposing a rule
change that would make this monitoring program almost entirely moot."  
(932)

Response

EPA disagrees that the administrative reporting exemptions are in direct
opposition to the mission of the Agency.  The reporting exemptions do
not violate “Americans’ right to breathe” nor does it violate our
mission to protect human health and the environment.  As some of the
commenters remind us, EPA has entered into air compliance agreements
with farms to do air monitoring studies.  Two of the outcomes of the
study will be to help ensure that animal feeding operations comply with
applicable environmental requirements and to gather scientific data the
Agency needs to make informed regulatory determinations.  Those
determinations will be made under the Clean Air Act as well as CERCLA
and EPCRA.  The administrative reporting exemptions will allow Federal,
State and local governments to use their resources to respond to CERCLA
section 103 and EPCRA section 304 notifications where there are
practical solutions to addressing the release.

Comment

Factory farms should not be protected from the laws that affect all
other industries. “Although it is a burden for industries to have to
measure and document how much poison they add to our environment, it is
a burden that must be born by someone and the responsible party is most
appropriately the industry that is producing the poisons. Measuring and
then mitigating those environmental effects is simply part of the cost
of doing business responsibly.” (239, 1240, 1345) Several commenters
pointed out that CAFOs are not family farms, they are industries that
produce high amounts of pollutants and should be treated as such. (611,
1214) For instance, “broiler houses usually handle between 20,000 and
30,000 birds per house and swine finishing buildings in Iowa typically
house 1,200 to 2,400 pigs each” and produce “thousands of tons of
manure.” (1214)

Response

EPA acknowledges the commenters’ assertion that factory farms should
not be protected from laws that affect all other industries; however,
this rule is an administrative reporting exemption from CERCLA section
103 and to a limited extent EPCRA section 304 notification requirements.
 This rule does not “protect” any industry from CERCLA response,
abatement, liability provisions or any other environmental laws,
including EPCRA.

Comment

Proposed rule limits obligations under Clean Air Act.  “SCAQMD staff
believes this exemption will limit our ability to meet obligations under
the Clean Air Act and the SIP, including the 2007 Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP), to control and reduce air emissions from manure generated
at CAFOs, and respectfully requests that EPA rescind its proposal in its
entirety.” (1007)

Response

EPA disagrees that the rule limits obligations under the Clean Air Act. 
The final rule is an administrative reporting exemption from the CERCLA
section 103 and to a limited extent EPCRA section 304 notification
requirements for air releases of hazardous substances from animal waste
at farms.  EPA is not limiting its authorities under the Clean Air Act.

Comment

The proposed rule is contradictory to current practices.  “…it is
difficult to reconcile EPA’s assertion that the exemption would save
3.431 million hours in paperwork burden for the affected industry, while
on the other hand, input provided to EPA by SERCs and LEPCs indicate
they do not routinely receive air emission notifications from livestock
production operations.”  (614) “…due to the current state of the
scientific data regarding the release of hazardous substances from
animal waste and the fact that EPA is simultaneously exempting and
studying these releases, it is almost certain that a reviewing court
would find this contradiction is in and of itself arbitrary and
capricious.” (990)  

Response

EPA disagrees that the final rule is contradictory to current practices.
 In order to conduct a burden analysis, EPA has always assumed that
there is full compliance with its regulations.  We calculate the burden
by looking back to see what the historic levels of reporting have been
and assume that there will be similar levels of compliance in the
future.  This methodology for analysis has been reviewed and approved by
the Office of Management and Budget for over 20 years.

Oppose - Citing Issue Related to Risk, Harm, and Exposure

Comment

References to the “Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air
Quality Study” conducted by Iowa State University and University of
Iowa Study Group (2002).  Several commenters cite a 2002 study titled,
“Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study,”
conducted by Iowa State University and University of Iowa Study Group.
(65, 91, 74, 257, 634, 664, 1161,1284)  The study concluded that for
workers at these operations, “[t]here is now an extensive literature
documenting acute and chronic respiratory diseases and dysfunction among
workers, especially swine and poultry workers, from exposure to complex
mixtures of particulates, gases and vapors within CAFO units.”
However, the study notes that while the workers generally come from a
healthy population, communities adjacent and downwind to CAFO facilities
have populations of children, pregnant mothers, and elderly, who are
more susceptible to CAFO air pollution.  (65)

Response

EPA acknowledges commenters (65, 91, 74, 257, 634, 664, 1161, 1284) that
submitted or cited to the “Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Air Quality Study,” however, the final rule does not limit any of
EPA’s authorities to address risk, harm, and exposure in populations
that may be affected by emissions from CAFOs.  The exemptions provided
for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 were not based on health or
risk.  

Comment

A toxic material is a toxic material, and has the same health and
environmental effects regardless of source. “CAFO owners should not be
exempt from reporting emissions from their operations, which are after
all industrial operations producing industrial amounts of waste that
include ammonia, and are not simply traditional agricultural
operations.” (70)

Response

EPA does not disagree with the commenter (70) that a toxic material is a
toxic material and has the same health and environmental effects
regardless of the source; however, EPA believes that in this instance
the source, animal waste at farms, is not one that would result in a
response based on a CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304
notification.  

Comment

Do not amend existing rules until monitoring study is complete.  Several
commenters suggested delaying amendment of existing rules until the
Agency monitoring study is complete. (73, 1208)  “Even though EPA
says, ‘The EPA has not initiated a response to any NRC notifications
of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, or any other hazardous substances releases
to the air where animal waste at farms is the source of that release,’
this does not mean that they should not have or that the EPA will not
find that these airborne contaminants are more dangerous to human health
than thought. After the EPA 2 year monitoring study, which began in the
spring of 2007, the EPA may find these contaminants to be a much larger
issue than previously thought and be required to take serious action.
Therefore, we recommend and BEG the EPA to not change the existing rules
until this 2 year study is completed, analyzed, commented on by the
public, and new proposed rules are developed under the new government
administration and Congress.” (73) 

Similarly, one commenter pointed out that the American Public Health
Association, concerned by the health impacts of ammonia and other
materials released from confined animal feeding operations, resolved to
“urge federal, state and local governments and public health agencies
to impose a moratorium on new CAFOs until additional scientific data on
the attendant risks to public health have been collected and
uncertainties resolved.” (881)

Response

EPA neither agrees nor disagrees with the commenters’ presumption that
the results of the air monitoring study will reveal dangerous levels of
contaminants.  EPA’s rationale for this administrative reporting
exemption is based on the purpose of notifying the NRC when a hazardous
substance is released, and then the likelihood that a response to that
release would be taken by the Federal government.  Upon receipt of a
notification from the NRC, EPA determines whether a response is
appropriate.  If it is determined that a response is appropriate, the
NCP regulations describe the roles and responsibilities for responding
to the release.  Thus, EPA considered whether the Agency would ever take
a response action, as a result of such notification, for releases of
hazardous substances to the air that meet or exceed their RQ from animal
waste at farms.  Based on EPA’s experience, our conclusion is no.  
Specifically, to date, EPA has not initiated a response to any NRC
notifications of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, or any other hazardous
substances released to the air where animal waste at farms is the source
of that release.  Moreover, we can not foresee a situation where the
Agency would initiate a response action as a result of such
notification.

Nevertheless, as stated in the preamble of this final rule, EPA is
currently overseeing a comprehensive study of CAFO air emissions (air
monitoring study) that is being conducted by an independent, non-profit
organization.  The purpose of the air monitoring study is to develop
methodologies to estimate emissions from all animal agricultural
operations.  At the conclusion of this effort, EPA will have data to
decide whether, and under what authorities, air emission controls for
CAFOs are warranted.  

  

In addition, EPA retains its authority to respond to citizen complaints
of requests for assistance from state or local government agencies to
investigate concerns raised by emissions from farms.  Furthermore, the
Agency does not need to receive such notifications in order to enforce
applicable Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and/or other applicable CERCLA
regulations at farms.  EPA retains the enforcement authority to address
threats to human health and the environment

Comment

Need to track emissions to protect human health.  “We need to protect
citizens from air quality problems due to factory farming. We have
significant air quality problems in this county due to particulates. At
the very least, we need agricultural industries to report what they are
emitting into the air. According to “Air Quality and Emissions from
Livestock and Poultry Production/Waste Management Systems”, prepared
by Jose R. Bicudo (University of Kentucky), Richard Gates (University of
Kentucky), Larry D. Jacobson (University of Minnesota), David R. Schmidt
(University of Minnesota), Dwaine Bundy (Iowa State University), Steve
Hoff (Iowa State University), “…even when best management systems
and/or mitigation techniques are used, airborne contaminants or
sub-products are generated. Contaminants may build up concentrations
inside livestock and poultry buildings that result in animal and human
health concerns.”  The commenter also noted that “if problems occur
with particulates, or with avian flu, this needs to be traceable.”
(487)

Response

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concerns; however, CERCLA section 103
and EPCRA section 304 notifications were not intended to be used to
track emissions.  Rather those notifications are intended to alert the
Federal, State and local governments that there may be a situation that
merits further investigation for a possible response.

Comment

Adverse Impact on Human Health.  Many commenters who opposed elimination
of reporting requirements provided information pertaining to the health
impacts associated with CAFOs.  Many provided anecdotal evidence and
others cited published literature drawing a causal link.  This
information is summarized below.

Several commenters suggested that emissions of hazardous substances do
present an emergency, and in fact have resulted in death or injury at a
number of facilities. (614, 989, 1214)  More specifically, one commenter
cited an article in the Dayton Daily News that reported "[a]t least 24
people in the Midwest have died from inhaling hydrogen sulfide and
methane from manure since the 1970s, including fifth-generation Michigan
dairy farmer Carl Theuerkauf and four members of his family, who
collapsed one by one in 1989 after breathing methane gas from a manure
pit." (1214)  Another commenter referred to a published report by G. Tom
Tabler (project manager at University of Arkansas), indicating that
large quantities of CAFO-released gases could be fatal. (482) Still
another stated that a 17 year old boy had died from an asthmatic attack
associated with constant breathing irritation from the two CAFO
operations surrounding his home. (1280)

One commenter referenced a paper documenting that people living near
swine CAFOs experience higher rates of headaches, runny noses, sore
throats, excessive coughing and diarrhea compared to people living in
areas where there are no livestock operations [Chapin, A., Rule, A.,
Gibson, K., Buckley, T., and Schwab, K. February 2005. Airborne
Multidrug Resistant Bacteria Isolated from a Concentrated Swine Feeding
Operation.  Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(2), pages 137-142.]
(90)  

One commenter summarized a Missouri Department of Health and Senior
Services study that reported that “ambient ammonia levels downwind of
a swine operation rang[ed] from 153 to 875 ppb” and that “[t]he EPA
submitted comments on the Missouri study, comparing the ambient ammonia
levels to recommended limits and noted that ‘the conclusion could be
drawn that a public health hazard did exist at the time the …data was
acquired.’”(614)

An environmental attorney representing four families who lived next to
an 8,000 head dairy feeding operations recounted how his clients had to
vacate their property after being diagnosed with neurological impairment
by a medical specialist, and with chronic respiratory disorders by their
local primary care physician. Both physicians identified the cause of
these health harms as the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emission from the
neighboring diary farm. (262)  

A February 2004 memo from EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards concluded that exposure to ammonia emissions at the 100 pound
per day level that triggers the reporting requirement could irritate the
respiratory tract, eyes and mucus membranes for a few days. Exposure to
hydrogen sulfide at that level could have the same but longer lasting
effects accompanied by memory problems, headaches and dizziness.
Commenters suggested that adverse health effects should be sufficient to
continue to mandate reporting of toxic air emissions and step up
enforcement, as well. (489, 781)

Response

EPA neither agrees nor disagrees with the commenters’ assertions that
there are adverse impacts on human health associated with emissions from
CAFOs.  This final rule does not limit EPA’s authority to respond to
citizen complaints of requests for assistance from State or local
government agencies to investigate concerns raised by emissions from
farms. Furthermore, the Agency does not need to receive such
notifications in order to enforce applicable CWA, CAA, RCRA, and/or
other applicable CERCLA and EPCRA regulations at farms.  EPA retains the
enforcement authority to address threats to human health and the
environment.

Possible Situations that Would Necessitate a Response

Comment

There are no circumstances where a response would be triggered. Several
commenters expressed the belief that there are no conditions where a
manure related release of emissions would trigger an emergency response.
(894, 899, 1249, 1251) 

Response

EPA acknowledges the several commenters (894, 899, 1249, 1251) that
expressed the belief that there are no conditions where a manure related
release of emissions would trigger an emergency response.

Comment

Extreme weather fluctuations and various pit pumping techniques may
cause emissions to exceed reportable quantities.  One commenter noted
that fluctuations such as "[d]ifferences in temperature, rainfall
frequency and intensity, wind speed, topography and soils have a huge
impact on the amount of air emissions released from farms."  The
commenter also cited a 2004 study titled Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations: Health Risks from Air Pollution Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy, which noted that "when pits are agitated for pumping,
some or all of these gases are rapidly released from the manure and may
reach toxic levels or displace oxygen, increasing the risk to humans and
livestock.”  (851)

Response

While it may be true that extreme weather fluctuations and various pit
pumping techniques may cause emissions to exceed reportable quantities,
it is unclear what response the commenter had in mind.

Comment

Emergency responses may be needed to protect children. “Emergency
responses to ammonia releases from intensive animal production
facilities may be required in order to protect the health of people,
especially infants, children and elderly persons, who live in nearby
homes and communities from elevated levels of airborne ammonia and/or
the fine particulates the result from the ammonia release… Exceedances
can occur through gradual or precipitous increases in ammonia releases
at one or more units of a facility. Given the nature of animal
production, it seems likely that gradual increases will predominate.
With adequate monitoring, which can be accomplished at relatively low
cost, facility operators will have sufficient warning to take remedial
actions that will reduce ammonia formation and release before regulatory
thresholds are breeched.” (881)

Response

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concerns for gradual increases in
ammonia releases; however, this comment does not describe a situation
where a response would be triggered by a notification of the release of
hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms.

Comment

EPA has not examined emergency situations that may arise.  One commenter
stated that EPA has not examined such situations that may arise when
maintaining feeding operations and that the Agency has not proven that
emergency personnel would not benefit from long term, continuous
reporting of hazardous substances from these operations when attempting
to save lives or prevent injury quickly in the future. (989)

Response

EPA acknowledges the commenter (989) that stated that EPA has not
examined such situations that may arise when maintaining feeding
operations and that the Agency has not proven that emergency personnel
would not benefit from long term, continuous reporting of hazardous
substances from these operations when attempting to save lives or
prevent injury quickly in the future.  However, this comment does not
describe what such a response would be.

V.	Regulatory Flexibility Act

Issue: EPA proposes to eliminate the reporting requirement for releases
of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste at farms, thus
reducing regulatory burden. EPA expects the net reporting and
recordkeeping burden associated with reporting air releases of hazardous
substances from animal waste at farms under CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA
section 304 to decrease. This reduction in burden will be realized by
businesses of all sizes.  EPA has therefore concluded that this proposed
rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. EPA
continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such
impacts. 

Comment

Small farms should not be affected.  “Small farms should not be
affected even if the reporting requirements stay in place because these
farms do not generally have a large enough herd of animals to reach the
requisite levels of toxins. Reporting requirements also should not be a
hindrance to large farms. Other industries with toxic releases are not
exempt from reporting obligations and have been able to survive
financially. Livestock producers who are using their manure in
quantities their crops can absorb are protected under the law.  CERCLA
includes a specific exception for the ‘normal field application of
fertilizer.’  Only those livestock operators who have so much manure
that they have to dump it on the land to get rid of it, rather than use
it to fertilize crops, have the potential for liability under the law.
In addition, any animal feeding operation that's complying with its
Clean Water Act permit is already exempt from CERCLA.” (497) 

One commenter explicitly concurs with EPA’s analysis and conclusion
that the proposed rule will provide relief from regulatory burden for
small entities. (557)

Response

EPA agrees with both of the commenters’ assessments of the effect on
small farms.  With respect to the “normal application of
fertilizer,” this is an exception from the definition of “release”
found in CERCLA section 101(22) and does not include the word
“field.”  Thus the exception may be broader than an application to
field(s).

VI.      Other

Comment

Submission of poetry.  Many haiku poems were submitted to the docket for
this proposed rule (original haiku is identified with FDMS ID 337).  The
poems do not explicitly support or oppose the proposed rulemaking,
though it may be inferred from the content and tone that most oppose the
proposed rulemaking.  One poem was accompanied by a picture, both of
which are included here. 

Yaks releasing gas

Pooping yaks swim in rivers

Yaks polluting air (387)

Response

EPA acknowledges those who submitted poetry, we appreciate your taking
the time to express your opinion(s) in a creative manner.  We have
interpreted these submissions to be in opposition to our proposed rule.

Comment

Use of waste for energy.  According to one commenter, there are plants
that are forming in the Western part of the United States that serve as
store houses for donated animal feces. The waste is stored to allow
build up of methane gas and the energy source is then filtered and sent
to a power plant to supply energy for thousands of residents.
“Therefore, ways are trying to be made in order to use feces waste as
an advantage and not to increase global warming.” (267)

Response

EPA acknowledges the commenter (267) that advocates the use of feces
waste as an advantage and not to increase global warming.  However, that
commenter does not seem to understand the purpose of the proposed rule
and we consider the comment to be outside the scope of the proposed
rule.

Comment

Opening summary language of proposed rule is of concern.  “We do have
concerns about EPA's opening ‘summary’ language referencing 'no
change to notification requirements for releases of a hazardous
substance from animal waste to any other environmental media, (i.e.,
soil, ground water, surface water).' EPA should be careful not to imply
that releases from normal biological processes (e.g., defecation and
urination) and beneficial uses of animal manure (e.g., fertilizer and
bioenergy generation) are regulated under CERCLA/EPCRA. EPA has not
issued any regulatory framework suggesting such a requirement. And, most
importantly, this legal question is being actively litigated, but is yet
undecided by the federal court (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods Inc.).
We suggest that EPA revise the affected statements by removing this
clause altogether, or revising it to clarify that 'nothing in this
proposal affects treatment of releases of a listed hazardous substance
from animal waste to any other environmental media, (i.e., soil, ground
water, surface water).” (469, 479, 1019)

Response

EPA stands by its statement that such releases of hazardous substances
to other environmental media remain reportable if they meet or exceed
their reportable quantity.  To the extent that any of those releases are
federally permitted, they are not reportable.

Comment

Clarify intent of CERCLA/EPCRA in rule. “In proposing an
administrative reporting exemption to CERCLA/EPCRA, EPA should clarify
that neither CERCLA nor EPCRA was ever intended to cover fugitive air
emissions or ‘releases’ from natural biological activities resulting
from animal wastes at farms. EPA should also state that Congress
intended to exempt agricultural activities and natural biological
activities from CERCLA/EPCRA reporting requirements.” (492)

Response

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s suggestions; however, we believe that
such request is outside the scope of this final rule, which is to
administratively exempt releases to the air of hazardous substances from
animal waste at farms.

Comment

The comment period is not sufficient for a substantive response. " This
is a complicated proposed action that will have complex indirect impacts
on climate change that must be addressed. CAFOs make huge contributions
through a number of impacts, including releases that will be impacted by
this proposed rule-making." (556)

Response

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s request for a longer comment period;
however, we disagree that a longer period is required.  The final rule
is an administrative reporting exemption from CERCLA section 103
notification requirements.  EPA has not limited any of the Agency’s
other authorities under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106
(abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA
or EPCRA.

Comment

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) hurt local economies,
tourism, real estate.  A commenter notes that "[a]dding uncontrolled
odor emissions will only compound [the] problem and lead to further
erosion of [the] tourist and recreational resources and revenue."   The
commenter also notes that "any other type of business operation would
not be permitted to emit these or similar kinds of air emissions" and
that "[t]he farms and/or CAFOs should be held to the same standards as
any other corporate or business enterprise." (1077)

Response

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concerns for the local economies,
tourism, and real estate; however, the final rule is an administrative
reporting exemption from CERCLA section 103 notification requirements.  
EPA has not limited any of the Agency’s other authorities under CERCLA
sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107
(liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA or EPCRA.

Comment

Several Executive Orders are relevant to EPA’s proposed rule. “For
example, Executive Order 13045 is important in light of the ever-growing
body of science that links asthma to children exposed to CAFO pollution.
Similarly, Executive Order 12898 is implicated because CAFO air
emissions often have disproportionate impacts on rural, low-income
communities.” (1004)

Response

The commenter (1004) pointed out that Executive Order 13045 and
Executive Order 12898 are relevant to the proposed rule.  EPA disagrees.
 Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health
& Safety Risks) does not apply because the final rule does not establish
an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 
Executive Order 12989 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) does not apply
because the final rule does not have disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided
to human health or the environment, especially since EPA is not limiting
any of its other authorities under CERCLA or EPCRA, such as CERCLA
sections 104 (response authorities), 106 (abatement actions), 107
(liability), or any other provisions of CERCLA or EPCRA.

Comments that Indicate a Misunderstanding of the Proposed Rule 

Many comments reflect a misunderstanding of the proposed rule.  These
comments expressed general opposition to removing air quality and clean
air standards; removing clean air protections; reducing pollution or
emission standards; exemptions to clean air standards; allowing farms to
emit more pollutants; deregulation of hazardous emissions; exemption
from the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act; and allowing unbridled
pollution. 

Appendix A – Table of Commenters

This attachment consists of a single table listing all submissions
received and posted by the Federal Docket Management System for docket
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469.  Comments containment in document numbers 496
and 1108 were withdrawn by the authors.  

FDMS ID	First Name	Last Name	Affiliation

62	Diane	Kastel	 

63	Nathali	Jordi	 

64	Edward	Jones, Jr.	 

65	Rex	Dufour	 

66	Mary	Steffenhagen	 

67	Andrea	Ferrante	 

68	Kurt	Baumgartner	 

69	Bertilia	Redfern	 

70	Jerry	Jayne	 

71	Bill	Chisholm	 

72	George	Holliday	Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.

73	Bob	Patterson 	 

74	Claudia	Haynes	 

75	Betty	Slifer	 

76	J.	Fryberger	 

77	Justin	Oldfield	California Cattlemen's Association

78	Anonymous	 	 

79	James	Marinus	 

80	Anonymous	 	 

81	Anonymous	 	 

82	Anonymous	 	 

83	Laurie J. 	Fischer	Dairy Business Association, Inc. 

84	Caroline A.	McClimon	 

85	Linda	Judd	Sierra Club Mass Mail Campaign (2,040)

86	Lane	Neal	 

87	Susan 	Martin	 

88	Linda	Sables	 

89	R. 	Spaulding	 

90	P.	Middleton	 

91	Debra	Eades	 

92	Melanja	Jones	 

93	Molly 	Stewart	 

94	Jennifer	Bielen	 

95	Susan 	Dayton 	 

96	Marsha	McLean 	 

97	Leonora 	Anderson 	 

98	L.	Dixon 	 

99	Richard	Andrews	 

100	Lora	Winsborough	 

101	Mary 	Townsend	 

102	Mary	Wentland	 

103	Melva	Hackney	 

104	Ruth 	Mohr	 

105	Robert	Allia	 

106	Beverly 	Smith	 

107	Joan	Weaver	 

108	Joann	Feist	 

109	Cameron	Scott	 

110	Tom	Heau	 

111	James	Badham	 

112	Charles	Wyrostok	 

113	Cherie 	Aukland	 

114	Nicory 	Madia	 

115	Matthew 	Emmer	 

116	Ellen 	Gachesa	 

117	Patricia 	Miller	 

118	Laura 	Fuderer	 

119	Mary	Miller	 

120	Mack	Rose	 

121	Deborah	Smith	 

122	Barbara 	Eisenberg	 

123	Heather 	Payne	 

124	Gayle	Janzen	 

125	Patti	Wright	 

126	Alva	Cullnane	 

127	Rhiannon	Sorenson	 

128	Matthew 	Keenan	 

129	Joanne	Day	 

130	Sue	Milham	 

131	George	Perkins	 

132	Drury 	Bacon	 

133	Marty 	Howe	 

134	Lori	Lane	 

135	Dianne 	Miller-Boyle	 

136	Anonymous	 	Cascade Climate Network

137	Carol	Campbell	 

138	Sharon 	Gross	 

139	Caitlin 	Christensen	 

140	Hal	Martinez 	 

141	Edith	Davis 	 

142	Brenda	Breil	 

143	Greg	Grigson	 

144	Gregory	Karl	 

145	Julia	Glover	 

146	Win 	Carson 	 

147	Walter	Winch	 

148	Eileen	Arena	 

149	Leo 	Kuczynski	 

150	Katie 	Bjorkman	 

151	Hugo 	Benoit	 

152	Mitchell 	Dormont	 

153	Richard	Dyer	 

154	Sue 	Hudson 	 

155	K.	Dykstra	 

156	Michael	Filip	 

157	Karen	Gupta	 

158	Lynn 	Henning	 

159	Patricia 	Cooke	 

160	Eston	Evans	 

161	Dale	Klingbeil	 

162	Richard	Schneider	 

163	Lois 	Tutino	 

164	Claudia	Lucas	 

165	Susan 	Chandler 	 

166	Richard	Cygan	 

167	Sandra	Conners	 

168	Dale	Dean	 

169	Kristine 	Hill	 

170	Linnea	Fronce	 

171	Charlotte 	Stahl	 

172	Phil	Lipari	 

173	Jamie	Florida 	 

174	Daniel 	McKinley	 

175	JD 	Skinner	 

176	Janice 	Munzke-Deal	 

177	Roberta	Paro	 

178	Charles	Donachy	 

179	Tina 	Burns	 

180	Betty	Van Wicklen	 

181	Holly 	Lubowicki	 

182	Lorna 	Paisley 	 

183	Mary	Markus	 

184	Tiffany	Haugen	 

185	Gloria	Green	 

186	Kristina	Watkins	 

187	Laura 	Garcia	 

188	Susan 	Goldberg	 

189	Tony	Valley	 

190	Siddharth 	Mehrotra	 

191	Paul	Mayer	 

192	Jerry	Flach	 

193	David 	Bretschneider	 

194	Nancy 	Holt	 

195	David 	Ehrensperger	 

196	Erick	Boustead	 

197	Dick	Artley	 

198	Robert	Kriesel	 

199	Valerie	Lezin	 

200	Allen	Ruddy	 

201	Fred	Black	 

202	Brian	Freehauf 	 

203	Myra 	Fedyniak	 

204	Michael	Strawn	 

205	Laura 	Phail	 

206	Sidne	Baglini	 

207	Dolores	Voorhees	 

208	Georgeann	Calendine	 

209	Dan	Cush 	 

210	Mark	Peterson	 

211	Sheila	Desmond	 

212	Melissa	Locher	 

213	Melissa	Kallick	 

214	J.	Knight	 

215	Dwayne 	Mundy	North Central Florida Regional Planning Council

216	Greg	Makepeace	 

217	Amanda	Davis 	 

218	S.	Shultz	 

219	Anonymous	 	 

220	Linda	Neale	 

221	Jeff	Borkowski	 

222	Charles 	Connolly	Aspen Hall Inn

223	Stacy 	Soderholm	 

224	A.	Maishman	 

225	D. 	Madsen	 

226	Kathleen	Miller	 

227	Sarah	Kuck	 

228	L.	Richardson 	 

229	Anonymous	 	 

230	Rachel	Forsmann	 

231	Ron	Jeffries	Golden Manatee Trading Co.

232	Alexia 	Rojahn	 

233	A.	Nicole	 

234	Thomas	Jones	Windt im Wald Farm

235	Elena	Harper	 

236	Justine	Owen	 

237	Anonymous	 	 

238	Helen	Ackerman	 

239	Jan	Balcom	 

240	Erik	Nelson	 

241	Jennifer 	Barricklow	 

242	Garreth	Mackrill	Mass Mail Campaign (327)

243	M. 	Langley 	 

244	Brian	Jones	 

245	Q.	Majeski	 

246	Sharon 	Grant	 

247	Edye	Rowell	North Central Florida Regional Planning Council

248	Kelly	Page	 

249	Cathy 	McMorris	Charleys Farm

250	D.	Snyder	 

251	Lisa 	Ruoff	Eco-Goddess Edibles

252	Anonymous	 	 

253	Anonymous	 	 

254	Levin	 	 

255	L.	Carollo	 

256	Rosemary	Topar	 

257	J. 	Smith	 

258	Anonymous	 	 

259	Anonymous	 	 

260	W.	Mitchell	 

261	Alex	Johnson	 

262	Gary 	Abraham	Law Offices of Gary A. Abraham 

263	David 	Bemel	Action for Animals

264	Anonymous	 	 

265	Anonymous	 	 

266	Anonymous	 	 

267	Anonymous	 	 

268	Anonymous	 	 

269	T.	Habenicht 	 

270	Anonymous	 	 

271	Anonymous	 	 

272	Anonymous	 	 

273	Anonymous	 	 

274	Anonymous	 	 

275	Anonymous	 	 

276	Anonymous	 	 

277	Anonymous	 	 

278	Anonymous	 	 

279	Anonymous	 	 

280	Anonymous	 	 

281	Anonymous	 	 

282	Anonymous	 	 

283	J.	Richardson 	 

284	Anonymous	 	 

285	Anonymous	 	 

286	M. 	Jordan 	 

287	Anonymous	 	 

288	Anonymous	 	 

289	Anonymous	 	 

290	Anonymous	 	 

291	G.	Tuttle	 

292	Anonymous	 	 

293	Anonymous	 	 

294	Cleary 	O'Farrell	Cleary O'Farrell Photography

295	Anonymous	 	 

296	L.	Heissenbuttel 	 

297	Anonymous	 	 

298	Anonymous	 	 

299	Anonymous	 	 

300	Anonymous	 	 

301	Anonymous	 	 

302	Anonymous	 	 

303	Anonymous	 	 

304	Anonymous	 	 

305	Anonymous	 	 

306	Jaclyn	Corley	 

307	Anonymous	 	 

308	Anonymous	 	 

309	Anonymous	 	 

310	Sarah	Alexander	Mass Mail Campaign (4,310)

311	Anonymous	 	 

312	Anonymous	 	 

313	Anonymous	 	 

314	Anonymous	 	 

315	Anonymous	 	 

316	Anonymous	 	 

317	Trevor	Howell	 

318	Anonymous	 	 

319	Anonymous	 	 

320	Anonymous	 	 

321	Anonymous	 	 

322	Anonymous	 	 

323	Anonymous	 	 

324	Anonymous	 	 

325	R. 	Seltzer 	 

326	Anonymous	 	 

327	Anonymous	 	 

328	Anonymous	 	 

329	J. 	Caywood	 

330	Anonymous	 	 

331	Anonymous	 	 

332	Anonymous	 	 

333	Anonymous	 	 

334	Laurrie	Stoffer	 

335	R .	Riedlinger	 

336	Ken	Robertson	 

337	Erik	Nelson	 

338	Manuel	Kaufmann	 

339	Claire	Holzner	 

340	Linda	Wiener	 

341	Linda	Wiener	 

342	Judy	Skog	 

343	Bill	Bowman	 

344	Doug	Brown	 

345	Carrie	Schudda	 

346	Denise	D'Anne	 

347	Nancy 	Sullivan	 

348	Jennifer	Angelone	 

349	Spencer	Beard	 

350	Shani	Nelson	 

351	Joel	Gartland	 

352	Cathy 	Balan	 

353	Paula	Barrett	 

354	Kate	McClellan	 

355	Aimee	Lemrise	 

356	David 	Allen	 

357	Charles	Walker 	 

358	Ken	Granelli	 

359	Jeffrey	Riley	 

360	Martha	Castillo	 

361	A'Llyn 	Ettien	 

362	Cynthia	Norris	 

363	Beth 	Bussiere-Nichols	 

364	Charmaine 	Koehler-Lodge	 

365	Charmaine 	Koehler-Lodge	 

366	Marcia	Evers	 

367	John	Collins	 

368	Yvonne	Osborne	 

369	C.	Shandley	 

370	Christine	McElroy	 

371	Lois 	Jones	 

372	Ann 	Cook-Frantz	 

373	Glenn	Smith	 

374	Shanon 	Orrock	 

375	Linda	Newman	 

376	Helen 	Reich	 

377	Adele	Kushner	 

378	Diane 	Robinson	 

379	Christine 	Weber-Kearney	 

380	Nathan 	Kenworthy	 

381	Donna 	Noonan	 

382	Anonymous	 	 

383	Anonymous	 	 

384	Anonymous	 	 

385	Anonymous	 	 

386	Justen	 Pritchett	 

387	Anonymous	 	 

388	Anonymous	 	 

389	Anonymous	 	 

390	Henrietta 	 Hildebrand	Cattle Mass Mail Campaign (370)

391	Anonymous	 	 

392	Anonymous	 	 

393	Christy 	Zimsen	 

394	Charles	Silliman	Chairman, Hardy County, WV LEPS 

395	Anonymous	 	 

396	Phil 	Krueger	 

397	David	 Lathem	Lathem Farms, Inc. 

398	Mark 	Fiorini	 

399	Anonymous	 	 

400	Anna	Jacus	 

401	Jo Ann 	McNiel	 

402	Anonymous	 	 

403	Cal 	Jackson 	 

404	Thomas 	Porter	Egg Mass Mail Campaign (13) 

405	Martha	Rhoades	 Poultry Mass Mail Campaign (2,537)

406	Sidney 	White	 

407	Linda	Newman	 

408	Kathryn	Young	 

409	Michelle	Smith	 

410	Jane	Affonso	 

411	Henry	Lagergren	 

412	Barbara	Fankhauser	 

413	Steve	Wells	 

414	Justin 	Dortwegt	 

415	Therese 	Dowd	 

416	Craig 	Bert	 

417	Diana 	Strong	 

418	Jordan 	Goldman	 

419	Ben 	Drenning	 

420	James 	Stehn	 

421	Deborah 	Levine	 

422	Paul 	Converse	 

423	Kimberly 	Longey	 

424	Robt 	Hershenow	 

425	Matthew 	Hein	 

426	Patricia 	Lyell	 

427	Hannah 	King	 

428	Mike 	Turns	 

429	Meredith 	Olsen	 

430	Peter 	Buck	 

431	Marc 	Poris	 

432	Anonymous	 	 

433	Bryan 	Schultz	 

434	Anonymous	 	 

435	 J.  	Wilson 	 

436	Anonymous	 	 

437	Anonymous	 	 

438	Anonymous	 	 

439	Jonathon	Green	Pilgrim's Pride Corporation

440	Glenn 	Elzey	 

441	Roger	High	Ohio Sheep Improvement Association 

442	P.  	Mobley	 

443	Anonymous	 	 

444	Anonymous	 	 

445	Anonymous	 	Pilgrims' Pride 

446	Shawn 	Dady	 

447	Anonymous	 	 

448	Anonymous	 	 

449	Anonymous	 	 

450	Ted 	Beals	 

451	Anonymous	 	 

452	Anonymous	 	 

453	Bill 	Satterfield	Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. 

454	John 	Satterfield	 

455	Ron Prestage	Prestage	Prestage Farms of South Carolina, LLC 

456	Anonymous	 	 

457	Anonymous	 	 

458	Gene 	Stewart	Page County Emergency Services 

459	Anonymous	 	 

460	Anonymous	 	 

461	Stan 	Webb	 

462	J.	Dean	 

463	J.	Bethany 	 

464	M.	Morphew	 

465	Jeff	Oliver	 

466	Don 	McKinnon	Jones County Emergency Management Agency 

467	Jay 	Houchin	Farbest Farms, Inc.

468	Amy 	Tsui	 

469	Steve 	Swaffar	Kansas Farm Bureau 

470	Brett 	McDuffie	 

471	Garnett	Bell 	 

472	Michelle	Andria 	 

473	Anonymous	 	 

474	Anonymous	 	 

475	James 	Tarlow	New York Animal Advocates 

476	Anonymous	 	 

477	Anonymous	 	 

478	Jessica 	Lowery	 

479	Ron 	Litterer	National Corn Growers Association 

480	Anonymous	 	 

481	Anonymous	 	 

482	Marita	Fields	 

483	Anonymous	 	 

484	Anonymous	 	 

485	Anonymous	 	 

486	Zae 	Munn	 

487	Jeanne 	Melchior	Protect Our Woods

488	Anonymous	 	 

489	Tim 	Schleicher	 

490	Gretta	Irwin	Iowa Turkey Federation 

491	M.  	McAtee	 

492	W. Hugh 	O'Riordan	Idaho Dairymen's Association 

493	Gregg 	Clanton	ISE America, Inc.

494	Rick	Stott	Agri Beef Co.

495	Jeremy 	Rowland	Bion Environmental Technology, Inc.

496	Mat 	Thomas	 Withdrawn

497	Trent 	Dougherty	Ohio Environmental Council

498	Robert	Symons	Harrisonburg/Rockingham County LEPC

499	S. 	Roberts	 

500	John 	Sperry	Sperry Farms

501	W.	Wampler	Sunny Slope Farm

502	M.  	Varna 	 

503	Maida	Genser	 

504	Nancy 	Caffall	 

505	Sandra 	Britton	 

506	Michael 	Kay	 

507	Adriane 	Dellorco	 

508	Polly 	Heninger	 

509	Virginia 	Foote	 

510	Bill	Satterfield	 

511	Marjorie 	Van Buren	 

512	Timothy 	Biello	 

513	Leslie 	Duram	 

514	James 	Grimm	Texas Poultry Federation

515	Aimee 	Lemrise	 

516	John 	Gangwer	 

517	Anonymous	 	 

518	Ron 	Darnell	 

519	Jennifer 	Dewey	 

520	Michael 	Burleson	 

521	Anonymous	 	 

522	Tim	W	 

523	Hugh	Weathers	South Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture

524	Anonymous	 	 

525	Scott 	Norling	 

526	Scott 	Johnson	 

527	Kris 	Kohl	 

528	W.	Gordon	Washington State Dairy Federation

529	Joseph 	Miller	Rose Acre Farms

530	Russell 	McGee	 

531	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.1	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.2	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.3	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.4	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.5	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.6	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.7	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.8	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.9	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.1	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.11	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.12	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.13	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.14	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.15	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.16	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.17	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.18	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.19	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

531.2	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity

532	Barrie  	Wilcox	Wilcox Farms, Inc.

533	Leonard	Blackham	The National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture 

534	C.	Davis 	 Poultry Mass Mail Campaign (121)

535	M.	Thomas	 Mass Mail Campaign (1,405)

536	S. 	Maloney	 Mass Mail Campaign (3)

537	J.	Davis 	 Mass Mail Campaign (106)

538	 	G	 Poultry Mass Mail Campaign (140)

539	J.	Weber	 Pork Mass Mail Campaign (234)

540	S. 	Senecal	 

541	K.	Bounds	 

542	D.	Calloway	Pebblestone Farm

543	P.  	Hunter	 

544	S. 	Clark 	 

545	M.  	Shaul	 

546	J. 	Farb	 

547	H.	Lenz	 

548	J.	Tunick	 

549	R. 	Blevins	 

550	Anonymous	 	 

551	W.	Calloway	 

552	Anonymous	 	 

553	J.	Newcombe	 

554	B.	Carmean	 

555	C.	Calloway	 

556	George A. 	Kimbrell	The Center For Food Safety

557	Kevin 	Vinchattle	Iowa Poultry Association

558	D.	Brown	 

559	M.	Foskey	 

560	W. 	Vickers	 

561	James 	Burnett	EMA Director, Winston County 

562	B.	McCane	 

563	B. 	Reimbold	 

564	B.	Kirby	 

565	Jay 	Lazarus	Dairy Producers of New Mexico

566	K.	Carmean	 

567	Anonymous	 	 

568	M.	Follansbee	 

569	Anonymous	 	 

570	J.	Vickers	 

571	F.	Wells	 

572	L.	Kohlberg	 

573	Michael 	Christensen	Flying C Farms, Inc.

574	L.	Rothrock	 

575	Anonymous	 	 

576	Anonymous	 	 

577	Leonard	Blackham	NASDA

578	Anonymous	 	 

579	Anonymous	 	 

580	D.	West	 

581	Anonymous	 	 

582	Doelas 	Landes	O.K. Industries, Inc. 

583	Anonymous	 	 

584	Anonymous	 	 

585	M.	Gebhard	 

586	G.	Youngblood	 

587	R. 	Pearce	 

588	D. 	Hilliard	 

589	Justin 	Schneider	Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc.

590	C.	Naney	 

591	S. 	Adams 	 

592	Chad 	Gregory	United Egg Producers

593	Anonymous	 	 

594	J.	Hill	 

595	Anonymous	 	 

596	Anonymous	 	 

597	M.	Barnette	 

598	Michael	Myatt 	Cooperative Milk Producers Association

599	Jo	Schmidt	Salt Lake County, Utah 

600	G.	Stowell	 

601	M.	Wesley	 

602	Anonymous	 	 

603	A.	Montapert	 

604	Anonymous	 	 

605	Anonymous	 	 

606	William	Hammerich	Colorado Livestock Association 

607	Anonymous	 	 

608	Anonymous	 	 

609	Jeff	Nogan	Pennsylvania Center for Dairy Excellence and Pennsylvania
Center for Beef Excellence

610	F.	Zerbe	 

611	L.	Norton	 

612	C.	Callahan	 

613	J.	Luoma	 

614	Timothy	Wheeler	Society of Environmental Journalists

615	L.	Hughes	 

616	R.	Setticase	 

617	Todd	LeKites	Salisbury Growout Manager, DMV South

618	D.	Foss	 

619	B.	Price	 

620	Anonymous	 	 

621	Anonymous	 	 

622	D.	Wiggins	 

623	S.	Dennis	 

624	M.	Sawyer	 

625	Anonymous	 	 

626	M.	Harrison 	 

627	K.	Osborne	 

628	D.	Vieau	 

629	D.	Cleven	 

630	T.	Relyea	 

631	R.	Morris	 

632	J.	Carlile	 

633	Anonymous	 	 

634	D.	Adent	 

635	B.	Renfro	 

636	S.	Tenney	 

637	Anonymous	 	 

638	J.	Wilen	 

639	M.	Tallant	 

640	Troy 	Hadrick	Butte Harding Lawrence County Farm Bureau 

641	Kurt	Kreher	Kreher's Farm Fresh Eggs, LLC 

642	Andy	Whittington	Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation 

643	R.	Dykstra	 

644	Bob	Patterson	 

645	B.	Keith	 

646	Colleen	Anderson 	Marvin & Colleen Anderson Pullets, Inc. 

647	D.  	Ryman	 

648	W.  	Bevans	 

649	Anonymous	 	 

650	Anonymous	 	 

651	Anonymous	 	 

652	Larry E. 	Sitzman	Nebraska Pork Producers Association 

653	Tim	W.	P W Farm 

654	Anonymous	 	 

655	Anonymous	 	 

656	Steven 	Krikava	Land O'Lakes, Inc. 

657	Robert	Byrne	National Milk Producers Federation 

658	Anonymous	 	 

659	Anonymous	 	 

660	Anonymous	 	 

661	Anonymous	 	 

662	Anonymous	 	 

663	Anonymous	 	 

664	Anonymous	 	 

665	Lisa	Griffith 	National Family Farm Coalition 

666	Connie	Smith	South Carolina Poultry Federation 

667	T.  	McDonald	 

668	Anonymous	 	 

669	G.  	White	 

670	Bryan 	Black	National Pork Producers Council 

670.1	Bryan 	Black	National Pork Producers Council 

670.2	Bryan 	Black	National Pork Producers Council 

671	A.  	Unger	 

672	J.  	Moran	 

673	J.  	Faison	 

674	P.  	Copeland	 

675	Zippy	Duvall	Georgia Farm Bureau Federation

676	V.  	Crompton	 

677	C.	Connell	 

678	T. 	Ereneta 	 

679	Anonymous	 	 

680	Anonymous	 	 

681	Anonymous	 	 

682	Abit	Massey	Georgia Poultry Federation 

683	M.	McNamara	 

684	G.	Bell 	 

685	Shannon 	Wolf	Wisconsin Pork Association 

686	Bruce	Baker	Soncrest Egg Farm 

687	K.	Maclellan-Cohen 	 

688	Eric	Pierce	Pierce Turkey Farm 

689	 	Mattox	 

690	R.	Browne	 

691	Kerri 	Powell	Earthjustice 

693	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.01	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.02	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.03	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.04	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.05	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.06	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.07	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.08	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.09	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.1	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.11	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.12	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.13	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.14	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.15	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.16	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.17	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.18	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.19	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.2	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.21	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.22	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.23	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.24	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

693.25	Michele 	Merkel	Environmental Integrity Project 

694	Anonymous	 	 

695	Anonymous	 	 

696	Anonymous	 	 

697	W. 	Reding	 

698	R.	E hr	 

699	T.	Krell	 

700	M.	Kelly	 

701	E.	Bury	 

702	A.	Hasse	 

703	C.	Dobson	 

704	G.	Boness	 

705	N.	Heilmann	 

706	J.	Fardue	 

707	S.	Grodsky	 

708	Mike	Pepper	Mississippi Poultry Association

709	John	Fisher	Ohio Farm Bureau

710	C.	Heinz	 

711	D.	Dean	 

712	M.	Giese	 

713	Don	Daufeldt	D Daufeldt Farms

714	M.	Grindley	 

715	C.	Weston	 

716	M.	Flynn	 

717	Tim	Wheeler	Society of Environmental Journalists

718	Mark 	Salvador 	Iowa Farm Bureau Federation

719	M.	Clarke	 

720	M.	Anderson 	 

721	Mark 	Dopp	American Meat Institute

722	J.	Bloom	 

723	S.	Perkins	 

724	M.	Yannell	 

725	P.	TRUE	 

726	S.	Cook	 

727	A.	Forrest	 

728	S.	Gunning	 

729	B.	Norwood 	 

730	R.	McGee	 

731	T.	W.	 

732	J.	Liotta	 

733	F.	Hasenbein	 

734	M.	Lind	 

735	M.	Glasgow 	 

736	I.	Cree	 

737	S.	Stanley 	 

738	H.	Schmidt	 

739	Lena 	Hall	TN Complex of Pilgrim's Pride Poultry

740	G.	Carpiniello	 

741	A.	Jarman	 

742	C.	Kozower	 

743	S.	Miller	 

744	D.	Stormdancer	 

745	D.	Painter	 

746	S.	Clark 	 

747	E.	Livesey-Fassel	 

748	J.	Dubord	 

749	L.	Lindemulder Harris	 

750	J.	C. Dufresne	 

751	N.	Harrison 	 

752	J.	Palmer	 

753	M.	Giese	 

754	L.	Allen	 

755	S.	Avery	 

756	S.	Wallace	 

757	Eric	Stickdorn, 	Brookstone Terrace Farm

758	Keri	Powell	Earthjustice

759	G.	Thompson	 

760	A.	Bowron	 

761	R.	Lipovec	 

762	S.	Finman	 

763	C.	Eagle	 

764	K.	Godell	 

765	Steven	Woodruff	Woodruff & Howe Environmental

766	R.	Clayton	 

767	M.	Potter	 

768	T.	Schuster	 

769	M.	Gargiulo	 

770	Dennis	Gerber	Floating Reservoir Cover Consultant

771	B.	Reed	 

772	Victor	 Flatt	University of Houston Advanced Environmental Law
Students

773	K.	Sellers	 

774	E.	Ciregna	 

775	M.	Glasgow 	 

776	Anissa	Reynolds	Southern Properties Realty

777	B.	Sabo	 

778	P.	Holt	 

779	C.	Cohn	 

780	J.	Bonnheim	 

781	Jill	Godmillow	Notre Dame University 

782	D.	Rusch	 

783	G.	Bell 	 

784	P.	White	 

785	J.	Callas	 

786	L.	Ste Marie	 

787	L.	Tutino	 

788	S.	Baker	 

789	Anonymous	 	 

790	K.	Lancor	 

791	L.	Cornelison	 

792	K.	Kremer	 

793	M.	Dube	 

794	Anonymous	 	 

795	E.	Schulmiller	 

796	R.	Burns	 

797	F.	Tutt	 

798	J.	Essex 	 

799	L.	Ogden 	 

800	S.	Broughton	 

801	L.	Whalen	 

802	G.	Nofsinger	 

803	D.	Blake	 

804	R.	Eisele	 

805	N.	Ness 	 

806	Dustin	Cox	Kane County Farm Bureau 

807	Bina	Robinson	Citizens for Planetary Health 

808	J.	Hallahan	 

809	R.	Vaught 	 

810	S.	Nemour	 

811	G.	Eddie	 

812	P.	Gibbons	 

813	M.	Sprague	 

814	B.	Rapach	 

815	Tamara	Thies	The National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

816	M.	Nochimson	 

817	L.	Howe	 

818	Anonymous	 	 

819	K.	Houlihan	 

820	J.	Linton	 

821	J.	Neilson	 

822	B.	A. Pieplow-Galey	 

823	C.	O'Meara	 

824	K.	Hart	 

825	S.	Arnold 	 

826	S.	Righi	 

827	M.	Herring	 

828	G.	Hasapidis 	 

829	C.	Elliot	 

830	P.	Best	 

831	B.	Dale	 

832	D.	Homer	 

833	A.	Hammond 	 

834	A.	Holt	 

835	K.	Inomata 	 

836	K.	Samoranos 	 

837	D.	Hatfield	 

838	S.	Brown	 

839	K.	Corwin	 

840	C.	Huspeka	 

841	Tamra 	Langford	Perdue Farms 

842	J.	Erb	 

843	S.	Moore 	 

844	J. 	Anderson 	 

845	A.	Miller	 

846	J.	Gartside	 

847	K.	Rallo	 

848	E.	Saldana	 

849	Michael	Cline	Virginia Department of Emergency Management 

850	Steven 	Olsen	Minnesota Turkey Growers Association & Broiler and Egg
Association of Minnesota 

851	Meredith	Niles 	Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator

852	George	Watts 	National Chicken Council

853	S.	Cox	 

854	R.	Watkins	 

855	K.	Martellaro 	 

856	D.	Whitmire	 

857	J.	Curtis	 

858	A.	Kroeger	 

859	L.	Lewis	 

860	S.	Sor-Lokken 	 

861	M.	Strother	 

862	R.	Cappelletti 	 

863	J.	Perkins-Buzo 	 

864	N.	Medved	 

865	V.	Pena	 

866	J.	Pendergast	 

867	S.	Cox	 

868	T.	Adams 	 

869	J.	Walford	 

870	C.	Elk	 

871	C.	Soraghan 	 

872	D.	Radell	 

873	S.	Fortunak 	 

874	Bryant	Worely	North Carolina Poultry Farmers 

875	C.	TRUE	 

876	B.	Oakley	 

877	L.	Syverud 	 

878	J.	Plapinger	 

879	C.	Carter	 

880	J.	Compere	 

881	P.	Costner	 

882	Jim	Krahn	Oregon Dairy Farmers Association 

883	Craig	Head	Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation

884	S.	DeWeerdt 	 

885	Susan	Joy	Nebraska Poultry Industries 

886	Kathleen 	Reuter	Western United Dairymen 

887	Shelia 	Burkhardt	Michigan Milk Producers Association 

888	Tom	Stroda	Kansas Polk Association  

889	Mike	Billotte	United Dairymen of Arizona 

890	Joe	Whorley	Dakota Layers 

891	Tom	Miller	Arizona Pork Council 

892	Jim	Carroll	Dairy Farmers of America

893	Kim	Stefanik	Stefanik Farm Inc. 

894	Caroline	Potter	The Northeast Dairy Producers Association Inc. 

895	J.P.	Cativieta	Community Alliance for Responsible Environmental
Stewardship

896	David	Fuhrmann	Foremost Farms USA 

897	Zippy	Duvall	Georgia Farm Bureau Federation

898	Wenonah 	Hauter	Food and Water Watch

899	Scott	Jones	South Dakota Cattlemen's Association 

900	Patricia	Martin	Safe Food and Fertilizer 

900.1	Patricia	Martin	Safe Food and Fertilizer 

900.2	Patricia	Martin	Safe Food and Fertilizer 

900.3	Patricia	Martin	Safe Food and Fertilizer 

901	William 	Hammerich	Colorado Livestock Association 

902	Timothy	Wheeler	Society of Environmental Journalists

903	D.	Olsen	Briarwood Farms-Rochester

904	Duane	Olsen	Briarwood Farms-Rochester

905	J.	Sweeney	 

906	L.	McCrink	 

907	P.	McAlpin	 

908	K.	Isaacs	 

909	K.	Seabrook	 

910	J.	Vragel	 

911	S.	Tansky	 

912	N.	Holt	 

913	D.	Serotta	 

914	C.	Orth-Pallavicini	 

915	K.	Simmons	 

916	G.	Shaeffer	 

917	J.	Gingerich	 

918	D.	Cognata	 

919	T.	Kopel	 

920	N.	Gregory	 

921	C.	Rodger	 

922	J.	Frank	 

923	S.	McRae	 

924	C.	Freckmann	 

925	Jay	Bryant	Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative 

926	R.	Modrow	 

927	Tarah	Heinzen	Northwest Environmental Defense Center

928	Mark 	Dopp	American Meat Institute (AMI) 

929	Robert	Foster	Foster Brothers Farm Inc. and President, Vermont
Natural Ag Products 

930	Jeff	Mayo	Neshoba County Emergency Management Agency

931	George	Pettus	North Carolina Polk Council 

932	W.	Edmonton 	Attorney General of Oklahoma

933	J.	Schochet	 

934	F.	Greenlee	 

935	M.	Neidell	 

936	B.	Imam	 

937	S.	Gross	 

938	Kevin	Vinchattle	Iowa Poultry Association

939	David	Sutherland	Sunrise Farms, Inc.

940	M.	C. Liberman	 

941	K.	Burroughs	 

942	W.	Schmidt	 

943	William	Faulkenberry	White Tail Falls Farm

944	G.	Philbin	 

945	M.	Andria 	 

946	M.	Hadcock	 

947	L.	Whitney	 

948	J.	Holmes	 

949	N.	McDonald	 

950	C.	Allman	 

951	A.	Cohen	 

952	K.	Eble	 

953	R.	Roberts	 

954	D.	Gardecki	 

955	K.	Gholson	 

956	A.	Sen	 

957	J.	Meeks	 

958	E.	Kimber	 

959	E.	Ward	 

960	M.	Meininger	 

961	J.	Wolfson	 

962	D.	Tynan	 

963	K.	Gubrud	 

964	C.	Bunker	 

965	N.	Fleming	 

966	J.	Biss	 

967	S.	Billman	 

968	G.	Cavanaugh	 

969	R.	Rhoads	 

970	J.	Conway 	 

971	N.	Quinones	 

972	V.	Nachmias	 

973	V.	Gibbs	 

974	S.	Nemour	 

975	T.	Morrow	 

976	D.	Murphy	 

977	J.	Vincent	 

978	R.	Baumgartner	 

979	J.	Tanner	 

980	B.	Tache	 

981	J.	Burkel	 

982	John	Di Turo	Aqua Dynamic Solutions, LLC

982.1	John	Di Turo	Aqua Dynamic Solutions, LLC

982.2	John	Di Turo	Aqua Dynamic Solutions, LLC

983	Jamie 	Burr	Tyson Foods, Inc. (Tyson) 

984	E.	Frounfelter	 

985	A.	Olson	 

986	D.	Cain	 

987	W.	Dehaven	American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

988	D.	Berthiaume	 

989	Jessica	Werber	Environmental Integrity Project 

990	Timothy	Gabelhouse	National Association SARA Title III Program
Officials 

991	Calvin	Parnell	Department of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering, Texas A & M

992	R.	Roman	 

993	T.	Lister	 

994	Montressa	Elder	Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response
Commission

995	C.	Etchison	 

996	Annonymous	 	 

997	J.	Wilson 	 

998	Tood 	Staples	Texas Department of Agriculture

999	D.	Roe	 

1000	C.	Yost	 

1001	L.	Williams	 

1002	A.	Rauch	 

1003	C.	Ebey	 

1004	Charles	Tebbutt	Western Environmental Law Center

1004.1	Charles	Tebbutt	Western Environmental Law Center

1004.2	Charles	Tebbutt	Western Environmental Law Center

1004.3	Charles	Tebbutt	Western Environmental Law Center

1004.4	Charles	Tebbutt	Western Environmental Law Center

1004.5	Charles	Tebbutt	Western Environmental Law Center

1005	R.	Downing	 

1006	J.	Coalgate	 

1007	Laki	Tisopulos	 South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) 

1008	George	Pettus	North Carolina Pork Council

1009	Robert	Bloxom	Commonwealth of Virginia office of the Governor

1010	Ronald	Shortridge	Cattle Empire, LLC

1011	Edward	Olivera	Olivera Foods Ranch-Pak Eggs

1012	Tom	Silva	JS West and Companies

1013	Conrad	Boeck	Featherland Egg Farms

1014	Brian	Bookey	National Food Corporation

1015	Philip	Sonstegard	Sunrise Farms, Inc.

1016	D.	Applebaum	 

1017	Abit 	Massey	Georgia Poultry Federation

1018	H.	Brandenburg 	 

1019	Evan	Teague	Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation

1020	L.	Sutula	 

1021	S.	Guldenbrein	 

1022	Tom	Fleming	Ohio Dairy Producers Association and Dairy Producer,
Allen Co.

1023	Eldon	McAfee	Iowa Pork Producers Association

1024	Phil	Overdorf	Phil Overdorf Farms

1025	Elenore	Gordon	 

1026	Robert	Pike	Braswell Foods

1027	Dennis	Hughes	Foodonics International,  Inc.

1028	Roger	Seger	Wabash Valley Produce, Inc.1

1029	Linda	Balfour	 

1030	Phil	Pverdorf	Phil Overdorf Farms

1031	Dick	Isler	Ohio Pork Producers Council

1032	Helen	Salka	 

1033	Zippy	Duvall	Georgia Farm Bureau Federation

1034	Hobey	Bauhan	Virginia Poultry Federation

1035	Jaclyn	Cunningham	MatlinPAttersob Global Advisors

1036	Betty	Ronour	 

1037	Jane	Edsall	 

1038	Sally	Small	 

1039	Roberta	Evres	 

1040	Ross	Wilson 	 

1041	Timothy	Wheeler	Society of Environmental Journalists

1042	Todd	Haymore	Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Commonwealth of Virginia

1043	Debra	Murdock	Pacific Egg and Poultry Association

1044	Todd	Staples	Texas Departmen of Agriculture

1045	Jean	Bradley	 

1046	 	Anonymous	 

1047	Jay	Forman	 

1048	Jim	Mansfeld	 

1049	Patricia	Cachopo	 

1050	Gary 	Cooper	 

1051	David	Waide	Mississppi Farm Bureau Federation

1052	Jerry	Welch	 

1053	Gary 	Cooper	 

1054	Lindsay 	Venele	 

1055	 	Tenga	 

1056	 	Anonymous	National Family Farm Coalition 

1057	Herbert	Schick	Pennsylvania Pork Producers Council

1058	Michael	Scuse	Department of Agriculture, State of Delaware

1059	Richard	Bell 	Arkansas Agricutlre Department

1060	Patricia 	Campbell 	 

1061	Richard	Patmos 	 

1062	Phil	Borgic	Illinois Pork Producers Association

1063	Thomas	Sauls	 

1064	Kendall 	Pigg	 

1065	Brandon 	Olson	 

1066	Brabara	Keenean	 

1067	James 	Canlet	 

1068	Richard	Plum 	 

1069	Jason	Dalrymple	 

1070	Jessica	Werber	Environmental Integrity Project 

1071	James 	Sullivan	 

1072	Christian	Berger	 

1073	 	Anonymous	 

1074	Bill	Young	 

1075	 	Anonymous	 

1076	Gary 	Ward	 

1077	David	McDonald	 

1078	James 	Laursen	 

1079	Marietta 	Scaltrito	 

1080	Barbara	Boodie	 

1081	Janice	Reine	 

1082	Jerry	Welch	 

1083	Gregg	Clanton	 

1084	Judith	McKellips	 

1085	Stanley 	Young	Texas Pork Producers Association, Inc.

1086	Brandon 	Amoroso	 

1087	Helen	Greer	 

1088	Helena 	Melone	 

1089	Richard	Patten	 

1090	Theresa	Galvin	 

1091	T	Dawson 	 

1092	Helen	Decker	 

1093	Shellee	Davis 	 

1094	Ida	DelVecchio	 

1095	Ronald	Gayman	 

1096	Ed	Henderson 	 

1097	Kathi	Kruse	 

1098	Katherine	Melmoth	 

1099	Alfred	McGlinsky	 

1100	Ben	Coleman	 

1101	Gus	Douglass	West Virginia Department of Agriculture

1102	Haven	Hendricks	Utah Pork Producers

1103	Craig	Giroux	Giroux's Poultry Farm, Inc.

1104	Suellen	Savukas	 

1105	Gary 	Yew	Shenandoah County Department of Fire and Rescue

1106	Nancy 	Mroczek	 

1107	Terri	Franks	State of Arkansas Hazardous Materials Emergency
Response Commission

1108	Clayton	Kuhles	Kuhles Capital, LLC - Withdrawn

1109	Blair	Hagy	Kofkoff Egg Farms

1110	Scott	Patton	Delta Egg Farm

1111	Ray 	Noecker	Ohio Pork Producers Council

1112	J	 	Stiebrs Farms, Inc.

1113	Mike	Surles	Premier Farms

1114	Joe	Raith	Morning Fresh Farms

1115	Neil	Carman	Sierra Club

1116	Timothy	Weaver	Weaver Bros., Inc.

1117	K	Bush	 

1118	John	Brown	Idalou Egg Ranch

1119	Jim	Fisher	Missouri Pork Association

1120	Donna	Lanciotte	 

1121	Robert	Krouse	Midwest Poultry Services, L.P.

1122	Marilynn	Grismore	 

1123	Nazen	Merjian	Voices for Animals

1124	Felix	Vescio	 

1125	Richard	Hiers	 

1126	George	Bowman	 

1127	Margaret	Becker	 

1128	Ingrid	Shipp	Egg Master Farm

1129	Elaine	Charowski	 

1130	Gary 	West	JS West and Companies

1131	Mallie	Comos-Snider	Hardy County Rural Development Authority

1132	Ronald	Ballew	Hillandale Gettysburg LP

1133	Derek	Yancey	Morning Fresh Farms

1134	Robert	S	Nature's Best Egg Company, Inc.

1135	Janice	Emich	 

1136	Nell 	Rando	 

1137	Sheila	Schmidt	Schwartz Farms

1138	John	Tallas	Coffee County Office of Emergency Management Office of
Homeland Security

1139	Barbara	Matthes	 

1140	Phillip	Wise	 

1141	Mitchell	Aaron	Mass Mail Campaign (16) 

1142	Glenn	Esbenshade	Esbenshade Farms

1143	Kent 	Woodward	Oakdell Egg Farms, Inc.

1144	John	Adams 	Alabama Poultry & Egg Association

1145	B.J.	Fordham	 

1146	Rigoberto	Jacobo	Boulder Valley Poultry, Inc.

1147	Cathy	Liss	 

1148	Robert 	Howell	Georgia Egg Association

1149	Julian	Price	 

1150	Jere	Wilkerson	 

1151	J.	Noggle	 

1152	Christopher	Ebenshade	Esbenshade Farms

1153	Kenneth	Pauze	Southern New England 

1154	Dolph	Baker	Cal Maine Foods Inc.

1155	Sam	Hines	Pork Producers in Michigan

1156	Kenneth	Ferrell	MFA Incorporated

1157	Rodney	Wagner	Green Valley Poultry Farm Inc.

1158	 	 	Shepherd's Processed Eggs

1159	Nancy 	 	 

1160	Joseph	Miller	Rose Acre Farms

1161	S.	Melling	 

1162	M.	Wood	 

1163	Gregg	Herbruck	 

1164	Tim	Wheeler	 

1165	D.	Craven	 

1166	R.	Simpson	 

1167	Chuck	Bell 	 

1168	Katie	Smith	Mississippi Department of Agriculture

1169	D.	Efron	 

1170	M.	Efron	 

1171	William	Hammerich	Colorado Livestock Association

1172	A.	Blackwelder	 

1173	Brent	Booker	Charm Egg Distributors

1174	J.	McKellips	 

1175	V.	De Wendt	De Wendt Poultry LLC 

1176	Don	Ericson	Kandiyohi County Emergency Management 

1177	M.	Garvey	 

1178	T.	Seltzer	 

1179	S.	Nichols	MCM Poultry Farm 

1180	Abit	Massey	Georgia Poultry Federation 

1181	D.	Rettig	Rembrandt Enterprises 

1182	B.	Kohler	 

1183	M.	Puglisi	Puglisi Egg Farms 

1184	D.	Wheatley	 

1185	M.	Foster	 

1186	M.	Funk	 

1187	P.	Chavis	 

1188	T.	Bebee	Michael Foods Egg Products Company 

1189	M.	Friedow	Sparboe Farms, Inc. 

1190	S.	Gemperle	Gemperle Enterprises 

1191	S.	Troxler	North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services  

1192	B.	Russell	 

1193	J.	Methany	Kent County Department of Public Safety 

1194	E.	Pool	New Jersey Farm Bureau Dairy Committee 

1195	Richard 	Jenkins	Jenkins Poultry Farms 

1196	Robert	Symons	County of Rockingham Department of Fire and Rescue 

1197	R.	Bell 	 

1198	Susan	Joy	Nebraska Poultry Industries, Inc. 

1199	Don	Brown	McAnally Enterprises, L.L.C. 

1200	Bruce	Brown	 

1201	Jay	Lazarus	Dairy Producers of New Mexico 

1202	R.	Willin	Willin Farms Inc.

1203	F.	Enders	 

1204	G.	Culuko	 

1205	L.	Hunt	 

1206	Tommy	Irvin	Georgia Department of Agriculture

1207	K.	Malo	 

1208	Carrie	LaSeur	Plains Justice

1209	Gary 	Foster	Eggs West

1210	Kathy	 	 

1211	R.	Welborn	 

1212	Ronald	Gross	Hemmelgarn & Sons

1213	L.	Mattinen	 

1214	Catherine	Fitzsimmons	Air Quality Bureau of Iowa

1215	Don	Brown	McAnally Enterprises Inc.

1216	John	Zoet	Zoet Poultry Inc.

1217	Robert	Michael	R.C. Michael Company Inc.

1218	Craig	Willardson	Norco Ranch Inc.

1219	Dwight	Potter	Circle Four Farms

1220	Evelyn	Stanton 	 

1221	Janine	Weeks	 

1222	 D.	P.	Rigtrup Egg Farm, LLC

1223	Margaret	Reier	Minnich Poultry

1224	Lester	Spell	Department of Agriculture and Commerce, State of
Mississippi

1225	Louise	Mariana	 

1226	Anonymous	 	 

1227	Mark	Davis 	 

1228	Pat	Hackett	 

1229	Kim	Smith	 

1230	Nancy 	Erickson	Natural and Environmental Resources, Illinois Farm
Bureau

1231	Linda	Burlingame 	 

1232	Brooke	Mays	 

1233	Steven	Creel	 

1234	Marcus	Braswell	 

1237	Barbara	Roush	 

1238	Jackie	Lopez	Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action

1239	Scheuermann	Karen	 

1240	Richard	Stahlhut	 

1241	Judy	Stover	 

1242	S.	Wald	 

1243	D.	Mitchell	 

1244	Ngaz	Emily	 

1245	A. 	Evers	 

1246	Alisa	Gaston-Linn	 

1247	Emily	Horton	 

1248	Ruth	Allen	 

1249	Shawn	Reiersgaard	 

1250	W.	Hunter	 

1251	John	Bosma	 

1252	Katie	Frazier	Virginia Agribusiness Council

1253	Dana	Braswell	 

1254	William	Davis	 

1255	Barb	Ellis	 

1256	Shirley	Cotrotsos	 

1257	Theresa	Benda	 

1258	Lee Ann	Reinfeldt	 

1259	Stan	Dorman	 

1260	Monte	Terry	 

1261	Shockey	R.	 

1262	Eric	Gonder	 

1263	Terry	Maness	 

1264	Nancy Allison	Coleman	 

1265	Patty 	Baxter	 

1266	 	Anonymous	References comments by John Dingell

1267	Judith	Peterson	 

1268	Noel	Anderson	 

1269	Barbara	Fullerton	 

1270	Linda	Kalof	 

1271	Rhedona	Rose	Tennessee Farm Bureau

1272	Mike	Snow	 

1273	Dana	Kindermann	 

1274	Terri	Wolf-King	 

1275	Michael	Joyce	 

1276	Debbie	Goodman	 

1277	Kathy	Barrett	Cayuga Martketing LLC.

1278	Leocadie	Welling	 

1279	Judith 	Embry	 

1280	Diana 	Obenauer	 

1281	Isaac	Singletary	 

1282	William	Davis	 

1283	Amber	Pool	Mass Mail Campaign (5)

1284	Shanon	Melling	 

1285	Mitch	Lutz	 

1286	Jana	Harker	 

1287	Virginia	Ayers	 

1288	Karen	Chamberlain	 

1289	Jane	Bowhers	 

1290	Ellen	Hackett	 

1291	Nell 	Wulff	 

1292	Joel	Starkey	 

1293	Nancy	Starkey	 

1294	Therese	Slack	 

1295	Simon	Validzic	 

1296	Michelle	Gramza	 

1297	Williard	Everhart	 

1298	Dustin	Catoe	 

1299	Rex	Catoe	 

1300	Israel	Boone	 

1301	Gerry	Meyer	 

1302	Jamie	Gainey	 

1303	Eric	Hoyer	 

1304	David	Maturen	 

1305	Kendall	Pigg	 

1306	Eric	Horton	 

1307	Joel	Ginsburg	 

1308	Sheila	Horton	 

1309	Frances	de Usabel	 

1310	Katherine	Gifford	 

1311	Kim	Chase	 

1312	AnnMarie	Miller	 

1313	Laura	Kenyon	 

1314	Tony	Deese	 

1315	Louise	Heenan	 

1316	Jon	Ramold	 

1317	Susan	Burkhalter	 

1318	Brenda	Oliver	 

1319	Scarlette	Rouse	 

1320	Adam	Snyder	 

1321	Marshall	Oliver	 

1322	Lawayne	Garrett	 

1323	Pat	McKnight	 

1324	Shannon 	Horton	 

1325	Darlene	Snyder	 

1326	William	Boone	 

1327	Ilana	Blatt-Eisengart	 

1328	Kathy	Catoe	 

1329	 Bea	Elliott	 

1330	Timmy	Campbell	 

1331	June	Wilson	 

1332	Cindy	Orcutt	 

1333	Bethany	Pugh	 

1334	Steven	Baxter	 

1335	Anne	Millhollen	 

1336	Donna	Arauz	 

1337	Michael	Price	 

1338	Gregory 	Cooper	 

1339	Diane	Schroeder	 

1340	Rita	Robinett	 

1341	Corey	Gardner	 

1342	Chris	Chinn	 

1343	Coleen	Mackin	 

1344	Anonymous

 

1345	Eric	Nelson	 

1346	Maureen 	Edwards	 

1347	Wayne	Jamie	 

1348	Gary	Bogue	 

1349	D.	Deem	 

1350	Steven	Frischknecht	Mass Mail Campaign (15)

1351	Michelle	Hunt	 

1352	Cindy	Walsh	Pfizer Global Manufacturing

1353	Mary	Bruner	 

1354	B.D.	Knopf	 

Appendix B – Summary of Attachments Submitted by Environmental
Integrity and Earthjustice to Docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469-531

On December 28, 2007, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
titled, “CERLA/EPCRA Administrative  Reporting Exemption for Air
Releases of Hazardous Substances From Animal Waste” (December 28, 2007
72 FR 73700).  This document summarizes documents submitted in response
to the Agency’s request for comment on the proposed rule. 
Specifically, this document summarizes 20 attachments provided as
submission EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469-531 from Environmental Integrity and
Earthjustice.

Attachment 531.1: This document is not available in FDMS since it is a
copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the
copyright holder. Therefore, no summary is provided. 

Attachment 531.2: “Increased Animal Waste Production From Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs): Potential Implications for Public and
Environmental Health.”  Nebraska Center for Rural Health Research,
January, 2000.

Summary – The purpose of this document is to present background
information about Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) from a
public health perspective. At the center of public and environmental
health discussions concerning the implications of larger and fewer
livestock production operations is the increased production of manure
per operation. Public health advocates are becoming concerned that as
the amount of manure produced in a concentrated area increases,
traditional handling techniques may become less effective, and the
manure may eventually pose a threat to the public and the environment. 

Considerations for Occupational Health: There are several occupational
hazards associated with working in livestock operations of all types and
sizes. The risk for chronic disease development, such as asthma-like
syndrome, asthma, bronchitis, and mucus membrane inflammation syndrome,
does appear to be linked to occupational exposure to endotoxins, gases,
and dust.

Considerations for Community Health: A table summarizes recently
published research about how residents living near intensive livestock
farming operations may be affected by odors and other airborne emissions
from CAFOs. Also, there is some concern that flies will carry microbes
that cause dysentery and diarrhea. Another concern is that large amounts
of manure will lead to the transmission of manure based pathogens to
residents who live in close proximity. 

Considerations for Environmental and Public Health: When manure is
spread over crops and pasture lands there is the possibility that the
application of nutrients may exceed crop nutrient requirements. 

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – Document discusses harm and
exposure issues related to large quantities of manure.

Attachment 531.3: This document is not available in FDMS since it is a
copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the
copyright holder.  Therefore, no summary is provided.

Attachment 531.4: “Ammonia Emission Factors from Swine Finishing
Operations.” D. Bruce Harris, Richard C. Shores, and Larry G. Jones,
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
NC. No date.

Summary – Concentrated animal feeding operations are being examined in
several regions of the U.S. as major sources of ammonia and particulate
matter precursors. The National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) has previously measured ammonia concentrations around and
estimated emissions from a swine production facility. This paper
presents the results from two new studies at swine finishing facilities.
New data are collected for tunnel-ventilated pull-plug swine finishing
barns using chemiluminescent ammonia measurements from the exhaust fans.
Open-path Fourier transform infrared (OP-FTIR) measurements of a
naturally ventilated pit recharge barn and its lagoon are used to
develop emission factors in the second study. The data suggest that the
barns are a significant source of ammonia, and that the current emission
factors are not markedly different from these new data.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – Document discusses harm and
exposure issues related to large quantities of manure.

Attachment 531.5: “Emissions from Animal Feeding Animal Operations,
Draft.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August, 2001.

Summary – Individual farm operations can confine as many as 10's or
100's of thousands of animals each year. Currently, the trend in most
animal sectors is for continued consolidation of production at even
larger operations. These large operations must store large amounts of
manure because the amount of manure generated exceeds the agronomic
demands of local crop land. The microbial breakdown of the organic
carbon and nitrogen compounds in manure can result in odors and other
emissions to the air. This report presents the results of a preliminary
investigation into air pollution from large animal feeding operations
(AFOs) for the beef, dairy, swine, and poultry (broilers, layers, and
turkeys) animal sectors.

The fundamental goal of this study was to develop a method for
estimating emissions at the individual farm level that reflects the
different animal production methods that are commonly used at commercial
scale operations. The approach to this study was to: (1) identify the
manure management systems typically used by large animal feeding
operations for each animal sector, (2) develop model farms based on
individual elements of those systems (i.e. confinement, manure
collection system, storage sites, land application), (3) search the
literature for emission factors that could be associated with each
element of the model farm, and (4) apply the emission factors to the
model farms to estimate annual mass emissions. The report also
summarizes information on emission control techniques that was found in
the literature.

The literature search identified a number of control practices that in
theory are possible options for reducing the emissions from confinement
facilities, manure management systems, and land application. Chapter 9.0
identifies more than 20 technologies that have been used to some extent
at full-scale operations in the industry.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption –  Documents provides estimates of
ammonia, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrogen sulfide, PM, and volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from farms.

Attachment 531.6: Environmental and Economic Benefit Analysis of
Proposed Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines for Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January,
2001.

Summary – U.S. livestock and poultry production has risen sharply
since the 1970s, resulting in an increase in the amount of manure and
wastewater generated annually. As production has increased, the U.S.
livestock and poultry sectors have also consolidated animal production
into a smaller number of larger-scale, highly specialized operations
that concentrate more animals (and manure) in a single location. At the
same time, significant gains in production efficiency have increased
per-animal yields as has the rate of turnover of animals between farm
and market. These large animal feeding operations (AFOs) can present
considerable environmental risks because they often do not have an
adequate land base for manure disposal through land application. As a
result, large facilities must incur the risks associated with storing
significant volumes of manure, or must attempt to maximize the
application of manure to the limited land they have available. By
comparison, smaller manage fewer animals and tend to concentrate less
manure nutrients at a single location. These operations are more likely
to have sufficient cropland and fertilizer needs to land apply manure
nutrients generated at a livestock or poultry business.

Since the 1970s, the combined forces of population growth and
re-location of operations closer to consumer markets and processing
sectors have resulted in more AFOs located near densely populated areas.
The paper reports that surface waters in these areas face additional
stresses from urban runoff and other point sources. The proximity of
large AFOs to human populations thus increases the potential for human
health impacts and ecological damage if manure and wastewater at AFOs is
improperly discharged.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – Document discusses harm and
exposure issues.

Attachment 531.7: “Environmental Assessment of Proposed Revisions to
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the
Effluent Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, January, 2001.

Summary – The purpose of this document is to provide a broad and
qualitative assessment of the human health and ecological impacts
associated with the release of waste from concentrated animal feeding
operations and to assess potential and reported benefits of the
implementation of the proposed revisions for the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System.   

The animal feeding operation industry has undergone significant changes,
particularly with regard to the increased concentration of confined
production units and the large amount of waste associated with them.  

The major pollutants of concern associated with animal feeding
operations are nutrients, like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium,
nitrogen compounds, phosphorus compounds, ammonia, pathogens, organic
matter, salts and trace elements, antibiotics, hormones, and others like
particulates and pesticides.

The transport of pollutants can occur through various vectors such as
runoff, erosion, discharge to air and subsequent deposition, or directly
to surface waters.  The potential hazards from AFO pollutants can affect
surface water, ground water, air and soil, thus the detrimental impacts
on human health and the environment should be of great concern.  

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – The document addresses the
potential harm that ammonia exposure from AFOs can cause to human health
and the environment.

Attachment 531.8: Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air
Quality Study – Final Report.  Iowa State University and the
University of Iowa Study Group, February 2002.

Summary – This document provides a collection of studies that describe
the CAFO industry in Iowa and its impact on human and animal health.
Specifically, the document provides a review of research and
peer-reviewed literature on the emission rates and emission models for
dispersion of gases from CAFOs. Emissions originate from the housing
ventilation air, manure storage units, and during land application of
manure. Refereed publications were sought that identified ammonia,
methane, hydrogen sulfide, particulate, bioaerosol, and volatile organic
compound (VOCs, including “odor”) emission from swine, dairy/cattle,
and poultry production systems. The vast majority of published data is
related to ammonia emission, and where available, the remaining
components were cited and reported. A lack of data exists that reports
downwind concentration of gases and particulates from CAFOs as a
function of facility type and emission rate. 

The document also provides a evaluation of the health effects of
airborne substances released from animal production units and states
that a valid evaluation should be based on the important and
well-established toxicological principles of dosage and response. Many
factors can alter animal or human response to toxicants, including those
inherent in the toxicant, the organism, the environment and the
combinations of these major factors. Response to exposure by airborne
toxicants is likely to involve the respiratory system because it is a
portal of entry. Study of CAFO issues suggests consideration of the
mechanisms of injury by volatile agents and particulates, as well as
understanding the potential effects of both acute and chronic exposure.
The study indicates that respiratory system effects are manifest in
relatively limited ways (bronchoconstriction, pulmonary edema, asthma,
carcinogenesis), and careful attention must be given to evidence for
cause and effect from among a wide range of insults and levels of
exposure.

The document reports that exposure to high concentrations of ammonia
result in severe damage to the upper and lower respiratory tract and
alveolar capillaries in humans. Controlled studies with hydrogen sulfide
in laboratory animals have shown that levels of 500 ppm or greater are
likely to be lethal, similar to the response observed in humans.
Exposure to sub-lethal levels of hydrogen sulfide have produced
progressive effects ranging from increased respiratory rate, to
pulmonary edema, to histopathological changes in the nasal cavity and
lung tissue.  Endotoxins, glucans, and microorganisms may be important
components of bioaerosols associated with animal production units.
Inhalation of these compounds has been shown to produce respiratory
system effects including airway constriction and obstructive breathing
pattern, inflammatory tissue responses, and overt infection of lung
tissue.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – This document provides a collection
of studies describing CAFO industry structure and trends in Iowa, air
quality issues, emissions and community exposures from CAFOS, fate and
transport of air pollutants from CAFOs, adverse health effects in humans
and animals, and social and community impacts.

 

Attachment 531.9: Letter from the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce dated March 28, 2008.

Summary – This letter raises questions pertaining to the legitimacy of
the proposed exemption and discusses why the exemption is ill-considered
and contrary to public interest.

The letter indicates that the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
uncovered that most of the 26 comments from State and local emergency
response agencies that the EPA refers to as supporting the exemption as
a part of their justification for the proposed rule are essentially
duplicates of each other employing identical text.   Even so, the number
of those responses is too small to represent all of the local emergency
planning commissions and State emergency response commissions.   Many of
the opposition letters from the State and local air pollution control
agencies are largely going ignored by the EPA.  

Several EPA reports have stated that ammonia exposure may lead to severe
detrimental health effects including burns on the skin, eyes, throat and
lungs.  EPA scientists have also examined the possibility of acute
detrimental health effects from exposure to hydrogen sulfide, downwind
effect of which can have serious implications for the central nervous
system.   An expert panel reporting to Congress assessed the significant
risks to human health and environment that industrial farms pose and
called for higher levels of inquiry and scrutiny. Because the Clean Air
Act does not have specific regulations in place to control emissions of
hydrogen sulfide from animal feeding operations (AFOs) and because
ammonia is not a regulated pollutant, CERCLA and EPCRA are the only
regulatory sources of information available to citizens and policy
makers.  

Given the EPA's appeal regarding the case of Association of Irritated
Residents, et al vs. Environmental Protection Agency, 494 F. 3d 1027, it
seems as though the appeal was just to provide temporary immunity to
CAFOs until the EPA can issue a full exemption from the CERCLA and EPCRA
requirements which were the subject of the initial agreement which
sparked the law suit. The House of Representatives Committee on Energy
and Commerce goes further to pose several questions directly to EPA. 
Questions include those regarding the Agency's reasoning to exempt large
CAFO instead of limiting the exemption to small family farms to address
the burden reduction factor, regarding the publication date of EPA's
methodology for AFO emission estimation and questions regarding whether
emissions from CAFOs are within the typical background concentrations
range.  

Another document cited in this letter is a U.S. EPA memorandum
reflecting a revision of a previous memo titled "Screening-level Acute
Risk Estimates for Emissions of Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia from
Hypothetical Feedlot Wastewater Treatment Lagoons." This memo provides
analyses and methodology for estimating downwind pollution
concentrations and evaluations of risk to human health.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – Document cites reasons why the
exemption is not in the public's best interest and does not represent
the view of State and local emergency response commissions.  

Attachment 531.10: Congressional Research Service Memorandum from
Claudia Copeland to Richard Frandsen of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee with subject line “Emergency Planning Committee Comments on
‘Poultry Petition.’” January, 2008.

Summary – This memorandum summarizes the events leading up to EPA's
proposed exemption of farms from reporting requirements under CERCLA and
EPCRA and discloses requested information regarding the 26 comments from
State emergency response commissions and local emergency planning
commissions that the EPA claims to support the exemption.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) states that the 26 comments
referenced in the December Federal Register Notice were submitted by
five state emergency response commissions or agencies (SERCs) and 21
local emergency planning commissions or committees (LEPCs).  The CRS
also stated that the 26 comments represent only a small fraction of the
4,491 LEPCs and SERCs that are included in EPA's database.  The majority
of the 26 comments (from 17 LEPCs and 1 SERC) are essentially identical
letters.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – The memo discloses information
regarding comments that appear to be identical and express support for
the proposed exemption.

Attachment 531.11: This document is not available in FDMS since it is a
copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the
copyright holder.  Therefore, no summary is provided.

Attachment 531.12: Comments from the Environmental Integrity Project in
opposition to the poultry producers’ petition (“Poultry Petition”)
for exemption from the reporting requirements under CERCLA and EPCRA.
March, 2006.

Summary – This document urges EPA to reconsider the exemption because
of detrimental human health impacts and the lack of, and need for,
emission information and control.  The document also urges the EPA to
comply with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences,
require poultry operations to reduce ammonia emissions and employ a mass
balance approach to monitor AFO ammonia emissions via an aggressive
field program. 

The current livestock industry trend is fewer but bigger operations
producing a large amount of waste.  This results in a higher geographic
concentration of waste which is detrimental to human health and the
environment.  Ammonia is a human toxin, the largest emitter of which is
animal feeding operations.  The document states that exposure to ammonia
results in severe human health effects and many farms regularly report
concentration far greater than those set as maximum by the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.  Ammonia is not only
harmful to humans but is also harmful to birds, surface water, and
populations beyond the emitting farms via downwind deposition of
volatilized ammonia.  The American Public Health Association called for
a moratorium on all new CAFOs until more data on public health is
collected and uncertainties minimized.  

The proposed exemption is at odds with the goals of EPCRA / CERCLA to
provide information for the protection of people and the environment. 
The exemption would also go against several court decisions which upheld
the reporting requirement for AFOs.  Also, granting this exemption would
be "reversing prior positions that [the EPA] has taken in enforcement
cases." Retaining reporting requirements under EPCRA / CERCLA is
imperative because they are "necessary complements to federal permitting
statutes to address emissions of ammonia that would not otherwise be
regulated."

The document states that EPA should adhere to the recommendations of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to decrease emissions immediately by
either reducing the size of the operations or treating the air using
washing walls or biofilters.  Some other techniques recommended include
diet manipulation and adding enzyme additives to litter.   

The document states that reporting will not overburden the emergency
response systems because the government retains the right to choose what
reports to respond to, and thus does not have to respond to every
report.  Also reporting does not overburden the regulated community
because CERCAL and EPCRA only require estimates of emissions.  According
to NAS, a mass balance approach can be employed to estimate ammonia
emissions.  The parameters of the calculation, such as purchased feed
and nitrogen fertilizer, are readily available to all producers.  Also,
the reporting administrative burden is extremely low as only a phone
call is required under EPCRA.  The document also states that this
exemption greatly violates the community right to know about hazardous
substances and hampers the EPA ability to gather pertinent data to
protect its citizens.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – Document discusses the reasons why
the exemption threatens human health and hinders the government ability
to protect its citizens.

Attachment 531.13: This document is not available in FDMS since it is a
copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the
copyright holder.  Therefore, no summary is provided.

Attachment 531.14: “National Emission Inventory - Ammonia Emissions
from Animal Agricultural Operations Revised Draft Report”, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. April 22, 2005.

Summary - On January 30, 2004, EPA released draft estimates of ammonia
emissions from U.S. animal agricultural operations for the years 2002,
2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030 (for inclusion in EPA’s National Emissions
Inventory (NEI)) and a draft report that described the data collected
and literature reviewed to develop the inventory, explained the
methodology to estimate ammonia emissions, summarized the results at the
state level, and discussed the limitations associated with the data
used. The draft report was revised based on comments the EPA received
from interested parties in the public sector.

This report presents the revised [see next paragraph] ammonia emission
estimates for beef, dairy, swine, poultry, sheep, goat, and horse
operations. The revised annual ammonia emission estimates by animal
group for each county in the United States can be obtained from EPA’s
national emissions inventory web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – Ammonia emissions are quantified in
this document.

Attachment 531.15: “Non-Water Quality Impact Estimates for Animal
Feeding Operations,” U.S. EPA – Engineering and Analysis Division,
Office of Water. December, 2002.

Summary – This report presents the methodology for and estimates of
the non-water quality impact estimates (NWQI) for seven regulatory
options that were considered for CAFOs, including beef feedlots,
dairies, and heifer, veal, swine, broiler, layer, and turkey operations.
 Impacts include:

Air emissions from the animal production area, including animal housing
and manure storage and treatment areas;

Air emissions from the application of manure to land;

Air emissions from vehicles, including those involved in the off-site
transport of manure and in on-site composting operations; and

Energy impacts from land application activities, the use of digesters,
and the transportation of manure.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – The document presents current
estimated emissions levels which are useful in determining whether
emissions should be reported.

Attachment 531.16: Renewal of Information Collection Request for the
Continuous Release Reporting Requirement.  Office of Management and
Budget docket submission, October 1, 2004. SFUND-2000-0008. 

Summary – This document addresses the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the Continuous Release Reporting Requirement (CRRR). 
The document also provides estimates of the total number of facilities
affected by the CRRR requirement as well as the costs associated with
recordkeeping and information collection.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – Unclear. The document provides
discussion of information required by the CRRR and the cost of reporting
this information.

Attachment 531.17: “White Paper Summaries”, National Center for
Manure and Animal Waste Management – USDA Fund for Rural America
Grant.  December 11, 2001.

Summary – Document consists of summaries of 20 white papers written to
update the state of scientific knowledge concerning developing priority
areas for animal production and waste management.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – Papers describe the state of
scientific knowledge in the emerging areas of manure management.

Attachment 531.18: This document is not available in FDMS since it is a
copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the
copyright holder.  Therefore, no summary is provided.

Attachment 531.19: Toxicological Profile for Hydrogen Sulfide. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances &
Disease Registry. July, 2006. (Citation obtained through internet
search.)

Summary – This chapter provides public health officials, physicians,
toxicologists, and other interested individuals and groups with an
overall perspective on the toxicology of hydrogen sulfide.  It contains
descriptions and evaluations of toxicological studies and
epidemiological investigations and provides conclusions, where possible,
on the relevance of toxicity and toxicokinetic data to public health.

Relevance to Reporting Exemption – This profile summarizes
toxicological evidence for hydrogen sulfide, a gas associated with
CAFOs.

	

Attachment 531.20: This document is not available in FDMS since it is a
copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without consent of the
copyright holder.  Therefore, no summary is provided.

 Any release to the air of a hazardous substance from animal waste at
farms that stable or confine fewer than the numbers of animal specified
in any of the following categories.

(1)	700 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry

(2)	1,000 veal calves

(3)	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

(4)	2,500 swine each weighing 55 pounds or more

(5)	10,000 swine each weighing less than 55 pounds

(6)	500 horses

(7)	10,000 sheep or lambs

(8)	55,000 turkeys

(9)	30,000 laying hens or broilers, if the farm uses a liquid manure
handling system

(10)	125,000 chickens (other than laying hens), if the farm uses other
than  liquid manure handling system

(11)	82,000 laying hens, if the farm uses other than a liquid manure
handling system

(12)	30,000 ducks (if the farm uses other than a liquid manure handling
system)

(13)	5,000 ducks (if the farm uses a liquid manure handling system)

 Available online at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=37388" 
http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=37388  

 PAGE   

  PAGE  \* roman  ii 

Page   PAGE  21  of   NUMPAGES  73