Environmental Groups Appeal Federal Court Decision on EPA Reporting Requirements

It's your town. Your lives. Your stories. Make sure someone's telling them—donate to Decorah News now. Environmental groups are appealing a federal court's decision to uphold a rule exempting livestock and poultry operations from reporting significant releases of air pollutants. The environmental groups allege the rule is unlawful and that exposure to ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from these operations is responsible for more deaths annually than exposure to air pollution from coal plants. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which intervened in the case, celebrated the court ruling in its favor and said the rules were "onerous and unnecessary" by requiring producers to file "complex, overreaching reports." In August, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the environmental groups' request for summary judgment and instead granted judgment on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Cattlemen. EPCRA and CERCLA Two laws are at play in the case. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or EPCRA, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which require certain entities to notify EPA and local officials of a "potentially dangerous" release of a hazardous substance, according to EPA. EPA has attempted to change the rule, as it relates to animal waste at farms, in the past, according to the court's filed memorandum of opinion. Then in 2018, Congress passed a law that exempted air emissions from animal waste on farms from CERCLA reporting requirements. In 2019, EPA filed a final rule to exempt animal waste emissions from EPCRA requirements in order to match the regulations to the recently changed CERCLA rules. Plaintiffs in the case Environmental groups in the case include Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center for Food Safety, Don't Waste Arizona, Environmental Integrity Project, Food & Water Watch, Humane Society of the United States, Sierra Club, Sound Rivers, Waterkeeper Alliance and Center for Biological Diversity. The environmental groups alleged EPA relied "unlawfully" on the congressional changes to CERCLA as justification for changing the rules in EPCRA that let "the industrial animal industry off the hook." The opinion from U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly said the EPA rule was "consistent with the best reading" of EPRCA regulations and provides an explanation for exempting animal waste air emissions. Kelly wrote that to remain consistent with statutory text, EPA had "no leeway to consider the public's right to access information" and "no discretion to consider environmental effects" when issuing the 2019 rule. Environmental groups say reporting requirements protect communities In a joint news release about the decision to appeal the federal court's decision, the environmental groups said the pollution reporting requirements at hand "are designed to guarantee that communities and emergency responders have access to information necessary to protect themselves from harmful exposure to these extremely hazardous substances." A recent peer-reviewed study from the University of Michigan found that communities with the highest concentrations of animal feeding operations, like cattle feedlots, dairy farms and hog farms, have elevated levels of harmful fine particulate matter. According to the study, fine particulate matter was 28% higher in census tracts with high concentrations of cattle feeding operations and 11% higher in census tracts with hog farms. The environmental groups' news release said the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide released by "factory farms" can cause health problems like respiratory diseases, eye and nasal irritation, nausea and death. Kelly Hunter Foster, senior attorney at Waterkeeper Alliance, said people have a "right to know" when hazardous air pollution is released near their homes, schools or work. "EPA has a responsibility under EPCRA to ensure that information is disclosed to the public," Hunter Foster said in the release. "Its mandate is to protect human health and the environment, not to create loopholes that allow polluters to hide the truth and put communities and ecosystems at risk." In a news release about the court's opinion, National Cattlemen's Beef Association said EPCRA and CERCLA regulations were intended to address "massive, severe" environmental contaminants and chemical spills. Instead, the association said, the laws were "weaponized" by animal rights groups targeting "family farms and ranchers." Kaitlynn Glover, the association's executive director of natural resources, said the environmental laws should not "govern" cattle farmers. "This decision affirms that family cattle producers should not have to file reports for a natural, biological process under a law meant for significant chemical contaminants," Glover said in the release. "NCBA stepped up to protect family farms and ranches through this litigation and we are pleased that the federal district court has brought clarity to this decades-long discussion." Tarah Heinzen, the legal director for the involved environmental group Food & Water Watch, said the Trump Administration's "see no evil approach will not stand in court." "Trump's EPA is suppressing critical pollution data required to keep frontline communities safe and hold polluters accountable," Heinzen said in the release. "Factory farms emit dangerous amounts of hazardous chemicals — willful ignorance of the data will not change the truth." The appeal from environmental groups was filed Oct. 3. Feed your curiosity! Subscribe to the free newsletter and indulge in all that's local. Your friends will be impressed.