In a Sept. 24 congressional hearing, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defended its proposal to exempt factory farms from reporting on airborne and chemical emissions from animal waste, even though the agency has no reliable information on public health impacts of the pollution. Without the reports, communities would not know when potentially dangerous animal waste releases occur. Emergency responders would also have less information when responding to citizens' reports of noxious odors.

In December 2007, EPA proposed a rule that would exempt factory farms known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from reporting on emissions of hazardous chemicals from animal waste. The number of CAFOs more than tripled from 1982 to 2002, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, from 3,600 to almost 12,000. These operations generate enormous amounts of waste in a relatively small area; in some cases, a single farm can produce more than one-and-a-half times the sanitary waste produced by the 1.5 million residents of Philadelphia, according to the report.

The GAO report identified several problems with EPA's approach to CAFO animal waste emissions, most notably the lack of reliable information on the facilities. Currently, no federal agency collects data on the number, size, and location of CAFOs. The GAO report had to extrapolate other U.S. Department of Agriculture data to identify the growth trend. EPA also has very little information about the pollution emitted from CAFOs and the resultant public and environmental health implications. Despite the dearth of information, EPA proposed exempting CAFOs from reporting animal waste emissions.

EPA began a study of CAFO air pollution in 2007 with the intention of using the results to help develop protocols for determining compliance with applicable federal laws. However, this voluntary study is designed and funded by the agribusiness industry, and GAO researchers and other scientists have identified numerous flaws in the study that would threaten the accuracy and reliability of the data it produced. Without good data, it is unlikely that EPA could develop appropriate air emission protocols for CAFOs. With the two-year industry study only half completed, EPA decided to proceed with its exemption proposal without the resulting data — information that could be flawed and unusable, in any event.

EPA's main justification for the proposed rule is that it is unlikely that federal emergency responders would respond to a report of a release of hazardous chemicals if they knew it was originating from a farm. The nature of such releases provides little opportunity for responders to do anything about the emissions, thus discouraging any response if there are no remedial or protective actions they can take.

Despite EPA's assertions, many emergency responders still oppose the proposed rule. In public comments submitted in March, a national association of state, local, and federal emergency responders labeled the proposed exemption "offensive" because it denies valuable information needed when responders deal with emergency calls from the public. The association also questions the legality of the proposed rule on several grounds.

During a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, several members of Congress criticized the logic of EPA's decision, referring to it as "a backwards way of looking at [emergency responses to CAFO emissions]" and "Alice in Wonderland thinking."

In testimony to the House panel, Susan Bodine, the assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, defended the agency's action. EPA has no record of initiating an emergency response to reports of animal emissions from CAFOs. This lack of previous emergency response convinced EPA to seek to exempt CAFOs from reporting the releases. However, the EPA does not receive reports of emissions from animal waste that are submitted to state and local authorities or to other federal agencies, so EPA would not have complete information on the extent of emergency responses to this type of pollution. Bodine acknowledged the agency had received comments from emergency responders both for and against the proposed exemption.

EPA is still reviewing feedback submitted during the public comment period that ended March 27 and will draft a response to the comments. The final rule has not yet been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The proposed rule affects reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). These laws require polluters to report when releases of hazardous chemicals pass a certain amount over a 24-hour period. Proper authorities — local, state, or federal, depending on the situation — decide whether emergency responders should take action.

The manure from large feed lots has been shown to pose serious threats to environmental and public health. Of 68 scientific studies reviewed by GAO, 27 found a direct or indirect link between emissions from manure to specific health or environmental impacts. Thirty-four studies focused on measuring the amount of air and water pollution from animal feeding operations. Only seven of the 68 studies found no linkage between pollution from animal wastes and human or environmental health. Threats from improperly handled manure include water pollution from excess nutrients resulting in fish kills, contaminated drinking water, and emissions of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and particulate matter.