Tag: EPA

Emissions reporting ruling draws near

Posted on by Rachel Ravencraft

By Clay Detlefsen, Senior Vice President, Regulatory & Environmental Affairs

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), was created in 1986. It’s intended to help communities plan for chemical emergencies and requires industry to report on the storage, use, and release of hazardous substances to federal, state, and local governments. Overall, EPCRA is actually a good legislation, and it was passed by Congress for a good reason.

But EPCRA is also a very complicated and comprehensive law, with many provisions. And while some provisions make a lot of sense, others don’t, depending on how they’re applied.

The dairy industry can be subject to reporting requirements in EPCRA 304 — an emergency reporting obligation when chemicals are released into the environment — as well as reporting obligations under EPCRA 311, EPCRA 312, and EPCRA 313.

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) has worked for decades to resolve conflict with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and environmental activists over various EPCRA reporting mandates for dairy farmers and processors, and has had success in resolving many of those conflicts. Now, we’re on the precipice of resolving yet another EPCRA reporting conflict: a Section 304 provision that requires reporting of air emissions from manure.

This EPCRA obligation is triggered when there’s a release of 100 pounds or more of anhydrous ammonia or ammonia off manure in a 24-hour time frame. By my rough estimates, about 1,400 cows would trigger an obligation. This requirement creates a lot of unnecessary work for dairy farmers, and also for government officials and emergency responders, which nobody wants. So, in 2008, EPA proposed an air emission from manure exemption to the reporting requirements under Section 304 for farmers.

That rule was challenged in the courts by environmental activists who ultimately won in 2017. EPA then recrafted another exemption in 2019 which has also been challenged, but thankfully, last year, the federal district court ruled that the EPCRA exemption from EPA was in fact valid and appropriate. That ruling is now under appeal, and the appeals court will likely have oral arguments on that issue within the next six months. So now, after nearly 20 years of back-and-forth in the courts, we may soon be able to put this issue to rest once and for all.

This exciting development is just one example of the many regulatory issues that NMPF has poured time and resources into over the years. From environmental issues to food safety to nutrition and the similarly long-term fight against plant-based dairy imposters, regulatory changes take years. And though you may not always hear about these issues, some of NMPF’s most successful regulatory battles are won in Washington before the effects ever reach the dairy farm.

To hear more about the history of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and NMPF’s work to support dairy farmers, check out the latest episode of the “Dairy Defined” podcast.

 

This column originally appeared in Hoard’s Dairyman Intel on Aug. 17, 2026.

NMPF’s August Sees Flurry of Comments, Initiatives

Posted on by Rachel Ravencraft

NMPF spent the traditional August lull in Washington policymaking actively pushing its members’ priorities, submitting regulatory comments to federal agencies.

NMPF stood with other major agricultural organizations in joint comments submitted Aug. 13 against a draft risk assessment in which EPA models human exposure to the “forever chemicals” PFOA or PFOS from the application of sewage sludge, or biosolids, to farmland. The organizations asserted that EPA’s models operate on extreme assumptions that don’t account for the reality of agriculture, despite the agency’s best intentions.

NMPF also continued its decades-long fight against improper and ineffective air emissions modeling through comments Aug. 18 to the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study Group in response to draft revised emission models for animal feeding operations released by EPA late last fall.

After significant analysis, NMPF concluded that the current draft EPA dairy Air Emissions Estimating Methodologies (EEMs) are not appropriate for predicting dairy farm emissions. NMPF described the specific modeling flaws in its comments to support its argument that EPA should permanently cease its efforts in this area.

August also was highlighted by more activity from NEXT (NMPF Export and Trade), the revamped, cooperative-led export assistance program. NEXT member cooperatives secured 37 contracts in August, adding 8.6 million pounds of product in NEXT-assisted sales in 2025. These products will go to customers in Asia, Oceania, Middle East-North Africa, Central America, the Caribbean and South America and will be shipped through December.

NMPF also opened its fundraising raffle for its annual scholarship awards. The raffle runs through this year’s Joint Annual Meeting and concludes on Nov. 12 when winners will be announced.

Prizes this year include a $100 Airbnb gift card, a Cabot Creamery Fan Favorite gift box and more. The raffle can be accessed here. Back by popular demand, the scholarship committee will also be hosting a combination silent and live auction during the Cheese Reception on Nov. 11.

The NMPF National Dairy Leadership Scholarship Program supports master’s and Ph.D. students conducting vital research for the future of the industry. The program is largely funded through raffles and auctions. Donations are also welcome. These events are critical to ensuring the opportunity to support the next generation of dairy enthusiasts.

NMPF’s Joint Annual Meeting on Nov. 10-12, held with the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (NDB) and the United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA), is open for registration. More information and registration is available here.

Meanwhile, the FARM team is beginning to develop its Version 2028 of its Animal Care program, conducting a stakeholder survey through Sept. 5 collecting input from dairy farmers, industry stakeholders and partners about topics, issues and potential changes. The survey results will inform a final report available on the FARM website early next year.

Finally, according to August USDA data, the July margin under the Dairy Margin Coverage program dropped to $10.94/cwt, as the DMC feed cost formula decreased by $0.34/cwt, and the all-milk price fell by $0.50/cwt to $20.80/cwt. The July DMC feed cost dropped on lower corn and soybean meal prices, while the premium alfalfa price changed little from June.

EPA’s PFAS Assessment is Well-Meaning but Wrong

Posted on by Rachel Ravencraft

By Clay Detlefsen, Senior Vice President, Regulatory & Environmental Affairs

As part of its effort to protect communities from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the Environmental Protection Agency has created a draft risk assessment modeling human exposure to the “forever chemicals” PFOA or PFOS from the application of sewage sludge, or biosolids, to farmland. This risk assessment does not model risks for the general public, only very specific populations living on or near sites affected by PFAS from biosolids.

EPA’s goal of the risk assessment is to inform future actions by federal and state agencies as well as steps that wastewater systems, farmers and other stakeholders can take to protect people from PFAS exposure, while also ensuring American industry keeps feeding and fueling the nation. And that’s a worthwhile goal. However, the models used in the draft risk assessment operate on extreme assumptions which don’t account for the reality of agriculture.

One part of EPA’s assessment models the PFAS exposure risk to dairy farmers. In this model, a dairy farm family lives on an 80-acre farm next to a 13-acre lake, where sewage sludge containing one part per billion of PFAS has been applied to the pasture every year for 40 years where the cows are raised. Everyone in the family drinks 32 oz of milk directly from the bulk tank each day, and they also eat eggs and meat from animals on the farm, fish from the nearby lake, and fruits and vegetables grown on the farm. The farm family has lived on the land for the past 10 years.

Sound familiar? Of course not. There’s not a single dairy farm in the country that produces every piece of food a family eats. Furthermore, there are not that many dairies in the United States that pasture raise their cows, and even fewer that apply sewage sludge from municipal wastewater systems to their pastures every year for 40 years. This model also does not account for existing best management practices for the land application of biosolids that farmers often incorporate into their practices.

EPA’s draft risk assessment is yet another example of the agency forcing a square peg in a round hole when it comes to PFAS on dairies. It is important to continue to increase our understanding of PFAS and how it moves through our ecosystem, as well as the potential health effects of PFAS exposure. But EPA’s misguided approach in this model paints an inaccurate picture that does a disservice to everyone.

The National Milk Producers Federation, together with other major agriculture organizations, will be submitting comments to EPA in the coming weeks that explain the shortcomings of the agency’s draft risk assessment on PFOA and PFOS in sewage sludge and why this model should not be used to inform new regulations. There is no clear solution to this issue right now, but NMPF will continue to advise EPA about realistic representation of on-farm practices.

This column originally appeared in Hoard’s Dairyman Intel on July 17, 2025.

Federal Regulations Evolving Fast

Posted on by Rachel Ravencraft

The regulatory climate in Washington is shifting in unprecedented ways, requiring quick responses and an eye for opportunities, NMPF regulation experts said in a Dairy Defined podcast released today.

The pace of evolution is “Intense, insane,” said Clay Detlefsen, NMPF’s Senior Vice President for Regulatory and Environmental Affairs. “It changes daily. It’s full of unknowns, and it’s moving forward at an absolutely crazy pace. We don’t know what to expect tomorrow or the next day or the day after that, but things are indeed happening.”

Joining Detlefsen to discuss what dairy farmers, processors and consumers should anticipate, from milk labeling to MAHA, are Dr. Jamie Jonker, NMPF’s Chief Science Officer, and Director of Regulatory Affairs Miquela Hanselman.

To hear more Dairy Defined podcasts, you can find and subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Amazon Music under the podcast name “Dairy Defined.”