 |
| Duane A. Lienemann UNL Extension Educator |
As currently written, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule would require new safety standards and force facilities to formulate oil spill prevention and response plans if they have a capacity to hold more than 1,320 gallons. While this rule was intended to stave off “oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines,” the rule would I think unfairly hit many farmers who keep oil and fuel in tanks on their property. The rule was set to take effect on May 10, the very date I am writing this column, with enforcement beginning at the end of September. I would once again hold off in trying to get into compliance.
Under this new bipartisan amendment, the threshold to trigger inclusion in the new regulations would immediately be raised to 6,000 gallons while a study is conducted to determine the ideal cutoff. Also, the measure would increase from 10,000 gallons to 20,000 gallons the threshold at which facilities would need certification from a professional engineer. The amendment was unanimously adopted as part of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), and offered by several senators including our own Sen. Deb Fischer, who commented in a written statement: “These misguided EPA rules have a direct impact on producers, who faced incredible compliance costs and paperwork requirements. Inability to meet these new standards would result in the risk of stiff fines and penalties from EPA.” I could not agree with her more and we need to tell her thanks! What is really encouraging is that the amendment passed unanimously. Good news!
Technically the agreement would permanently exempt any farm or ranch with aggregate above-ground (AGG) fuel storage capacity of 2,500 gallons or less. That covers a lot of our area farms. However, farms and ranches with AGG storage between 2,501 gallons and 6,000 gallons would be exempt for 30 months while the EPA and USDA completes a study to establish an exemption threshold which will likely be within the 2,501-6,000 range. Quite honestly, I was hoping they would exempt completely everything under 10,000 gallons for farmers, but I guess this is better than it was.
The new Tier I threshold, the level in which a farmer or rancher could self-certify their own SPCC plan, would be 6,001 gallons (possibly lower depending on the study) to 20,000 gallons; an improvement from the current 1,320 gallons to 10,000 gallons. Farmers who would be in the Tier II designation would have to have a professional engineer certify their SPCC plan, which would begin at any amount over 20,000 gallons which is double the current law of anything above 10,000 gallons. Lastly, any farm with a history of spills would be required to have a professional engineer certify their SPCC plan, regardless of the amount of fuel storage they have on the farm/ranch.
This agreement is not completely what a lot of us wanted, but it is a much better scenario than what we did have previously. Of course S. 601 still would need to be passed by both the House and the Senate before any of these changes take place. The House will likely pass higher thresholds as they passed the stand alone FUELS Act last year (Tier I: 10,000-42,000 and Tier II: 42,000+). While this doesn't change the law yet, we are hopeful a final fix to the SPCC rule will be passed soon. I still encourage every farmer to contact their Congressman and give them your point of view. This thing is not settled completely, so we still have the potential to influence the final outcome. Don’t sell yourself short. The contact from farmers and ranchers individually carry a lot of clout with our elected officials, as it should be. You do need to give rationale or reasons for your requests and I am certain that you all can come up with them, or if you prefer feel free to use the talking points that I offered in an earlier edition of the Horse’s Mouth.
While we are on the subject of the EPA, it may not hurt when you are on the phone or emailing your Congressmen that you convey your thoughts on the EPA releasing the pertinent information on thousands of livestock farmers to activists. For some background, on February 10, 2013, EPA released to activist groups Earth Justice, the Pew Charitable Trust and the Natural Resources Defense Council information on 80,000 livestock operations across the United States, including 3,500 in Nebraska following Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The information EPA provided included names, home addresses, personal telephone numbers and employee information—data that should have been redacted. When confronted about this the EPA on April 4 acknowledged some of the information it disclosed should have been exempt under federal law. It sent an amended release of the same information with redactions. However, EPA failed to remove all private information, including data on a number of operations in Nebraska. Finally on April 30 the EPA sent a second amended release, which included more redactions of records from Nebraska, however the Agency has failed to take meaningful steps to prevent the abuse of ag producers’ private information already released. I know that Senator Johanns has pursued this and he needs to be thanked, but also encouraged. You can read his reaction by going to his website at: http://www.johanns.senate.gov. The EPA, its’ regulations, and now this all needs to be addressed!
The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home
No comments:
Post a Comment