EPA wants to relax enforcement of ag air

 11 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

BY ART HOVEY / Lincoln Journal Star

In the summer of 2006, a federal Web site listed Oink Inc., PigCents Inc. and the Henn House Dairy among Nebraska livestock operations paying a few hundred dollars each and signing up for air emissions consent agreements.

The agreements protected thousands of holders across the United States from the possibility of having to pay much more costly fines for violating air pollution laws. Critics from environmental ranks called them get-out-of-jail-free cards.

But in the winter of 2007, there seems to be reason to wonder how much the agreements matter.

[+]Enlarge

(LJS File)

(LJS File)

Friday’s Federal Register carried the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to exempt livestock farms from reporting non-emergency emissions of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and other pollutants associated with livestock waste.

Jon Scholl, counselor to the EPA administrator for agricultural policy, is advocating for the exemption and calling attention to a public comment period that continues through late March.

Duane Gangwish, based in Lincoln as vice president of environmental affairs with the Nebraska Cattlemen, called the EPA plan “necessary and needed and timely — and we’ll see what’s in it.”

But Augie Goelz of Shelby, who lives his life surrounded by a hog-confinement farm, a dairy operation with thousands of milk cows, and two cattle feedlots, is already less than thrilled with the quality of the air he breathes.

When Goelz gets away from the paint fumes at Augie’s Auto Body Repair and Towing in Osceola, he’d like to think his lungs are going to get a break.

“My qualm is I don’t work in a very healthy environment,” he said. “When I get home, I want to feel I’m in a safe environment. I should be able to have that comfort at home and not have to worry about that.”

But he is worried. And he takes no comfort in a recent EPA announcement meant to increase the emphasis on emergency responses to such calamities as overturned rail tank cars filled with ammonia and to lighten up on every-day events associated with livestock manure.

The EPA is being urged on by national associations representing cattle, pork and poultry producers and processors who want to go about their business without having to go to court.

However, in a Friday interview, EPA spokesman Scholl also called attention to other supporters, including more than two-dozen emergency planning agencies.

He was also careful to note that the air emissions consent agreements already in place are not a form of absolute protection for agriculture.

“Even in the air consent agreements, the agency reserved the right to take enforcement action for an imminent and substantial danger to the public health.”

Scholl doesn’t see a system that saddles livestock operations with the responsibility for making regular administrative reports on air quality as adding much to that protection.

He acknowledged that the number of livestock outlets responding to the rule, so far, fits the description of “some of them.”

But in the view of a man whose family also operates an Illinois farm, those reports are an “unnecessary, impractical and unlikely” source of air-quality security.

The Nebraska Cattlemen’s Gangwish agrees. He sees little danger arising from something as simple as animals answering a call of nature.

“When manure hits the ground,” he said, “one of the things that comes off that is hydrogen sulfide. And it hits the ground every day, whether it’s deer or cattle or hogs — or a bear in the woods.“

Others, including Lincolnite Laura Krebsbach, consultant to Nebraskans trying to keep livestock from intruding in their lives, said it’s not that simple.

Krebsbach said the size of many modern confinement operations matters.

“It’s just absolutely ridiculous that these industrial facilities should get a pass under the guise that it’s agriculture and ignoring the fact that it’s an industry,” she said. “That’s what frustrates me beyond any other aspect of the issue.”

Krebsbach and Ed Hopkins, based in Washington, D.C., with the Sierra Club, said EPA made a tactical decision in announcing its intentions right before Christmas when public attention is elsewhere.

“It’s just a huge favor for this industry,” Hopkins said. “There’s no evidence whatsoever that ammonia or hydrogen sulfide from confined animal feeding operations are any less dangerous than from any other facility.”

As he sees it, “EPA is basically running an entire industry out of toxic right-to-know requirements. We think that’s significant.”

With that, said Krebsbach, goes immunity from lawsuits.

Scholl said EPA is not trying to use the holidays to diminish public reaction. “We certainly reject that notion,” he said. “We put the proposal out as soon as it was ready to come out.”

Beyond that, by the end of March and the end of the public comment period, “we think this issue will receive a lot of attention and we certainly expect to receive a lot of public comment.”

But what about the health risks that might be associated with living near big livestock complexes?

“I’m not a medical doctor,” Scholl said. “I guess I’m reluctant to get into that. I think the proposal we have put before us really addresses the issue of emergency response.

“Is it reasonable, and does it fulfill a purpose to have livestock operations file these sorts of reports?”

Reach Art Hovey at 523-4949 or at ahovey@alltel.net.