• §6126. Special Authorization for
Biosecurity Planning and Response;
• §11319. Sense of Congress
Regarding Agriculture Security Programs; and
• §11324. Applicability of Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Rule.
Biosecurity
This section would amend
7
USC 3351 (the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977) by adding spending authorizations for the biosecurity
planning and response program for 2014 through 2018 at $10 million per year.
Section 3351 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use funds support
research to “reduce the vulnerability of the United States food and
agricultural system
to chemical [emphasis added] or biological attack” {§3351(b1)}.
I have not followed this program in any detail since it is
primarily a biosecurity program not a chemical security program. The wording of
authorization does make clear that chemical attacks on food production and processing
are included in the potential forms of attack considered. The most obvious
chemicals to be used in an agricultural center would be the chemicals most
likely available in the area of the attack, fertilizers and pest control
chemicals.
While many of those chemicals are covered under CFATS, DHS
has generally not been concerned with those chemicals in rural areas because of
the low terrorist threat in those thinly populated areas. If DHS were to
consider the use of those chemicals against food stores like grain elevators a
real possibility, they may re-look at the risk assessments that they do on Top
Screen submissions.
It would be interesting to see someone do a realist threat
assessment of the potential use of readily available agricultural chemicals in
attacks on agricultural producers and near field temporary food storage. That
would seem to be a legitimate use of these funds.
Agricultural Security
Programs
Section 11319 is a sense of Congress measure that informs
the Secretary of Agriculture that Congress (in the imperial third-person) is
concerned about the potential for outsiders (other Federal departments and
agencies) could undertake regulatory action to “implement security programs
affecting the availability, storage, transportation, and use of a variety of
chemicals and products used in agriculture” {§11319(4)} that could “not
unnecessarily restrict the availability of the most efficient and beneficial
products needed to sustain agriculture in the United States” {§11319(5)}.
Because of the uproar about the West Fertilizer explosion
this spring, the most obvious programs referenced by not named would include:
• The Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS);
• The Ammonium Nitrate Security
Program (ANSP; under development);
• The General Duty Clause of the Clean
Air Act.
The section notes that Congress believes that the Secretary
should specify personnel at the “at the Senior Executive Service level or
higher” {§11319(6)} who would be responsible for assisting the outside agencies
in developing and implementing chemical security rules that would have “minimal
adverse impact on agricultural productivity” {§11319(7)(D)}. This would be
accomplished by having those officials work with manufacturers, retailers, and
the general farm community to:
• Review existing and proposed
Federal, State, and international agricultural chemical security regulations {§11319(7)(A)};
• Evaluate how existing and
proposed security regulations, including systems to track the sale,
transportation, delivery, and use of agricultural products, can be designed to
minimize any adverse impact on agricultural productivity {§11319(7)(B)};
• Evaluate how existing and
proposed security regulations will affect the ability of agricultural producers
to have timely access to nutrients, chemicals, and other products that are
affordable and best suited to the producers’ operations {§11319(7)(C)};
• Develop recommendations on best
practices, policies, and regulatory mechanisms relating to existing and
proposed security programs {§11319(7)(D)}; and
• Engage with Federal agencies with
responsibility for establishing security programs to ensure that they have the
information needed to develop procedures for effective security administration
and enforcement {§11319(7)(E)};
Spill Prevention
Section 11324 would require the Administrator of the US EPA
to modify enforcement of the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Rule
(
40
CFR 112) though it doesn’t specifically require that rule to be amended.
Requiring the modification of the rule would have required a publication of the
proposed revised rule with a public comment period. That would delay the
implementation of the requirements in this section.
There are two major enforcement areas that would be revised
under this section. The first would be the way that self-certification for
spill control programs under §112.3(g) would be handled for farms. The second
deals with modifications to the calculation of aggregate aboveground storage
capacity under §112.1(d)(2)(ii).
Section 11324(a)(1)(B) would essentially add a new
definition of facilities that were allowed to self-certify that the SPCC met
all program requirements instead of hiring a certified professional engineer to
so certify. The self-certification would be authorized when the facility has:
• An aggregate aboveground storage
capacity greater than 10,000 gallons but less than 42,000 gallons [current Tier
1 limit is 5,000 gallons]; and
• No history of spills [current
Tier II limit is no spills > 1000 gallons], as determined by the
Administrator;
Furthermore §11324(a)(2) would fully exempt from the SPCC
requirements any facility that has:
• An aggregate aboveground storage
capacity of less than or equal to 10,000 gallons; and
• No history of spills, as
determined by the Administrator.
Section 11324(b) would exclude the following containers from
the calculation of ‘aggregate aboveground storage containers used above:
• All containers on separate
parcels that have a capacity that is less than 1,320 gallons [current minimum
container size if 55 gal]; and
• All storage containers holding
animal feed ingredients approved for use in livestock feed by the Food and Drug
Administration [the current rule already exempts pesticide mixing and application
equipment as well as milk and milk product containers].
This is clearly another attempt by the agriculture industry
to reduce the impact of environmental regulations upon their operations.
Posts
