State Senators Attack EPA over Lead Foundries

Story first appeared in USA Today.
Six U.S. senators are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately examine the health threats posed by forgotten factory sites featured in a recent USA TODAY investigation.

In a letter sent Wednesday to the EPA Administrator, the senators urged the EPA to take immediate action to review unassessed sites and to set priorities for remediation, such as sites near schools or playgrounds. It is necessary to ensure that people living near these sites, especially children, are safe.

These former lead smelter sites may no longer exist, but as USA Today has revealed, residual contamination continues to pervade many communities in Ohio and across America. Several sites featured in the series were in Cleveland and Cincinnati. The EPA must move quickly to ensure that Ohioans living near these sites are aware of the potential hazards, and to place these sites on a high priority list for remediation.

Several sites in Philadelphia were featured also. The USA Today investigation have confirmed that the EPA must move quickly to ensure the children and people of Pennsylvania are protected. The residual contamination poses a serious public health risk to children.

In a statement, the EPA said it shares the Senators' concern for protecting Americans' health. The EPA is currently reviewing USA Today's sampling data and case studies and has already begun evaluating a number of the sites on the list to determine if they pose a risk to the surrounding communities - we will continue to work with states and local partners to evaluate those sites for Manufacturing Quality Assurance.

A 14-month USA TODAY investigation, published last month, revealed that government regulators did little to investigate and protect the public from the toxic fallout that remains in soil around many of the hundreds of former lead factories, often called smelters, that operated during the 1930s to 1960s — before environmental regulations. The EPA was given a list of the former factory locations more than 10 years ago. At dozens of sites, EPA investigators recommended soil testing to determine what risks remained, but at most of the sites it was never done, USA TODAY found.

USA TODAY found evidence of smelting or factory work at more than 230 of the sites nationwide. The newspaper's tests of soil in 21 neighborhoods around former smelter sites in 13 states found dangerous levels of lead in many locations. The lead in the soil probably comes from a combination of sources, including factory emissions, the legacy of leaded gasoline use as well as flaking lead-based paint. Regardless of the source, the human body treats lead as a poison linked especially in children to lost intelligence, ADHD and other health problems.

Officials at some national environmental organizations have expressed outrage that the EPA has known about the factory sites for years yet failed to warn people living nearby. Factory Audits and Qualifications processes should have been implemented prior to closure to make sure that the poisons wouldn't be left where they were.

The senators' letter expressed concern about the risks posed by the old factories and that families with young children have unsuspectingly allowed children to be exposed to higher than recommended lead levels.

The letter noted USA TODAY's finding that soil testing wasn't done — as recommended — at some sites. EPA regional offices that were directed to test legacy sites either lacked the funds to do so or, unfortunately, did not communicate this possible concern to local public health or environmental officials. Better answers to public health concerns and ways to address necessary cleanup issues are needed to ensure that families can rest assured that their neighborhoods are safe for their children.


For more national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Pleasing Environmentalists is Impossible

Story first appeared in The Columbian.

Recently, the EPA proposed new air quality regulations for power plants that activists say will finally kill King Coal.

The rule would require all new power plants to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, or CO2, by almost 44 percent. While natural gas plants can meet the standard with the help of a Natural Gas Expert Witness, coal-fired plants cannot without expensive carbon-capture and storage technology that is not commercially available.

While the EPA Administrator stresses that the standards will apply only to new power plants, some experts say the Clean Air Act explicitly requires the government to apply the standards to existing plants as well.

Environmental activists hailed the new standard and Rolling Stone reported, “For all intents and purposes, coal is dead as a new power source for 21st-century America.”

So, the question is, if not coal, what?

Coal currently supplies 40 percent America’s electricity and half the world’s electricity. Affordable, efficient and plentiful, coal use is expected to increase to meet growing global demand. Coal is an abundant resource in the world. It is imperative that we figure out a way to use coal as cleanly as possible.

Accordingly, the federal government has partnered with states, municipalities and private utilities to develop and test clean coal technology. The technology includes using superheated temperatures to reduce emissions, coal gasification, which turns coal into a form of natural gas, storing CO2 emissions from coal plants underground, and even turning coal into gas while it’s still underground, eliminating the need for coal mines.

You’d think environmental groups would support projects to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants — especially low sulfur coal from southeast Montana and Wyoming — but they do not.

Impossible to please
The Sierra Club, which vows to “retire one-third of the nation’s aging coal plants by 2020,” makes no distinction on its hit list between aging plants and new high-tech projects, proclaiming “victory” at stopping plants designed to use the latest carbon capture technology. The website notes, “106 retired, 416 to go.”

Some analysts say the demise of coal will not be a problem because of the growing supply of cleaner, affordable natural gas. But many of the same environmental protesters targeting coal are also working to stop natural gas projects.

So, if not natural gas, then what?

Environmental groups would certainly support wind power as an alternative, wouldn't they? Not necessarily. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce database includes scores of wind farm projects delayed or derailed because of disputes over their impact on scenic areas and migrating birds. Electricity from wind is all right as long as they don’t have to look at a ridge dotted with wind mills.

In any event, renewable energy alone is not the answer. The Energy Secretary notes that, even at full build out, utilizing every type of alternative energy in every possible location, renewable sources could supply only 20-30 percent of our energy needs.

If opponents succeed in their campaigns to eliminate oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power, where will the other 70 to 80 percent come from?  Will we be expected to power our cars with foot power, like the Flintstones? Or maybe hamsters running on a wheel under the hood of our cars?


For more national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

EPA Releases Air Pollution Rules

Story first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
The Environmental Protection Agency released long-awaited rules to control air pollution from hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" on Wednesday, marking one of its first efforts to regulate the widely used technique of extracting oil and natural gas.

In releasing the standards, the EPA did offer a concession to oil and natural gas companies by delaying the required use of pollution-control equipment until 2015. Under a proposal unveiled last year, the EPA would have required companies to use the equipment almost immediately.

The industry praised the EPA for giving it more time to comply, but environmental groups said the agency should have been more aggressive with its requirements.

The EPA air chief told reporters Wednesday that a decision to delay compliance was made by agency staff, based on their understanding of the way the industry operated, and was not politically motivated.

Representatives from several energy companies--including ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips--met with EPA and White House officials in recent weeks to try to shape the rule.

The EPA's rule, which affects about 13,000 wells drilled each year, coincides with a massive boom in natural gas production that has created opportunities for fuel switching but has also prompted concerns about air pollution and water contamination.

The President has touted natural gas as a valuable domestic resource that can replace coal for electricity generation and supplant oil as a transportation fuel.

The rules announced Wednesday require energy companies to capture smog-forming pollution known as volatile organic compounds when they "frack" a well rather than let it escape into the atmosphere.

Fracking involves the use of a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals to break apart energy-rich rocks. Toward the end of the process, a combination of fracking fluids and gas rush to the surface and can escape into the atmosphere. It's one of the largest sources of air pollution from the energy industry, the EPA has said.

The EPA's rules don't address aspects of the fracking process that could cause water contamination. The agency is in the process of studying the impact of fracking on water, but said recently that it verified the safety of water in Pennsylvania and would do additional testing on water in Wyoming that it previously said appeared to be affected by local fracking activity.

Under the rules announced Wednesday, oil and gas companies will be forced to use "green completion" technology by 2015. Until then, they will be required to burn off emissions by flaring the natural gas, a common industry practice already used by energy companies to reduce pollution.

Flaring was 95% effective in reducing volatile organic compounds, or VOCs.

The EPA was under a court-ordered deadline to develop the air-quality rules after being sued by environmental groups that had accused the agency of failing to follow the law. The EPA said its rule will improve the air quality in regions where a lot of oil and natural gas drilling occurs.

While the purpose of the EPA's rule is to reduce VOCs, the standards will also cut methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas. Scientists have recently started to raise questions about the amount of so-called methane leaks from natural gas wells, saying the emissions might make natural gas less friendly to the environment than has been assumed.

In the weeks leading up to Wednesday's announcement, oil and natural gas companies urged EPA and White House officials to delay the green-completion requirements because they said there wasn't enough equipment to go around. Companies would have to line up to use the equipment and stall their production projects until it became available, they said.

Environmental groups said the industry had exaggerated the scarcity of the equipment.

Left to police itself for too long, the oil and gas industry has failed even to adopt pollution controls that pay for themselves.


For more national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Government Tightens Rules on Gas Drilling

Story first appeared on CNN.

The Presidential administration tightened regulations on the oil and gas industry Wednesday, requiring drillers to capture emissions of certain air pollutants from new wells.

But in a nod to industry concerns that the rules were being enacted too quickly, the Environmental Protection Agency said companies can burn the pollutants at the well head until the start of 2015, when enough equipment is expected to be available to capture the pollution.

The administration said the regulations are part of the President's promise to develop the nation's oil and gas resources in a manner that protects the environment and the public health. The standards are practice, flexible, affordable and achievable.

Exxon's big bet on shale gas

The rule will require all oil and gas companies to capture the volatile organic compounds that are emitted during the final stages of well construction, including during the process of hydraulic fracturing.

That process, known as fracking for short, eases the flow of oil or gas from dense shale rock by injecting water, sand and some chemicals deep into the earth.

Fracking has unlocked an energy boom in the United States, but has also led to concerns about groundwater contamination and earthquakes.

Once the realm of smaller companies, big oil firms such as BP, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell are all in on the shale boom.

The equipment used to capture the pollution largely consists of truck-mounted tanks and hoses that separate the gas from the liquids. Currently, that gas is often just released into the atmosphere. Volatile organic compounds are responsible for smog formation. Some are known to cause cancer in humans and other animals.

The equipment will also capture methane released during the well construction process. Methane, the prime ingredient in natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas itself -- 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide.

Some states, notably Colorado and Wyoming, already require the capture of these gases. EPA's ruling makes it a federal standard. The industry had lobbied to prevent the rule from applying to the hydraulic fracturing process, saying that shale wells generally emit far fewer volatile organic compounds than conventional wells.

America's oil boom - at a cost
Instead, the industry proposed burning the toxic gases and methane from shale wells -- a process known as flaring that is relatively effective in eliminating the pollutants but is not as clean as capturing them.

The industry also wanted an extended timetable to implement the new rules.

EPA's ruling is something of a compromise -- subjecting fracking to the new regulations but giving the industry three years to obtain the equipment and requiring flaring during the interim. Both industry and environmentalists seemed pleased with the ruling.

EPA has made some improvements in the rules that allow our companies to continue reducing emissions while producing the oil and natural gas our country needs. EPA's action today is a breath of fresh air for every man, woman, and child living in the shadow of the gas drilling boom.


For more national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Denver: Power Plants, Residents Weigh in on Coal Ash Plan

Bloomberg / BusinessWeek

More than 100 speakers signed up to comment Thursday on whether the Environmental Protection Agency should regulate the disposal of coal ash under rules for hazardous waste.

Several power producers told the EPA that such regulation could threaten jobs and raise electricity rates, while business owners said it could affect their livelihoods.

But some ranchers and residents from New Mexico and Montana who live near coal ash waste ponds said they're worried for their health and that it's time for tough federal regulation.

The disposal of coal ash gained national attention after 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash at a Tennessee Valley Authority plant breached a dike and spilled into and around the Emory River in 2008.

The EPA has proposed measures such as requiring liners and groundwater monitoring at new coal ash landfills, but it's trying to decide between two options for implementing the rules.

One option is for direct federal enforcement, under rules for hazardous waste. The other option is to regulate under rules for non-hazardous waste. The second option relies on lawsuits by states and citizens for enforcement.

Coal ash, which is left over from the burning of coal at power plants, contains such substances as arsenic, cadmium and mercury.

The EPA isn't looking to end its "beneficial use" in concrete, roofing or other applications, but some business owners fear the stigma of coal ash being regulated as a hazardous waste will be enough to discourage people from recycling it in that manner.

David Goss of McDonald Farms Enterprises Inc. in Longmont, Colo., helps utilities manage their ash. One utility customer recently asked his company to obtain liability insurance of $6 million to protect against lawsuits, then asked for indemnification if any ash were to be included in even "beneficial uses," he told the EPA.

Goss estimated that regulating coal ash as hazardous would triple his company's insurance costs. He pushed for regulation as a non-hazardous waste.

Sheep rancher R.G. Hunt Jr. of Waterflow, N.M., scoffed at the notion that coal ash should be regulated as non-hazardous. His family blames the nearby power plant in the Four Corners area for sullying their water, which in turn killed 1,400 of his sheep and harmed his family's health, from drastic weight loss, to muscle spasms, kidney trouble, diarrhea, headaches, and hair and memory loss.

His wife, Carla Logan, said six family members died before the age of 40, with doctors saying their health problems could have been linked to heavy metal poisoning in the water.

"Have a glass of it," Hunt told the EPA. "I guarantee you it'd make you want to puke."

Paul Reynolds of Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays, Kan., said regulation under rules for non-hazardous waste would still offer the same level of protection for health and the environment, without the economic burdens to power producers who might have to raise rates or cut jobs to fulfill requirements under hazardous waste rules.

For instance, Kansas law prohibits landfill disposal of certain hazardous wastes, meaning his company would likely have to ship it out of state, he said.

Regulation under rules for hazardous waste wouldn't allow for flexibility in liners or managing leaching to allow for local soil conditions, precipitation and distance from surface water either, he said. "The one-size-fits-all approach unnecessarily ties the hands of state regulators," he said.

Outside the hearing, a handful of people held signs with the words "coal ash" crossed out. Inside, some people with opposing views wore buttons that said, "Recycle first."

The EPA plans more hearings before making a decision.