Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Martini
Date:	1/12/2014 7:50:32 PM

As our resident expert in this subject, is this analysis truthful? I assume it will somehow have a diect effect on your business.

As West Virginians were learning Thursday of a devastating chemical spill in the elk River that has rendered water undrinkable for 300,000 people, the US House of Representatives was busy gutting federal hazardous-waste cleanup law.

The House passed the Reducing excessive Deadline Obligations Act that would ultimately eliminate requirements for the environmental Protection Agency to review and update hazardous-waste disposal regulations in a timely manner, and make it more difficult for the government to compel companies that deal with toxic substances to carry proper insurance for cleanups, pushing the cost on to taxpayers.

In addition, the bill would result in slower response time in the case of a disaster, requiring increased consultation with states before the federal government calls for cleanup of Superfund sites - where hazardous waste could affect people and the environment.

The bill amends both the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Comprehensive environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act - often referred to as Superfund, which was created in 1980 to hold polluter industries accountable for funding the cleanup of hazardous-waste sites.

There are over 1,300 priority Superfund sites in the US.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Martini
Date:	1/12/2014 8:24:37 PM

If Superfund has been around for 34 years, why do we still have 1300 Superfund sites?

Name:	JohnGalt -	Reply
Subject:	Martini
Date:	1/12/2014 8:40:31 PM

GF I would ask Nick Rahall II Democrat WV why he voted as he didhttp://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/2/10  as well as 4 other democrats. Also there were 11 Dems who did not vote, evidentially it was not important to them.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Martini
Date:	1/12/2014 10:22:04 PM

I asked Martini cause he is an expert in this field. Politics aside. Hope that makes sense to you.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Martini
Date:	1/13/2014 8:28:28 AM

Why didn't you just email him?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Martini
Date:	1/13/2014 8:45:24 AM

GF, CERCLA (aka Superfund) is one of the most dysfunctional pieces of legislation for a couple of reasons.  First, its liability scheme (joint and several liability) has done more to slow down cleanups than anything imaginable.  Joint and several means if you put in one ounce of hazardous substances into say a landfill you are liable for 100% of the costs as are all the other potentially responsible parties (PRPs).  What this guarantees is years of litigation between the goverment and PRPs and between PRPs, all of which has cost billions of dollars and wasted tens of years.  Second, the regulations that EPA created as a result of Superfund are complex and costly to comply with and significantly delay any cleanup activities, not to mention requiring EPA approval of every step of the way where the agency person is usually the least experienced and knowledgable person involved in the process.  I am working on Superfund sites that have been on the National Priorities List (NPL) since the 1980s where very little cleanup has occurred because of the process.  Thirdly, any time EPA is in charge of a cleanup (i.e., where there is no viable PRP to pay and implement the process) it takes twice as long and costs three times as much.  Just one minor example, when we go out to sample a well we do so with one person who is usually staff level or a technician.  On a fund lead project they have the technician, the geologist and the chemist.  Finally, the risk assessment process used in Superfund results in an incredible waste of money for very little benefit to human health and the environment.  Typical cleanups are done to a cancer risk level of one in one million and is based on exposure factors that are beyond ludicrous and have no basis in reality.  And just so you understand one in a million, it means that assuming a receptor (human) is exposed to the level of contamination over a period of 30 years it incrementally increases their risk of cancer by one in a million.  If you smoke your excess cancer risk is about one in five.

So Superfund as conceived in the legislation and as implemented by EPA has been an abysmal waste of resources.  Having said that, I am all for the polluter paying even if the release was not intentional and was simply a result of how wastes were managed in the day. The primary reason is that if the corporations that caused the contamination pay for and control the cleanup process it will be much more efficient and ultimatley cost the country less money for the same or better results.  I can't comment on the specific legislation because I have not read it but I can tell you that anything they do to reign in EPA will ultimately benefit the country.  The spill in West Virginia was an accident that sometimes happens and has to be addressed.  This legislation (as I understand it from your post) would have no influence on how that spill is cleaned up.  EPA is an out of control agency that has lost its way because it is being run by attorney's with political goals and objectives, not protection of human health and the environment.  Obvioulsy I could go on for pages about the topic and keep in mind, my company relies on EPA and state agencies and these rules and regulations for our business.  And there are a lot of very good people working at these agencies that are not environmental wackos but are simply trying to implement rules and regulations written by a bunch of corrupt lawyers. 

Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	GF
Date:	1/13/2014 9:16:10 AM

The theory is that you have to throw LOTS of stuff against the wall and hope some will stick.............you need to keep throwing..........!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	And just so I am clear
Date:	1/13/2014 2:50:34 PM

I am all for sensible environmental rules and regulations that promote cleanups and sensible levels of protection of the environment.  Many states have done a great job passing voluntary cleanup programs that are both efficient, cost effective and protective.  I can do in a few years in a voluntary cleanup what Superfund can't accomplish in decades.  And many of our clients are very sensitive to actual risk and the adverse impact it can have on the public and hence their businesses.  What they object to is the wasting of millions of dollars in valuable resources, a cost they pass on ultimately to you and I, caused by bad laws, bad rules and regulations and out of control state and Federal agencies.  Frankly, anyone in their right mind should feel the same way but unfortunately the environmental arena has become one of the last vestiges of left wing radicalism.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	And just so WE are clear
Date:	1/18/2014 12:00:44 PM

And just so we are clear… the event in West Virginia was a leak of… not waste… but a stored, useable chemical. 4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol is NOT listed in the DOT Emergency Response Guide (ERG) or the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) Guide. Try to download a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for it. 4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol is NOT listed in the EPA’s screening level tables. It is an agent used to wash coal. With respect to response, the response is covered in the catchall ERG Guide 128... wash it away... dilution is the solution. (Martini, check my work please)

IN SHORT - THE SPILL WAS A MEDIA EVENT.

I am certain it was a) inconvenient, b) unpleasant, and c) mildly unhealthy… but so is gasoline and more gasoline is spilled every day than the 4-Methylcyclohexane Methanol. Thanks to the circling sharks (lawyers) the hoopla will result in the culpable company going out of business

You and every affected citizen of the spill community are at more risk from the health effects (and security risks) of ObamaCare. The spill is a convenient media diversion.