Consultant: Central Appalachian coal outlook poor

Alan Stagg, one of the most respected consultants in the coal industry, told a major industry gathering last month that Central Appalachian coal mining would last at least 10 to 20 more years, but will continue to decline because the job-hungry region's coal is getting more difficult to mine, mainly because of geological limitations but also because of regulations.

"It's going to run out some day — there's a finite amount of coal — but I don't see that happening in 10 or 20 years," Stagg told Pam Kasey of The State Journal, a business-oriented weekly in West Virginia. Stagg, the president and CEO of Stagg Resource Consultants Inc., has been pessimstic about the industry's long-term prospects for several years, as we reported here, but this is his gloomiest forecast yet.

"This is the elephant in the room. No one wants to acknowledge that reserve depletion is profound," Stagg, of Cross Lanes, W.Va., said at Platt's Coal Marketing Days in Pittsburgh on Sept. 21, according to SNL Financial. "Mining conditions are difficult, and the cost to produce is high. That is a physical fact. It's not pleasant. Nobody wants to acknowledge it. That is a fact, and companies that ignore that fact will not do so well. . . . And by nature, regulations will always increase."

"Stagg cast such a pall on the Central Appalachia coal industry that West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney, speaking later in the day, said he felt like a 'funeral director'," Darren Epps wrote for SNL. "Stagg expressed optimism, however, for the Powder River Basin" in Wyoming, which overtook West Virginia as the leading coal-producing state many years ago.


An earlier version of this story was based on a report from SNL Financial that Stagg says misquoted him as saying that he expects coal mining in Central Appalachia to end in the next 10 to 20 years. He did not dispute the rest of the report.

Coal ash regulation will depend on who gets elected

Despite much controversy coal ash, Congress isn't likely to move on new regulations until after the election, and then action will depend on the priorities of the party controlling the White House, Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post reports. The U.S.'s 431 coal-fired power plants produce 140 million tons of ash a year. About 60 percent is stored in landfills, ponds and mines, and evidence suggesting leaks are a problem had been growing. The issue is rural because that's where plants and disposal areas are located. (Photo by Nancy Pierce of The Clog: coal ash pond near Mountain Island Lake, N.C.)

The Environmental Protection Agency gave 45 ponds at 27 locations a "high hazard potential" rating, meaning that if they break or leak, it would likely result in loss of life. Environmental groups in the last month have sued operators of 14 power plants in North Carolina and four in Illinois over coal-ash contamination, and ash-contaminated water at 197 sites in 37 states, according to Earthjustice.

President Obama and Mitt Romney have touted their love of the coal industry, and the idea of coal ash as a hazardous waste creates controversy. Obama's EPA moved toward regulating more strictly, then backed off. If it is officially labeled hazardous, EPA will have direct control over it and new handling procedures on utilities will be implemented, something that would increase utilities' costs. The EPA and environmentalists say new regulations will encourage more utilities to recycle coal ash into concrete and other products, but recycling companies and mining industry officials say this will be less likely if it's labeled as hazardous. (Read more)

Two-thirds of fracking-chemical disclosures omit at least one chemical on grounds of trade secrecy

Almost two-thirds of the disclosure statements filed by oil and gas companies about their hydraulic fracturing operations kept at least one chemical secret, according to a review of PIVOT Upstream Group's D-Frac database by Energywire. In 65 percent of fracking disclosures, companies said they needed to keep one or more chemicals secret to protect confidential business information, typically known as trade secrets.

Critics of drilling say widespread use of trade-secret exemptions undermines assurances by the industry that drillers are being open and honest with the communities where wells are fracked, Mike Soraghan of Energy and Environment News reports. Companies say they spend millions developing new fracking materials and don't want to give away their secret. Industry groups say the debate over trade secrets overshadows just how much companies have already disclosed.

Utah has the highest rate of trade-secret claims on disclosure statements at 94 percent, the highest of any state with more than 100 disclosures. Disclosure isn't mandatory in Utah, but in New Mexico, where it is, 84 percent of statements sent to FracFocus -- where PIVOT gets its information -- had a trade-secret claim.

All of BP America Production Co.'s 230 disclosures contained a trade-secret claim. BP and a small Texas company, Howell Oil & Gas, were the only companies with more than 100 wells that filed trade-secret claims on all of them. The rest of the top five companies are Exco Resources Inc., at 98 percent; Devon Energy Corp. and Noble Energy Inc., both at 97 percent. (Read more)

New fracking film starring Matt Damon set for release in December

A new film about hydraulic fracturing will hit theaters this December, but this time it's a feature film, not a documentary. "Promised Land" stars Matt Damon as Steve Butler, a gas company representative who comes to a rural, economically depressed town offering financial salvation in exchange for natural gas drilling leases. The film is being directed by Oscar-nominated director Gus Van Sant, who directed Damon in "Good Will Hunting."


The story behind "Promised Land" is very similar to that of real-life rural town, Dimock, Pa., where a group of residents complained that injection-well drilling caused gas to leak into their water, Mike Soraghan of Energy and Environment News reports. State officials said shoddy drilling contaminated 18 properties, and shut down the company, Cabot Oil & Gas Corp for more than two years. A $4.1 million settlement was eventually reached, giving the homeowners twice the value of their homes and restoring their mineral rights.

The film also stars Frances McDormand and Hal Holbrook, and was written by Dave Eggers, who wrote the book, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. The movie is likely to please environmentalists and critics of drilling while angering drilling companies, Soraghan reports. Energy and Environment News is behind a paywall, but free trials can be accessed here.

Coal company to pay $575,000 to resolve claim it falsified water quality reports

A large strip-mining company has agreed to pay $575,000 in a case that involved thousands of alleged instances of fraudulent or improper water-pollution discharge reports in Kentucky. Bill Estep of the Lexington Herald-Leader reports that International Coal Group has reached an agreement in principle with the state and environmental groups to settle claims against it, according to a status report on the lawsuit the state Energy and Environmental Cabinet filed this week in Franklin Circuit Court.

The deal with ICG, if approved in court, writes Estep, "would end its part of a controversy that came to light in the fall of 2010. That was when environmental groups announced they had discovered widespread problems with water-pollution discharge monitoring reports from ICG and Frasure Creek" Mining, a second party to the suit that is not part of the proposed settlement.

"Coal companies must monitor pollutants coming from surface mines and report the data to the state, which is supposed to investigate if pollutants exceed certain levels," Estep explains. "The groups said in reviewing reports from ICG and Frasure Creek from 2007 and 2008 they found cases of mineral discharges exceeding legal limits by up to 40 times. There also were forms signed by supervisors before tests were actually done, data copied and pasted from one quarter to the next, and testing dates scratched out and rewritten. Some reports were missing. The groups argued the reports were falsified and that Kentucky was not doing a good job reviewing them for violations. A Kentucky official later acknowledged the state had not done enough to make sure mining companies were submitting accurate information."

Coal plays role in election, largely because of Ohio

Romney and Ohio miners (Getty Images)

Coal has become a hot-button topic on the campaign trail as "Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama have wholeheartedly embraced" it, "despite past statements from Romney and Vice President Joe Biden that pollution from coal-fired power plants kills people," reports Sean Cockerham of McClatchy Newspapers. The issue is mostly become a big one because "the coal-producing state of Ohio is among a handful that are expected to decide the election."

Ohio is ranked 10th in coal production and gets 86 percent of its electricity from coal, and "is among the most crucial prizes in the presidential campaign," Cockerham writes. Virginia and Colorado are also significant coal producers and "key battleground" states. There's also a lot of talk about what a Romney presidency could mean for the industry in the top coal-producing states: Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Romney is telling voters that the Obama administration is waging a "war on coal," the battle cry of many state and federal lawmakers from coal-producing states. He's promised to reverse Environmental Protection Agency regulations if elected, and recently attended a political rally at an Ohio underground coal mine. Obama has played up coal differently, suggesting the country should invest in "clean coal" technologies. His campaign has circulated radio ads in Ohio "hammering on that theme and portraying Romney as the one who's really anti-coal," Cockerham reports. (Read more)

Groups oppose leaving coal-ash regulation to states

More than 300 groups, saying they represent millions of people from all 50 states, sent a letter to the Senate last week opposing the Coal Ash Recycling and Oversight Act, which would prevent the federal government from regulating coal ash, which contains heavy metals including arsenic, lead and mercury. Billions of tons of it are stored in ponds, landfills and mines in almost every state. (Greenpeace photo of Tennessee coal ash pond)

The Coal Ash Recycling and Oversight Act was introduced last month and would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing its proposed coal ash rule and from ever issuing coal ash regulations. The bill would reinforce an EPA decision from 2000 that waste from burning fossil fuels doesn't need to be regulated under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The issue got fresh attention in December 2008, when a Tennessee Valley Authority coal-ash pond broke and released 1 billion tons of waste into the Emory and Clinch rivers in east Tennessee, Environmental News Service notes. TVA is a federal agency, but the pond had been regulated by the state.

EPA proposed coal-ash regulation in 2010, then backed off. The groups' letter says that the Coal Ash Recycling and Oversight Act would nullify "450,000 public comments, essentially silencing the voices of nearly half a million Americans who supported protective regulations." The groups say they have no confidence in state-by-state management of coal ash. (Read more)

Farm groups want Supreme Court to exclude forestry activities from Clean Water Act permitting

A group of farm organizations last week filed a friend-of-the court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Clean Water Act's permitting requirements for stormwater runoff from forestry activities, Farm Progress reports. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Pork Producers Council and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives are urging the court to exempt stormwater runoff from forestry activities from Clean Water Act permitting. (American Agriculturist photo)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled the Environmental Protection Agency's silviculture rule invalid. The groups explain in their brief that Congress decided in its 1987 Clean Water Act amendments that stormwater from agriculture and forestry "has always been intentionally excluded from federal permit requirements," Farm Progress reports. The groups say the logging shouldn't be considered an industrial activity, which means its stormwater discharges must be approved under the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

American Farm Bureau General Counsel Ellen Steen said Congress has never allowed EPA to mandate particular forestry practices because Congress "has always recognized that stormwater runoff from these activities . . . is best left to state and local authorities." (Read more)

Water pollution from oil and gas drilling can be expected in karst regions, federal expert says

More and more drilling applications have been filed during the natural-gas boom for karst regions, with "a type of geology made of rocks that dissolve in mildly acidic water over time," and and oil and gas wells do fail over time in karst regions, which provide easy geologic pathways for pollution, says James Goodbar, head of the Bureau of Land Management's caves and karst resources program, reports Gayathri Valdyanathan of Energy and Environment News.

Scientists worry that contamination will increase if drilling increases in these regions. If drilling is properly done, with the correct amount of steel and cement casings, not much casing is needed in most geologic structures. But when well bores intersect with caves, drilling can pose greater risks. The cement and metal can corrode and leak over time because it's not surrounded by rock. "Threats to the springs and the wildlife that depend on them may be significant," Valdyanathan reports.

The BLM updated requirements for karst drilling in 2006, requiring at least three layers of high-grade steel and cementing, and plugging from the lowest karst zone when abandoning a well. But those standards aren't applicable on non-federal karst lands, or on older wells. (Read more)

Researcher says nanomaterials could have 'profound' negative effect on food crops

Nanomaterials, which are created by manipulating matter on an atomic and molecular scale, may be harming the quality and yield of food crops, University of California researchers concluded in a report released in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The materials are being used in many consumer products,which  including shampoos, gels, hair dyes and sunscreens, which are washed into the environment. Researcher John Priester told Bobbie Mixon of the National Science Foundation that as their uses increase, the likelihood of nanomaterials contaminating food crops rises. "Conventionally treated wastewater is a primary source of normally nutrient-rich organic materials applied to agricultural soil, and farmers beneficially use this treated water and the biosolids from it as fertilizer," Mixon reports. "As nanomaterials become more prevalent, there is concern about nanomaterials buildup in soils and possible nanomaterials entry into the food supply."

There had been no previous study of the affects of nanomaterials on a soil-based crop, so researchers grew soybeans, a major global commodity, in soil containing high amounts of nanomaterials. They found that two nanomaterials -- cerium oxide powder and zinc oxide -- "could profoundly alter soil-based food crop quality and yield," Mixon reports. (Read more)

TVA liable in big coal-ash spill, judge rules

"A federal judge ruled today that the Tennessee Valley Authority is liable for the December 2008 coal ash spill that buried a large swath of Roane County, Tenn., under 5 million cubic yards of sludge," Manuel Quinones reports for Environment & Energy News. "U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Varlan for the Eastern District of Tennessee said that while events beyond TVA's control caused the ash pond failure, the utility's actions contributed to the spill. He also ruled certain liability protections do not apply in this case." For the ruling, click here.

"Varlan said the failure was caused by multiple TVA actions, including the placement and design of the failed dike and its decision to continue building up the wet coal ash stack at the site. The ruling also found that TVA’s failure to inform and train its personnel and the negligent performance of those personnel were substantial contributing causes," the Knoxville News-Sentinel reports. "Varlan indicated the next phase of the trial will look at questions related to individual property owners, such as whether coal ash was present on each plaintiff’s property; whether it damaged each specific property; and the amount of damage, if any, to each property and to each plaintiff." (Read more)

Natural-gas boom begets frac-sand boom in Wis.

The boom in natural gas drilling has caused a boom in one type of sand mining. Round silica sand is used in the process of hydraulic fracturing to hold open rock fractures so gas can be released. The sand boom is perhaps at its height in west-central Wisconsin, the largest producer of "frac sand" in the U.S.

There are no official employment figures for the frac-sand industry, but Kate Prengaman of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism used job-site estimates to calculate that when current and proposed mines are fully operational, the industry will employ about 2,780 people. The number of permitted and proposed frac-sand mines has doubled to 106 since last year, but sand isn't "instant money," Prengaman reports. It's expensive to transport, and local officials are charging sand companies for wear and tear on roads. The state Department of Transportation estimates the industry could produce about 50 million tons of sand a year, Prengaman reports.

Some residents are concerned sand mining will hurt air and water quality, local infrastructure and tourism. They have mounted protests and lawsuits to combat alleged wrongdoing by the industry. Local officials and industry representatives say sand mining will help local economies and increase jobs, echoing local battles in other parts of the country surrounding gas drilling. (Read more)

Two seemingly like-minded Nebraskans square off over threat of Keystone XL to water supply

A dispute has erupted in Nebraska between two previous allies -- environmentally outspoken and traditional Democratic activist Jane Kleeb and water expert and all-around green guy James Goecke. The public fight is over Keystone XL, the already much disputed 1,700-mile steel pipeline that would carry heavy, low-quality crude from Canada’s oil sands to refineries in Texas. At issue, writes Washington Post reporter Steven Mufson, is whether the pipeline would pose a threat to the massive Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world’s largest underground sources of fresh water which sits firmly under Nebraska and likely holds enough water to cover the country’s 48 contiguous states two feet deep.

TransCanada, the pipeline's owner, plans to bury the pipeline at least four feet underground, and in many places could be putting it in the aquifer. Kleeb says that if the pipeline should spring a leak where it touches the aquifer or even above it, oil could quickly seep into and through the porous, sandy soil, contaminating the aquifer. Goecke disputes that. A hydrogeologist and professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska, Goecke has been measuring water tables in Nebraska’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region since 1970. He says opposition to the pipeline is driven by misunderstanding of how the aquifer works. “I’ve spent my career drilling holes to and through the Ogallala Formation. I’ve probably seen as much of the Ogallala as anybody,” he says in a TV commercial for TransCanada. “There’s a misconception that if the aquifer is contaminated, the entire water supply of Nebraska is going to be endangered, and that’s absolutely false. If people recognize the science of the situation, I think that should allay a lot of the fears.” (Read more)

Longtime enviro lawyer declines award from strip-mine regulators, saying law's promise not fulfilled

Courier-Journal photo
by Tyler Bissmeyer

Kentucky's leading environmental lawyer has turned down an award from the U.S. Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation and Enforcement with a letter that amounts to an indictment of the Interior Department agency and its congressional overseers and funders.

"The promises made to the people of the coalfields remain largely unkept," 35 years after the federal strip-mine law was enacted and 55 years after efforts began to pass it, Tom FitzGerald of Louisville told Director Joe Pizarchik in declining to accept the agency's first Environment, Community, Humanity and Ownership Award, which OSMRE says is aimed to honor someone "who promotes the ideals of the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 while also advocating for the “appropriate balance between meeting the nation’s need for energy without compromising protection of people, the environment and the surrounding community."

"The law promised to curb abusive mining practices with the goal of protecting landowners, the public, and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations. In substantial measure, these promises have been betrayed," FitzGerald wrote. "Though Congress intended that the choice of technology would follow, rather than dictate, environmental protection, the coal industry has over the decades systematically replaced the workforce with larger machines more indiscriminate to the terrain, and key concepts in the law have been weakened by regulatory interpretations in order to accommodate this shift."

FitzGerald said the Obama administration "has done precious little of substance" to undo the damage by 30 years of OSMRE management that has been hostile or indifferent to the intent of lawmakers who wrote the bill that became law Aug. 3, 1977. He cited examples, including lack of timely reclamation, mis-classification of mountaintop-removal mines as area mines, and ignorance of the law's requirement that mined land be restored to its approximate original contour. His letter is here.

Director Pizarchik, Secretary Salazar

"OSM takes seriously Mr. FitzGerald’s concerns," agency spokesman Chris Holmes told James Bruggers of The Courier-Journal, noting that Pizarchik said "OSM and its state regulatory partners can and should do better. The theme of the director’s speech was that 35th anniversary … is a time to recommit to protecting the nation’s economy, energy supply, and environment, and ultimately, the people who live and work in coal country." FitzGerald told the Louisville newspaper that he didn't blame Pizarchik, but Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

The award went to ecologist David Clark of New Mexico's Mining and Minerals Division who led development of a reclamation technique "that returns mined lands to the closest form and function of the land before mining," Holmes said. (Read more)

Judge strikes down 'guidance' that EPA used to block many mountaintop coal mining permits

The Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority by setting a standard for water quality downstream from surface coal mines in Appalachia, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled today in a lawsuit filed by coal interests and states.

Walton said EPA has "only a limited role" in setting specific standards for states that have the authority to enforce federal water-pollution and strip-mining laws. EPA had used electrical conductivity, which increases with the amount of salty minerals in water, to block permits for dozens of mines in Kentucky and West Virginia. It did not go through the usual process of writing a regulation, instead issuing a "guidance" to state agencies and the Army Corps of Engineers, which also enforces the Clean Water Act.

The ruling was "another blow to the Obama administration's crackdown on mountaintop removal" coal mining, writes Ken Ward Jr. in The Charleston Gazette. "In January, Walton threw out EPA's plans to work with other agencies to more closely scrutinize certain mining-related water pollution permits for valley fill waste piles. And in March, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, also in the District of Columbia, overturned EPA's veto of the largest mountaintop removal permit in West Virginia history. EPA is appealing Jackson's ruling." It is likely to appeal Walton's too, reports Manuel Quinones of Environment & Energy News.

Ward says Walton "noted the obvious: that it was unlikely his decision would end the growing debate over mountaintop removal's impact on the environment and public health, or on the future of coal in the region. Walton said it was not for him to decide "how to best strike a balance between, on the one hand, the need to preserve the verdant landscapes and natural resources of Appalachia and, on the other hand, the economic role that coal mining plays in the region." (Read more)

In southern W.Va., 5% of land has been mountaintop mined, but 22% of streams show harm from mining

About 5 percent of southern West Virginia has been excavated by mountaintop-removal coal mining, but 22 percent of the region's streams show significant harm to aquatic life, according to a study by Duke University researchers. The study could have implications in other areas with high rates of surface mining. (NASA satellite image: mine in Boone County)

Researchers say large amounts of minerals leach into streams from valley fills that have been filled with rock blasted from the mountaintops and ridges above. Sara Peach of Chemical and Engineering News reports that researchers have previously documented water pollution near individual mines, but have not been able to detect how far the pollution traveled, study author Emily Bernhardt said. Her study found harm to aquatic life in more than 1,700 miles of streams in southern West Virginia.

Bernhardt and her co-authors mapped chemical and biological data from 223 streams sampled by the state Department of Environmental Protection between 1997 and 2007, and found that salinity and mineral levels in the region's streams increased with the total area of mountaintop mines. They also discovered that as the number of mines increased, fewer sensitive insect species were found downstream. Substantial declines in insect populations were seen with just 1 percent of upstream land mined. In areas where 5 percent of upstream land has been mined, so many species have disappeared that the streams would qualify as biologically impaired, a designation that would place the streams on a list of waterways that states have to rehabilitate. (Read more)

Injection wells getting more scrutiny as result of earthquakes and concerns about hydraulic fracturing

The advent of large-scale horizontal hydraulic fracturing to produce natural gas has focused new attention on injection wells, an old technology that is being used to dispose of drilling fluids after a frack job is completed.

The nonprofit, nonpartisan investigators at ProPublica have produced a four-part series (whichs eems likely to grow) on the subject, available here. Abrahm Lustgarten writes in the mainbar, "Over the past several decades, U.S. industries have injected more than 30 trillion gallons of toxic liquid deep into the earth, using broad expanses of the nation's geology as an invisible dumping ground."No company would be allowed to pour such dangerous chemicals into the rivers or onto the soil. But until recently, scientists and environmental officials have assumed that deep layers of rock beneath the earth would safely entomb the waste for millennia. There are growing signs they were mistaken." (Read more)

Injection wells are increasingly being blamed for earthquakes, usually small but occasionally damaging. Mike Soraghan of Environment & Energy News writes about a 5.6-magnitude quake that hit central Oklahoma last November. Jerri Loveland, who still can't afford to pay for the damage to her home, doesn't blame fracking. "Coming from an oil-industry family, she sees the connection as having more to do with the millions of gallons of salt-laden water that comes up with the oil and gets reinjected in deep wells nearby. In rare cases, that wastewater can lubricate faults and unleash earthquakes." But Oklahoma oil and gas officials have rejected advice against putting injection wells near geologic faults.

Fracking debate challenges objectivity and integrity of scientists, government regulators and journalists

The debate about environmental ramifications of horizontal hydraulic fracturing to produce natural gas continues to rage. Today's news digest from the Society of Environmental Journalists was dominated by a long list of fracking stories, some of which may help you sort out the facts.

New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin wrote on the paper's Dot.Earth blog, "Transparency and peer review matter in considering the merits of the science" cited by both sides of the debate. He had complimented a University of Texas Energy Institute report that downplayed fracking consequences, then discovered the lead researcher's ties to the gas industry weren't mentioned in the report, "leaving it up to journalists and watchdogs to reveal."

Photo: America's Natural Gas Alliance

Terrence Henry of State Impact reports Public Accountability Initiative, a nonprofit watchdog group, discovered Groat's financial ties to the gas industry, something he failed to mention in his fracking report. The PAI also investigated the University of Buffalo's fracking report stating the practice was becoming safer, and "identified a number of problems that undermine its conclusion." The executive summary of that investigation can be found here; the full analysis is here.

A recent Duke University study on fracking said some Pennsylvania aquifers might be at risk of contamination, but Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York geologist Tom Johnson told David Bertola of Buffalo Business First that the study raises many questions. “To me, the story here is not even so much about what is said in the paper, it’s a matter of some researchers here that put out an article is full of innuendo,” Johnson said. “They admit in several places that there’s more study that needs to be done.”

Some research is conducted by university professors, but is funded by the gas industry to help prove its claims about the safety of fracking, Jim Efstathiou of Bloomberg reports. A 2009 study predicted that drillers would avoid Pennsylvania gas fields if the state taxed their industry (as every other state does), and lawmakers voted against the tax. But Efstathiou notes the study was commissioned by drillers and led by an industry-friendly economist. Gas drillers "are taking a page from the tobacco industry playbook: funding research at established universities" that will counter critics' concerns, he writes.

Inside Higher Ed's Kaustuv Basu delved further into how the fracking battle is increasingly being fought at universities. A forthcoming study in New York says newborn babies' health is adversely affected by fracking, and Laura Olsen of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that officials in Washington County, Pennsylvania, are beginning a one-year air quality study near several gas-drilling sites. Meanwhile, the Obama administration refused to take a side in the debate, as the government continues its review of fracking risks, Peter Behr of Energy and Environment News reports(Subscription may be required).

EPA yanks rule that would have made CAFOs report number of animals, size of manure-spreading areas

The Environmental Protection Agency has withdrawn a proposed regulation "that would have required owners of concentrated animal feeding operations to report certain data about their facilities," Amanda Peterka of Environment & Energy News reports.

EPA said it pulled the rule "over concerns that it would duplicate other efforts to collect such information from CAFOs," Peterka writes. "EPA says it will work with state and other programs to collect the information using existing sources of information. . . . Livestock trade groups had harshly criticized the rule, arguing in public comments that it would violate ranchers' privacy and threaten the nation's food security."

The rule stemmed from the settlement of a lawsuit from the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Waterkeeper Alliance "that was a result of a lawsuit brought and won by the pork producers over EPA's 2008 CAFO rule," Peterka notes. "A federal court ruled that the Clean Water Act requires permitting only for CAFOs that actually discharge pollution rather than those with a potential for discharges. Under the withdrawn rule, CAFO owners would have had to report the number and types of animals they keep and the size of the area where manure would be applied. That did not satisfy the environmental groups, which argued that the settlement required EPA to gather data from CAFOs on the quantity of manure and other waste. (Read more; subscription may be required)

Report says hydraulic fracturing laws need overhaul; Nationwide says it won't cover fracking damage

"Most states aren’t doing enough to ensure the water safety and health of communities near gas wells where hydraulic fracking takes place," according to a new report by a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy group, OMB Watch. Those states that do have chemical disclosure policies in place, the report says, "have loopholes that essentially allow companies to circumvent disclosure regulations." According to the report, only 13 of the 30 states with natural-gas drilling have passed some legislation regulating fracking, which pumps large volumes of water mixed with chemicals and sand into rock formations to release gas.

OMB Watch was founded to watch the federal Office of Management and Budget, often a roadblock for regulatory changes. Sean Moulton, director of federal information policy for the group, told Stateline, "No one state has established a chemical disclosure policy strong enough to protect the water supply of communities near gas wells. No state currently has laws in place requiring gas companies to test water supplies before drilling takes place, making it difficult to determine what’s causing contamination if water becomes polluted after fracking has begun." (Read more)

In related news, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. has become the first major company to say it won't cover damage related to fracking. Mary Esch of The Associated Press reports that company spokesman Nancy Smelzer announced last week that the Columbus-based company's personal and commercial policies "were not designed to cover" risk from the drilling process. Nationwide said the risks "are too great to ignore" and apply to policies of landowners who lease land for drilling.