Last month’s accident on Wetzel County’s Blake Ridge Road where a natural gas drilling truck rolled over, the third such occurrence in a week, got my attention – really got my attention. No driver error here. The problem was that a chemical that ostensibly was to makes a road safer, may have actually made it dangerous. My ire would be no less – probably more – if it were a Midwest product involved in the incident.

The bottom line is that it is time for someone to step up and bring important change to the game, and that means self regulation. The EPA has risen to the occasion in the last few years, helping to create regulations related to dust as a pollutant. But there is no regulation or industry oversight – none, zippo, zero – regarding the chemicals and their applications used to control dust. It’s 2011 and it’s still the Wild West out there!

I tasked my team to create a plan to help bring awareness and creative solutions to this critical issue so, among other things, we won’t be seeing any more incidents as we did on Blake Ridge Road. They proposed a broad-based communications effort – we are calling it Regulation by Education – to educate industry influencers and decision-makers about the questions they need to ask before committing to a dust-control solution.

Here are some questions you should have answers to before committing to a dust-control solution for roadways:

1. Is the product you are considering certified effective or environmentally safe? By which independent third parties? If so, for what has it been certified and by whom?
2. Do assessments meet ASTM and AASHTO standards?
3. Has any supplier you are considering asked for samples of your roadway materials to determine the optimal dust-control product and application treatment for your problem area?
4. Can the supplier you are considering customize a product solution for your unique needs, based upon laboratory and field testing?
5. Has your supplier done a competitive cost-per-performance comparison for three-, or five- year programs to demonstrate lifecycle cost savings?
6. Have suppliers talked to you about the short- and long-term impacts their products have on the environment?

In the absence of true regulations for product development and application, Midwest has regulated itself for more than 35 years now, a practice started because of our own concern about the environment long before such concern was trendy. We have also learned that products that are gentle on the environment can also, over the not-so-long term be gentler on our customers’ wallets.

Over the next few months Midwest’s R&D teams will help craft “self regulation recommendation” guidelines that will help assure that your project is estimated and executed with a focus on environmentally-friendly, safe products that deliver the best cost/value and have a positive impact on society and your community, not the negative impact of an overturned truck or worse!!

Contact us now if you are in the consideration phase of a project. We’ll be happy to answer the questions above – and many others – so you can make a truly informed decision about which vendor will deliver the most for you.

A recent Wall Street Journal article goes into wonderful detail on how this 60 year-old technique has revitalized our gas industry and is impacting our ability to create energy, LOCALLY. No dealing with foreign countries, no jobs overseas. Right here in our own US of A backyard.

It now accounts for 25% of our gas supply and has brought what was once $15 per million BTUs to $4.

Something to be excited about no? Well not so fast. Environmentalists and their allies have come out against hydraulic fracturing and are raising public concern. The article goes on to separate Fact from Fiction.

•  Fracking contaminates drinking water allowing chemicals to leach into water sources. And Fracking
can release methane gas into our drinking water. Read the article, both NOT TRUE.

•  Fracking releases toxic or radioactive chemicals. With 99.5% of the fluid injected into fracture rock
is water and sand. Again, NOT TRUE.

•  Fracking causes cancer. Fracking causes earthquakes. Shale exploration is unregulated.
Again all untrue.

Pollution from trucks. This however is a fact, and in the article it talks about risk vs reward. It is obvious that the author of the article, and most likely the companies that were interviewed for the research are not connected to the Dust Control Industry. We need to work with energy industry leaders and show them how we can help minimize and prevent pollution that stems from fracking with high-quality dust and road stabilization techniques that are proven and available today. The reality is our solutions did not even exists 10 years ago, so the old way of thinking needs to be transformed with our new solutions.

My personal mission, and the DNA of my company Midwest is to be an environmental steward in the area of dust control, where we can impact the safety of both air and water. As an industry we need to step up and let the environmentalists know there are wonderful solutions that can help keep and grow fracking as a preferred technique to support our energy solutions. There you have it, all fracks.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is increasing their focus on Federal Regulations Standards for exposure monitoring to safeguard workers from airborne contaminates.

Conducting surveys to identify unhealthful levels of contaminants is critical to preventing disease. The MSHA points to a number of illnesses that can be caused by overexposure to harmful airborne contaminants, including lead poisoning, nervous system damage, lung cancer, bronchitis and metal fume fever.

Of course, there are many dust control solutions that focus purely on the reduction of airborne contaminates within the mining industry.

Midwest applauds the NSSGA (Natural Stone, Sand & Gravel Association) for developing a number of communications to help educate industry. There are PowerPoint Presentations and other communications materials available with much detail. If you have any questions, please direct them to Louis Griesemer, NSSGA co-chair of the MSHA-NSSGA Alliance at (417) 874-1400 (lagriesemer@springfieldunderground.com), or Neal Merrifield, MSHA’s co-chair, at (202) 693-9600(Merrifield.neal@dol.gov).

My attorney recently sent me this article, which I must admit did shock me. The FTC alleged that the company Tested Green, the nation’s leading green certification program with over 45,000 companies in the U.S. never tested any of the companies it provided with environmental certifications, and would certify anyone willing to pay a certification fee.

After almost 40 years in business, I try not to be naïve, and I’m sure some of these companies that requested certification had wonderful products, but I really could not believe what I was reading. The FTC allegation has major implications to Green/Environmental Marketing. The good news is the FTC is cracking down and my company could not be happier.

We’ve taken the position of environmental stewards from the moment we formed Midwest. Dust Control ultimately is all about protecting our air and water and the people that work within industries where dust can affect their health. As technology has changed we changed our manufacturing process, always looking for the most environmentally-friendly compounds and chemicals to manufacture our products. Most importantly, product certification, whether EPA, FTC, Industry, State of local governments is something we take extremely seriously, and believe sets us apart.

Our advice; when issuing an RFP for Dust Control Services require proof of certification and if the certification is not government regulated, double check the organization issuing the certification.

As we move into 2011 environmental protection amendments continue to move to the forefront of the news. Take this recent case in Mt. Pleasant Twnp, PA. The township has put forth an amendment for consideration that would require gas and drilling operators to purchase environmental pollution liability coverage in case of release for vapor or fumes, provide copies of water testing of private wells and springs and prohibit any brine or hydrocarbon mixtures with water to be used for dust abatement on roads.

It’s been long known that these mixtures used for dust abatement are simply not environmentally friendly, and have caused irrefutable damages to local communities, and should simply never be used. It’s the old “trying to save a dollar” syndrome, instead of “lets do it right from the start.”

We’re hoping as we move into the new decade, builders, developers and industry executives will start with an Environmental Friendly Plan, and look to use this to their competitive advantage. And when it comes to dust abatement, go to a specialist, like Midwest.

Too many chemical companies hide behind claims of “trade secrets” to mislead or create false impressions in the market place, and sometimes gain advantages by their misrepresentation.

Everyone gets hurt.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) had been created to protect legitimate commercial interest regarding chemical manufacturing trade secrets. But it had become obvious to the EPA that this was being abused and the health and environmental risk is the much greater issue.

In January 2010 the EPA announced its plan to begin rejecting CBI claims on chemicals listed on the public portion of the Toxic Substance and Control Act (TSCA) inventory. And more recently the EPA took this even further. In May the EPA published a notice indicating that it would begin routinely reviewing CBI claims regarding all chemical entities that are part of a health/safety study. The EPA explained that, where a chemical identity does not explicitly contain manufacturing process information or reveal portions of a chemical mixture, the chemical identity will not receive confidential treatment. The EPA further proposed amendments to the TSCA in August to require CBI claims to be accompanied by an upfront, detailed, written explanation of why the chemical identity should be confidential. Read EPA article.

Lets all hope that the EPA remains steadfast, and pushes these regulations for increased transparency and increased public access to this information. Manufacturers can still protect their formulations, but we need these regulations and transparencies to understand the health and environmental risks, ultimately moving manufactures towards the greenest solutions possible.

Here’s a hot topic to keep an eye on. The Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) sued Oregon State Forester and several timber companies because sediment from the logging roads was polluting salmon streams and killing fish. Additionally they claim they did not have NEDC stormwater permitting they were breaking the law. In some places the TSS was more than 2000 times the regulatory levels!

First court said NEDC lost because the timber industry is exempt because of Siliviculture Laws and related agricultural laws. However the 9th District court overturned, saying that the discharge was illegal and that agricultural laws did not allow exemption from discharges from point sources and that the Oregon EPA did not have the right to change the definition of point source. There reasoning was the sediment was carried by ditches, culverts or channels (all man made) that they were discrete conveyances and therefore point source discharges requiring by law NEDC permitting.

Court also ruled that EPA has to write regulations to reduce sediment delivery into waters of the US from point sources. This is EPA region 9 and covers: OR, WA, CA, AZ, NV, ID and MT.  Read entire article.

What should be noted is that these are considered low-volume roads and can easily be treated to solve this dust control/soil stabilization problem.

There have been similar lawsuits, notably one in Pennsylvania where runoffs from dirt and gravel roads where effecting trout streams. After regulations where created, Midwest had two of their products approved for use to help solve the problem.

It is reasonable that the EPA will jump on this and create new regulations. With 7 states involved, this is no small issue.

This is a long running issue; what and how to regulate coal ash. Although “the industry” says that 40% of coal ash is recycled, environmentalists argue that the presence of heavy metals in the combustion products makes all of it hazardous. The U.S. EPA is proposing new rules that would declare it as such, and eliminate the use of coal ash in building materials and tighten groundwater-monitoring.
 
Over the next few months, seven public hearings will take place in areas where coal-burning power plants generate nearly 90% of electricity. An environmental coalition is out to change things in a big way. Using public documents, they have released a major study “In Harms Way” showing how current state regulations have been ineffective and that tough federal regulations must be adopted.
 
My point of view is that our Industry is capable of developing technically sound and environmentally-friendly coal ash handling and disposal methods to protect our air, water and populous from contamination. We are called in when there are major problems and clean up after the fact, so we know first-hand we are capable of creating long-lasting solutions.
 
Some Power Plants are being pro-active and are trying to self-regulate, but this is a national issue that will ultimately  result in federal regulations to ensure our safety. The reality is that all of us as consumers will have to pay for this, so why not get it stated sooner rather than later. The Dust Control industry is ready to contribute to the solution now.

Coal ash being regulated is seemingly a given; not a bad idea since it effect each of us and our children and grandchildren!
 
The proposal calls for two alternative regulations aimed at reducing environmental and health risks associated with the disposal of coal ash in surface impoundments and landfills. The compliance costs associated with the two proposals range from $1.4 billion down to $236 million. When you think about the December 2009 Tennessee incident noted in the article that cost over $1 billion to clean-up, can cost really be an issue here?

We all know the consumer, you and me, we’re going to pay for this in some form or another. To be able to pay for all that we are being asked, I just ask for a free market and not a government directed and controlled market. Read EPA entire article.

University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Transportation Research Center Conducts Dust Control Tests

Now we’re talking. The science of dust control is becoming part of our everyday vernacular. As Environmental Science courses and degrees begin to populate our Universities, our industry, dust control, is becoming an important part of our country’s future – as it should be!

Case in point; a crew from the UAF Civil & Environmental Engineering department are trying to perfect a dust monitoring system to determine the effectiveness of dust control/dust-settling agents vs. calcium chloride which is usually used on the roads in this borough. We’re thrilled and excited that UAF is taking a lead on the testing. The more testing the better. We need to significantly reduce particle dust on our roads for cleaner air and water and a healthier overall environment.  

Here’s a link to the pdf from the Anchorage Daily news article.