Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @kate_sheppard

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

Democrats Call on Obama's Budget Office to Cough Up Rules

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Jun. 5, 2013 12:23 PM PDT

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

The Senate confirmed Sylvia Matthews Burwell as the new director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the end of April. Now Democrats in the House and Senate are calling on her to fix whatever's been delaying all the environmental, health, and safety rules at OMB for months (and in some cases, years).

As I've reported here before, Obama's OMB is a place where tough environmental and health rules go to die (or at least disappear for a really, really long time). On Wednesday, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), along with Dem Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, wrote to Burwell asking her to cough up the rules that the lawmakers said had "languished" in OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under her predecessor:

Fourteen of the twenty rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been under review at OIRA for more than 90 days; thirteen have been delayed for more than a year. One particularly egregious example of OIRA delays is EPA's Guidance Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act. This guidance would clarify regulatory jurisdiction over U.S. waters and wetlands. It is an issue that has come before the U.S. Supreme Court three times and, until the Administration finalizes this guidance, will continue to create confusion, loopholes, and inconsistency for officials at the state and local level. Despite the clear need for regulatory guidance from this Administration, EPA’s final guidance has been under review for 470 days, since February 21, 2012.

Nine of the ten Department of Energy (DOE) rules under review at OIRA have been there for more than 120 days. Important DOE energy efficiency standards, such as those for commercial walk-in coolers and freezers, commercial refrigeration equipment, and metal halide lamp fixtures have been pending at OIRA for more than a year.

Similarly, key worker safety standards have also been delayed for far too long. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) proposed rule to protect workers from cancer-causing silica dust has been at OIRA for over two years, since February 14, 2011. OSHA’s preliminary analysis indicates that the silica rule would prevent approximately 60 deaths per year from lung cancer and silicosis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 1.7 million additional workers are exposed to dangerous levels of silica every year. These workers may also face a lifetime of serious health problems that the completion of this rule could help to prevent.

As the congressmen noted, very few laws get passed in Congress these days. That means "the public is depending on the federal agencies to protect public health and welfare," they wrote.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The 6 Weirdest Things Found in the EPA Warehouse

—By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Jun. 4, 2013 2:42 PM PDT

The EPA will pump you up. EPA Office of Inspector General

The Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General released a report on Monday on the agency's Landover, Maryland warehouse. The 70,000-square-foot facility is used to store inventory from the EPA's Washington headquarters, but what the inspectors found basically sounds like a cross between a frat house and your grandma's attic.

Here are the six weirdest things discovered in the warehouse:

multiple "unauthorized personal spaces" that were "arranged so that they were out of sight of security cameras" and included televisions, refrigerators, radios, microwaves, couches, pin ups, clothing, books, magazines and videos
two pianos
new appliances received in 2007 still in the original packaging
dirt, dust and vermin feces were "pervasive," and several items were described as "rotting and potentially hazardous"
an exercise space that included weights, machines, and other exercise equipment that, unlike most of the rest of the warehouse, "appeared to be well maintained"; the report also noted that "agency steno pads were used for recording workouts"
a big box of old passports

(h/t National Journal)

Lautenberg Leaves Legacy on Chemical Reform

—By Kate Sheppard

| Mon Jun. 3, 2013 11:57 AM PDT

Frank Lautenberg, a five-term senator from New Jersey, died Monday at age 89. All over the internet, obituaries for the long-serving progressive note the issues he took up during his tenure, but one that often goes unnoticed is his work to overhaul chemical safety rules. For years, Lautenberg was the leading voice in the effort to reform the Toxic Substance Control Act, or TSCA, a 37-year-old law governing tens of thousands of chemicals.

Less than two weeks ago, Lautenberg unveiled a bipartisan reform bill that would have made some significant changes to the outdated—and many would say, dangerous—chemical rules. The bill was criticized by many in the environmental group as being too weak, especially as compared to bills that Lautenberg had introduced independently in the past. Still, chemical reform will be a legacy issue for Lautenberg.

"He [was] the person who really started the national conversation on reforming our chemical policies," said Andy Igrejas, executive director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition public health, environment, business and labor groups working on TSCA reform. "He's been a real stalwart, a champion." Despite being in poor health, Lautenberg had continued working on the bill he released in May. "Even as late as last week he was down in DC pushing it forward, crafting it, trying to get bipartisan support," said Igrejas.

"He wasn't someone who scared easily," Igrejas continued. "A lot of politicians want to do the right thing, but in the face of a major lobbying effort by big money interests, they fold. He had the courage to really stick with big issues."

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, also lauded his past work on chemicals: "Perhaps his most enduring achievement was to help inform and protect the public from the harm of toxic chemicals, including creating the nation’s toxic right-to-know law, establishing the US Chemical Safety Board and pushing for greater security at chemical plants."

Lautenberg is also remember for his work on other public health issues, such as alcohol and tobacco.

British Columbia Rejects West Coast Pipeline Plan

—By Kate Sheppard

| Fri May. 31, 2013 12:49 PM PDT

Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, which was rejected on Friday. Enbridge

While we've been having a big fight over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline down here in the US, Canada has also been debating a massive pipeline for exporting tar sands oil, the Northern Gateway. And on Friday, the government of British Columbia put the kibosh on that whole idea.

BC's environment minister said Friday that Enbridge, the company seeking to build the pipeline, had not adequately answered the government's questions about the project, and that there were still outstanding concerns about spill prevention and response. The CBC reports:

"British Columbia thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence and submissions made to the panel and asked substantive questions about the project, including its route, spill response capacity and financial structure to handle any incidents," said Environment Minister Terry Lake.

"Our questions were not satisfactorily answered during these hearings."

The Northern Gateway would run from the heart of the tar sands in Alberta, through British Columbia, and to an export terminal in Kitimat. Anti-pipeline activists in the US are cheering BC's Gateway decision as a win against tar sands development. 350.org founder Bill McKibben sent around a statement shortly after the announcement:

For years the tar sands promoters have said: ‘if we don't build Keystone XL the tar sands will get out some other way.' British Columbians just slammed the door on the most obvious other way, so now it's up to President Obama. If he approves Keystone XL he bails out the Koch Brothers and other tar sands investors; if he rejects the pipeline, then an awful lot of that crude is going to stay in the ground where it belongs.

The BC government was quick to say, however, that this "is not a rejection of heavy-oil projects" in general—keeping open the possibility for another proposed pipeline, Kinder Morgan (which we also talked about here). Nevertheless, it certainly makes plans to export tar sands oil more complicated.

CLARIFICATION: As the Globe and Mail explains, British Columbia does not have ultimate authority on the pipeline decision; the Canadian government does. But this is expected to influence its decision:

It does not have veto power over what would be a federally regulated project but its opinions carry much weight in the Joint Review Panel's deliberations, said Michal Moore, an economics professor at the University of Calgary and a former energy regulator.

"I would think that when they play a card like that, when they don't have direct control over the decision, that card is meant to be a place marker that says, ‘This issue is really important to us and we want to make sure that you take it very seriously,'" Mr. Moore said. “It’s the moral equivalent of throwing down a gauntlet, ‘that you better address our concerns in your decision, no matter what the decision is.'"

The headline on this story has been changed to reflect this clarification.

Exploding Trains, Explained

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu May. 30, 2013 9:34 AM PDT

Fifteen train cars derailed in an industrial area in Rosedale, Maryland, causing an explosion and the collapse of several buildings.

A train and a garbage truck collided outside of Baltimore on Tuesday evening, resulting in a large explosion that released smoke that could be seen miles away. CSX, the train's operator, confirmed that the train was carrying hazardous chemicals that caused the explosion. The Washington Post reports:

CSX spokesman Gary Sease said the sodium chlorate in a derailed car near the front of the train exploded, igniting terephthalic acid in another derailed car. Sodium chlorate is used mainly as a bleaching agent in paper production. Oklahoma State University chemist Nick Materer said it could make for a potentially explosive mixture when combined with an incompatible substance such as spilled fuel.

Another chemist, Darlene Lyudmirskiy, of Spectrum Chemical Manufacturing Corp. in Gardena, Calif., said such a mixture would be unstable and wouldn’t need even a spark to cause a reaction.

"If it's not compatible, anything could set it off," she said.

The incident could have been much worse if other chemicals had been involved—chemicals like chlorine gas or anhydrous ammonia. When a Norfolk Southern train derailed in Graniteville, South Carolina, in 2005 and released chlorine, nine people died and 5,000 had to be evacuated. While not nearly that bad, the Baltimore explosion has brought renewed attention to the hazardous chemicals that are transported by rail in the United States.

Trains carry 64 percent of a class of chemicals known as "toxic inhalation hazards."

In 2012, trains carried 189 million tons of chemicals. That only represents about 20 percent of all the chemicals shipped in the US. But trains carry 64 percent of a class of chemicals known as "toxic inhalation hazards" or TIH, like chlorine, that can be deadly if inhaled. Rail is the safest, most efficient way to transport those chemicals—one rail tank can carry as much as four trucks, and trains moving along a dedicated shipping line rather than on the highways, meaning that collisions are less likely, as researchers at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government have pointed out.

Even if rail is safer than trucks, there are plenty of reasons to want to limit the amount of dangerous chemicals carried by rail. There's always a chance of an accident, as Tuesday's explosion demonstrated, and local governments and first responders don't even know what's traveling on those trains until an accident happens. Then there's also the threat of a deliberate attack on either the rails or the chemical facilities where the tankers eventually end up. The best solution, says Greenpeace legislative director Rick Hind, is getting companies to shift from a "catastrophic chemical to a noncatastrophic substance or process"—that is, using chemicals that won't explode or give off noxious fumes. These chemicals would be safer to transport, and safer to use when they reach their destinations.

Some companies and municipal water systems have already started phasing out the use of deadly chemicals like chlorine. But it would take a stronger regulatory push to make a larger switch happen. There was some effort to do so immediately after September 11, at the height of terrorism fears. But the Bush White House did not back it due to pressure from the chemical industry, recalls Bob Bostock, the homeland security adviser to the then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. "That effort died before it really got started," he says.

Now Bostock hopes that the EPA will use its regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to "to require facilities to at least evaluate safer technologies." "It's very feasible to do so," he says. "A lot of facilities have done it. A lot have not."

Railroad operators aren't particularly jazzed about transporting hazardous chemicals, either. But because a few companies control the majority of major railroads, they are required under federal "common carrier" rules that say they can't refuse to carry TIH or other hazardous chemicals. The Association of American Railroads, the industry trade group, has asked Congress to allow them to "decide for themselves whether to accept, and at what price they are willing to accept, such materials for transportation." AAR has also called for safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals as a means of reducing their own risk as carriers.