Last week, my colleagues and I advocated for a pair of clean water bills in Maryland and Virginia, which were spurred by research completed by the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR). One bill would create a Private Well Safety Program in Maryland, and the other would create an aboveground chemical storage tank registration program in Virginia.
Both laws are sorely needed. This two-part blog series explains why. Part I, which ran yesterday, explores our collaborative work to protect clean drinking water in Maryland. Today, we look at our efforts to protect Virginia’s health and environment from toxic chemical spills.
As climate change intensifies, Virginia’s coastal and riverine communities are increasingly under threat of sea-level rise, hurricanes, and storm surge. Research published in 2019 by my colleague David Flores, a senior policy analyst at CPR, and CPR Member Scholar Noah Sachs found that flooding not only impacts socially vulnerable communities but also increases risks of toxic spills and releases at many chemical and hazardous facilities in the commonwealth.
One gap that heightens this risk: lack of regulations for aboveground tanks that store dangerous chemicals.
Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) storing hazardous substances are not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the state of Virginia, despite a 50-year mandate under the Clean Water Act for EPA to develop rules to prevent spills from ASTs. There is little to no information about the contents, condition, or location of ASTs in the state, yet they continue to collapse, dislodge, and spill their contents throughout Virginia communities and waterways, such as in Chesapeake in 2008, in Cloverdale in 2017, and in Bristol last year.
Since previous efforts to regulate aboveground chemical storage in Virginia were unsuccessful, my colleagues and I engaged community members to better understand chemical and flood risks concerns across the state and conducted additional research on aboveground chemical storage in Virginia. Last year, we published Tanks for Nothing: The Decades-long Failure to Protect the Public from Hazardous Chemical Spills, which found that the federal and most state governments are failing to protect millions of Americans, including Virginians, from AST releases and vastly underestimating the threat they pose to public health and our environment.
We estimated that there are between 2,720 and 5,405 unregulated chemical ASTs in Virginia, and found that between 2000 and 2020 there were at least 4,800 tank-related instances of spills, releases, improper storage, and illegal dumping. This amounts to 230 incidents each year, significantly impacting the state’s most populous cities and counties (home to roughly one-third of Virginia’s 9 million residents).
Working for Protections
It doesn’t have to be this way.
Ten states have comprehensive regulatory programs for chemical ASTs, and Virginia — and 39 other states — need them. Fortunately, Virginia lawmakers are on the case.
This year, Virginia Del. Alfonso Lopez introduced House Bill 899, which would:
Last week, David, Noah, and I testified alongside our partners in support of the bill at a hearing held by the commonwealth’s House Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on the Chesapeake, and 20 organizations signed onto our written comment in support. Unfortunately, due to industry opposition and the recent shift in Virginia’s political power, the bill was tabled.
This was a disappointing outcome that leaves Virginia communities and waterways increasingly at risk of toxic floodwaters. But we will continue to work with our partners to advocate for stronger protections at the state and federal level. To learn more about our efforts to secure critically needed regulations for aboveground chemical storage, check out our recent webinar on the topic and follow us on social media.
Showing 2,824 results
Darya Minovi | February 8, 2022
Last week, my colleagues and I advocated for a pair of clean water bills in Maryland and Virginia, which were spurred by research completed by the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR). This two-part blog series explains why. Part I, which ran yesterday, explores our collaborative work to protect clean drinking water in Maryland. Today, we look at our efforts to protect Virginia’s health and environment from toxic chemical spills.
Darya Minovi | February 7, 2022
Last week, my colleagues and I advocated for a pair of clean water bills in Maryland and Virginia, which were spurred by research completed by the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR). One would create a Private Well Safety Program in Maryland, and the other would create an aboveground chemical storage tank registration program in Virginia. Both laws are sorely needed. This two-part blog series explains why. Today’s piece looks at our efforts to protect clean drinking water in Maryland; check back tomorrow for Part II, which explores our collaborative efforts to protect Virginians from toxic chemical spills.
Daniel Farber | February 3, 2022
In recent decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has become increasingly interventionist on issues relating to the appointment and removal of officials. Nondelegation arguments have also escalated and even non-constitutional doctrines such as Chevron are debated in constitutional terms. But according to originalist scholars, who say that the Constitution should be understood based on its meaning at the time of drafting, these are necessary developments. Although I am not an originalist, I had assumed that the originalist case must be a powerful one to justify such a forceful effort to overturn existing precedent. That turns out to have been a mistake on my part. Writing a book on presidential power led me to take a much closer look at the historical record and the recent scholarship on these questions. The work of scholars such as Nicholas Bagley, Daniel Birk, Julian Mortensen, Nicolas Parrillo, and Jed Shugerman, as well as that of their critics, have made me realize that originalist arguments for presidential appointments and removal power and nondelegation positions are not only debatable, but in some cases really shaky.
Robert L. Glicksman | February 2, 2022
During the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior undermined its statutory obligations to protect lands and natural resources managed by the federal government. It also accelerated the extraction of fossil fuels from federal lands and constructed barriers to a shift to renewable energy, hindering efforts to abate climate disruption. On March 15, 2021, the Senate confirmed Deb Haaland as new secretary of the department, which houses the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) -- three agencies that together are responsible for managing millions of acres of some of the nation's most precious terrain. Before Haaland's confirmation, the Center for Progressive Reform identified five priorities for the department. Here is an update on progress so far.
Darya Minovi | February 1, 2022
Climate change is quickly evolving into climate catastrophe, and there’s a narrow window of time to do something about it. While the world works on solutions, there’s surprisingly little focus on the chemical industry, which accounts for roughly 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions -- as well as other environmental harms.
Jake Moore | February 1, 2022
Virginia's recent environmental and climate laws have been heralded as among the nation's most progressive. In recent years, Virginia passed landmark laws supporting renewable energy and environmental justice and joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, priming it to address the challenges posed by growing flood risks, climate-related disasters, and industry-related public health crises. However, Gov. Glenn Youngkin's election has shrouded Virginia's green future in gray.
Daniel Farber | January 31, 2022
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) oversees government regulation across the federal government. Some portray it as a guardian of rationality, others as biased in favor of industry. Public information about OIRA is so limited that it's impossible to know one way or the other, due to the veil of secrecy that surrounds the place.
David Driesen | January 31, 2022
The idea that unelected judges rather than an elected U.S. President should resolve "major questions" that arise in the course of executing law makes no sense. And the idea that major questions should be resolved to defeat policies that the two Houses of the U.S. Congress and the President have agreed to makes even less sense. Yet, the so-called "major questions doctrine" endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court's current majority suggests that the rule of law only governs minor cases, not matters of "vast economic and political significance." In important cases, the Court has abandoned the role that the Administrative Procedure Act assigns it—checking the executive branch when it contravenes the policies that Congress and the President have approved. Instead, it has assumed the role of constraining the faithful execution of the law based on unpredictable judicial fiats.
David Driesen | January 27, 2022
On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions governing requests for emergency stays of two rules protecting Americans from COVID-19. Both rules relied on very similar statutory language, which clearly authorized protection from threats to health. Both of them presented strikingly bad cases for emergency stays. Yet, the Court granted an emergency stay in one of these cases and denied it in the other. These decisions suggest that the Court applies judicial discretion unguided by law or traditional equitable considerations governing treatment of politically controversial regulatory cases.