Latency periods vary for PFAS compounds and type of cancer

From the Article by Allen Siegler, Mountain State Spotlight, May 2, 2023

State lawmakers passed the PFAS Protection Act to start controlling pollution in drinking water. While a step in the right direction, many are concerned that it prolongs health hazards for West Virginians.

In the 1990s, when Chuck Crookshanks worked as a teacher at Parkersburg South High, a student told him about her family’s farm and how dozens of their animals had grown physical deformities. “Not only the livestock, but also other animals near it,” Crookshanks recalled. “Deer, frogs and anything else that was around it. It was pretty remarkable.”

He said she was one of the first people he remembers raising concerns with the Washington Works plant in Parkersburg; a few years later, these concerns led to a mid-2000s high-profile lawsuit against chemical company DuPont, a lawsuit which linked the factory’s hazardous chemical pollution to diseases like kidney and testicular cancer.

Those chemicals are now often grouped with a broader group of cancerous, man-made concoctions called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. And PFAS, from both past and present polluters, continue to concern Crookshanks.

His house, between Ravenswood and the unincorporated town of Murraysville, is about 25 miles down the Ohio River from Washington Works. Crookshanks said his wife, Tammy, worries often about what invisible chemicals are present in the water from their well. “She brought it up probably in the last couple of weeks, wanting to get the water tested,” Crookshanks said.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it had reached a deal under the Clean Water Act for the plant, now owned by the Chemours Company, to address PFAS pollution. But the so-called “forever chemicals” have already been found in drinking water systems around the state.

While state lawmakers passed a bill in March to take steps toward identifying and contemplating action for affected public water systems, the bill does not require the state’s Department of Environmental Protection or any other group to remove the chemicals from drinking water yet. As a consequence, experts believe it could be years before many West Virginians can drink tap water and be assured that it won’t increase their risk of diseases like cancer.

“Why do you need another year or two years to figure that out when that’s been known for 22 years?” said Robert Bilott, an attorney with Taft Stettinius & Hollister who has led many lawsuits related to the chemicals.

Some monitoring, and some prolonged unknowns ~ Although there is scientific consensus that they increase health risks, PFAS are still used ubiquitously by manufacturing companies. The chemicals are effective at keeping liquids from seeping through material, and they are commonly used in products like candy bar wrappers and waterproof clothes.

When manufacturing plants use PFAS in their products, they can release them into the soil, water and air. All three methods risk contaminating people’s drinking sources, as chemicals released into the air can be absorbed by rain clouds and solid waste can seep into groundwater.

While the amount of PFAS in water is often highest at sites near polluting factories, it’s not uncommon for the chemicals to contaminate places far from the original source, meaning even West Virginians who live away from factories could still have the chemicals in their water.

“The thing about these forever chemicals is that they don’t break down,” said Angie Rosser, the executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition. “They accumulate in our bodies and accumulate in the food chain.”

The state’s new PFAS Protection Act intends to focus on contamination identified by a 2022 U.S. Geological Survey study of the state’s water treatment facilities. That study found nearly half of the facilities, many along the Ohio River or in the Eastern Panhandle, had at least one hazardous chemical above the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s recently-proposed regulations in their untreated water.

For the sites with documented contamination, the bill tasks the DEP with coming up with action plans that identify the source of the pollution and propose ways to limit West Virginians’ exposure. It also lays out plans for the government agency to test the sites’ water after treatment.

To combat future pollution, the bill requires West Virginia factories that discharge any PFAS into surface water to report that action to the DEP. It will limit the factories’ amount of pollution to the standards set by the federal government, and no more stringent, once they’re proposed and finalized.

While the Legislature did not designate money for the effort, DEP Deputy Director for External Affairs Scott Mandirola said the department is applying for federal grants, like funds from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to develop the action plans. “Our focus is on doing what the Legislature is telling us to do,” Mandirola said.

In the present, the bill doesn’t mandate any cleanup of PFAS in public drinking water. Some of that will likely come in the next two years, after the federal government finalizes its first-ever standards for the chemical under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Rosser worries about whether the action plans will prepare the WV-DEP to enforce the EPA’s future PFAS limits, but she thinks the bill will generate crucial data. “I would characterize it as a measured step,” she said.

Others are concerned the step is too measured, missing key information about the ways in which PFAS can endanger West Virginians’ drinking water. While the bill will provide more information about public water sources, it won’t monitor private wells that many, like Crookshanks, depend on. In an email, bill lead sponsor Clay Riley, R-Harrison, said if the state was to test private water, it would have required an additional bill that involved the Department of Health and Human Resources.

For Dr. Alan Ducatman, a WVU professor emeritus who has spent decades studying PFAS, that’s a big omission, as it’s how hundreds of thousands of West Virginians access water in their homes. “It’s hard to be confident that you know what’s going on if you’re worried about your personal water supply and can’t find that information,” Ducatman said.

Aileen Curfman lives in Berkeley County and also uses well water in her home. As the co-chair of the Sierra Club’s Eastern Panhandle group, she’s aware of the impacts PFAS can have and of the high levels recorded near her. As such, Curfman recently paid hundreds of dollars to test her water for the poisons. “There would be a lot of folks who could not afford it,” Curfman said.

It came back free from the hazardous chemicals. But if it hadn’t, she thinks she would have had to pay around $5,000 for a filter — something she thinks would have been necessary to ensure her water was safe to drink.

‘Getting the stuff out of the water’ ~ From Rosser’s understanding, the earliest that maximum PFAS drinking water contaminant levels would be enforced is 2025, meaning many West Virginians’ water will likely continue to be hazardous for the time being.

Bilott, the attorney who has litigated many PFAS-related cases, believes West Virginia’s continued-prolonging of any chemical cleanup to be unnecessary and inhumane. “DEP was notified that these chemicals were getting into drinking water supplies 22 years ago,” he said. “They should already have been doing this.”

Harry Deitzler, another attorney who has represented West Virginians harmed by PFAS, was dismayed that the state’s new oversight is limited to PFAS discharged directly into rivers and streams. From his experience in lawsuits he’s litigated, a major way the chemicals enter people’s drinking water is when they’re released into the air and enter the water cycle.

Riley didn’t answer why the PFAS Protection Act didn’t address airborne pollution, instead responding that most air regulation comes from the federal government.

When asked what state residents should do until enforcement takes effect, he said the “EPA is still trying to understand the science and impact related to PFAS. I recommend people educate themselves about the topic.”

Bilott rejected the premise that the EPA is still trying to figure out the health impact of the chemicals, and he pointed to their health guidelines released last summer as evidence. He thinks rather than calling for West Virginians to educate themselves, the onus should be on the companies that caused the health hazards. “It shouldn’t be the burden of the impacted community to address that contamination,” Bilott said.

To Ducatman, the professor emeritus with the WVU School of Public Health, there are many more steps both the WV-DEP and the state Legislature could take to protect residents’ health. Those include creating a robust effort to test private wells, prohibiting factories in the state from using PFAS unless the chemicals are essential and monitoring industrial pollution beyond self-reporting.

Ducatman realizes that this type of effort could be costly, time-consuming and resource-intensive. But, from a public health standpoint, he sees it as crucial for West Virginians. “People’s health will improve,” Ducatman said. “Have no doubt about that. Getting the stuff out of the water is good for people.”

Support Mountain State Spotlight ~ We are a nonprofit investigative newsroom that exists to give West Virginians the information they need to make our state a better place. As a nonprofit, we rely on your help to power our journalism. We are committed to lifting up voices that aren’t always heard and spotlighting solutions that are making a difference.

>>>>>>>#######>>>>>>>#######>>>>>>>>

See Also: US EPA Takes Unprecedented Action to Tackle PFAS Water Pollution, Tom Perkins, The Guardian, May 6, 2023

EPA has ordered chemical company Chemours to stop discharging high levels of toxic PFAS into the Ohio River at Parkersburg

Natural gas is primarily methane, i.e. CH4

From the Republican & Herald, Pottsville, PA, October 18, 2022

Schuylkill County, Penna — Cleaner air, progress against dangerous climate-warming and well-maintained highways all are in the public interest, which means that there is no guarantee that any of them will materialize in Pennsylvania — where polarization and parochial politics are more important.

The state government faces a December 16 federal deadline to adopt regulations controlling emissions from gas wells. Although the rules apply primarily to a class of smog-forming gases known as volatile organic compounds, the regulation also would result in reducing emissions of methane — one of the most potent gases responsible for trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Methane is what drilling companies sell as natural gas. Any captured methane would be sold, generating revenue for the companies.

Gas escapes from two types of wells in Pennsylvania — “conventional” vertical wells characteristic of the state’s older drilling industry, and new “unconventional” deep, horizontally drilled wells that mark drilling across the Marcellus Shale fields.

Regulations to better reduce those emissions are required by federal law. Likewise, the federal sanction for not doing so is mandatory rather than discretionary. If the state misses the deadline, the federal government will withhold from Pennsylvania about $450 million in highway funds for this fiscal year. If the delay carries into the next fiscal year, that year’s federal highway funding will be at risk.

This should be an easy one, but this is Pennsylvania. The Department of Environmental Protection broke the regulation into two parts — one covering conventional wells and the other applying to modern wells — after majority Republicans on a House environmental committee objected to the combined rule.

In June, the Environmental Quality Board approved the rule applying to modern wells. And Wednesday, by a 15-3 vote, it approved the regulation for unconventional wells.

But two of the “no” votes came from chairmen of House and Senate committees. They don’t have the power to void the regulation, but they can order a six-month review. That would cause the state to miss the December 16 deadline, putting $450 million in highway funds at risk.

Operators of older wells don’t want to assume the cost of long-overdue environmental regulations. But that narrow interest should not exceed that of Pennsylvanians in healthy air and roads. The obstructionists should get out of the way.

Flares involve incomplete combustion of VOCs & pollution

We Need the Strongest Methane Rule Possible

>>> From the Clean Air Council, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Pittsburgh, June 10, 2022

Later this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be proposing the full version of its much anticipated rule limiting climate-changing methane and asthma-causing volatile organic compound (VOC) pollution from new and existing oil and gas facilities. In a draft rule published by the EPA in November 2021, the EPA specifically requested input about a variety of topics within the rule, such as lowering emissions from orphaned and abandoned wells as well as the logistics of community air monitoring networks.

We need the EPA to propose the strongest rule possible in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, reduce carcinogens like benzene, and reduce VOC pollution that reacts in heat to form dangerous ground-level-ozone (smog). Methane pollution has 87 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time period and, according to the EPA, is responsible for 30% of the increased temperatures and precipitation we are currently experiencing. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has predicted an “above average” hurricane season for the 7th consecutive year.

In addition to the oil and gas industry’s impact on the climate chaos we are currently experiencing, researchers continue to identify new public health issues related to ground-level ozone pollution, the main component of smog. Beyond the well-known effects of smog on your respiratory system leading to conditions like asthma, a recent study has also linked smog pollution to “cognitive decline.”

Please click here to tell the EPA to propose the strongest methane standard for oil and gas facilities possible.

>>> Sincerely, Joseph Otis Minott, Esq., Executive Director and Chief Counsel, Clean Air Council

Jeremy Richardson ~ senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists

From an Article by Mike Tony, Charleston Gazette Mail, October 13, 2021

PHOTO ~ Marion County native Jeremy Richardson, a senior energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, is pictured during an online event Wednesday touting the release of a report he coauthored calling for full remediation of coal ash disposal sites in the Ohio River Valley. The analysis relies on public documents from utility closure plans, coal ash site conditions, economic modeling and alternative closure plan development.

Regional and national clean energy advocacy groups united Wednesday (10/13/21) to release a report suggesting that cleaning up hazardous coal ash in the Ohio River Valley could benefit the area economically as well as environmentally.

The new report “Repairing the Damage ~ Cleaning Up Hazardous Coal Ash Can Create Jobs and Improve the Environment” makes the case that fully remediating coal ash disposal sites would create more jobs and protect communities as more coal plants close in the region amid the nation’s clean energy transition.

The economic analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a national science advocacy nonprofit, and the Ohio River Valley Institute, a Johnstown, Pennsylvania-based nonprofit think tank, cited case studies of two coal ash sites in Kentucky and Ohio finding that full remediation of the sites would create more than $100 million in additional economic activity in each state.

“My excitement about the report is because you just have so much of an opportunity to create so much benefit to the people in the communities that we’re talking about,” said Marion County native Jeremy Richardson, a senior energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists who coauthored the report.

Those communities are economically vulnerable coal communities where coal ash — waste left behind when coal is burned to produce electricity — is a common threat to human health.

Approximately 102 million tons of coal ash was produced in 2018 alone, according to the American Coal Ash Association, an organization that promotes the environmentally responsible use of coal ash as an alternative to disposal.

Coal ash contains contaminants like arsenic, cadmium, chromium and selenium associated with cancer, heart disease, liver and kidney damage. Coal ash is frequently disposed of in surface impoundments or landfills or released into nearby waterways, often under a plant’s water pollution permit.

The analysis notes that more than one out of every five coal ash disposal sites nationwide can be found at operating or retired coal-fired power plants in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana.

The report calls for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to strengthen its enforcement of a 2015 rule that established closure requirements for coal ash disposal sites under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and finalized minimum criteria for groundwater monitoring and corrective action.

The report emphasizes holding utilities and coal ash disposal site owners responsible for fully remediating such sites. “[R]atepayers should not bear the costs without reaping the economic value of full cleanup,” the report says.

The WV Public Service Commission on Tuesday approved $448.3 million in rate recovery for Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power for coal ash disposal and other environmental upgrades federally required to keep three in-state coal-fired power plants operating past 2028.

The report also calls for prioritizing dislocated workers in hiring. Representatives from the Ohio River Valley Institute, nonprofit environmental law group EarthJustice, left-leaning nonprofit think tank Policy Matters Ohio and the ReImagine Appalachia coalition of environmental and community organizations across the region highlighted the report in a press conference and webinar Wednesday.

“Pollution cleanup is essential to ensuring that these areas become places where people can safely live and work,” Amanda Woodrum, senior researcher with Policy Matters Ohio, said.

Extra credit for “responsibly sourced gas” ...???

From an Article by Justin Jacobs, Financial Times, February 23, 2022

Like organic grain or cruelty-free cosmetics, US natural gas producers have embraced a new label to market their fuel to concerned consumers: “responsibly sourced”. Volumes have double for certified fuel but critics raise doubts about environmental standards.

ExxonMobil, EQT and Chesapeake Energy are among the companies supplying gas certified as such by third parties, which say that they monitor for methane leaks and other forms of ecological damage such as spills and water contamination.

Backers hope the outside vetting will ease investor pressure over carbon dioxide and methane emissions from producers and pipelines — and keep sales flowing to increasingly green-minded utilities and international liquefied natural gas buyers.

Critics see “responsibly sourced” gas as the latest example of corporate greenwashing and a poor alternative to strong government regulation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is the primary constituent of natural gas.

Demand for certification is booming. A recent report from Enverus, a consultancy, said that the amount of gas supply certified as “responsibly sourced” was expected to more than double from around 8.7bn cubic feet a day in 2021 to around 20bn cu ft/d in 2022 — roughly a fifth of total US output.

The “responsibly sourced” claim is part of a broader gas industry effort to clean up operations in the face of questions over whether it can survive in a future with lower emissions from fossil fuels.

“If you want to make the world a better place, the answer is not to end fossil fuels next year. That’s just not practical,” said Rich Weber, chief executive of PennEnergy Resources, a large privately held producer in the prolific Marcellus shale region in the US north-east. “The better way is to make sure that natural gas is produced responsibly.” Weber, who has embraced the “responsibly sourced” label, likened the certification schemes to bond ratings from Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s. He said that buyers and investors were starting to “demand” third-party certifications.

Last week the French utility and international gas trader Engie said it had signed a deal to market gas certified as “responsibly sourced” from Range Resources, a major producer in the Marcellus. It was the first such deal that Engie had publicly announced since its widely reported exit from a potential multibillion-dollar contract to export liquefied gas from Texas, in part over emissions concerns.

Ken Robinson, president of Engie Energy Marketing, said in a statement that he expected “continued expansion of these new markets as part of the response to the energy transition.”

The gas sold to Engie was certified by Project Canary, one of a handful of companies offering such programmes. Chris Romer, Project Canary chief executive, said that interest was being driven by producers “choosing to compete based on climate change, not deny climate change.”

“Look, what’s happening is Wall Street investors are walking away from dirty oil and gas companies, so you’ve got to get on the right side of history,” said Romer, who refers to himself as “one of the last Democrats for fracking.”

Along with Project Canary, a for-profit company with private equity backing, the emerging responsibly sourced gas certification industry also includes the non-profit groups MiQ, based in Colorado, and Equitable Origin in New York. Each has its own scoring system and uses different methods to track emissions.

Critics say the differing methods and a lack of transparency around data, which is generally owned by the companies seeking certification, undermines the certificates’ credibility.

“The methane emissions data is, as I see it right now, on really shaky foundations,” said Andrew Baxter, a director at the Environmental Defense Fund. “These voluntary certification schemes can’t be viewed as a substitute for stringent regulatory standards.” Baxter also said the voluntary nature of the programmes created the risk that producers would only put forward their best assets for certification. “Operators can cherry-pick facilities that they know are already low-emitting for certification, whilst they leave the troublemakers uncertified and hidden from view,” he said.

The Biden administration proposed new rules last November that would tighten methane regulations in a bid to combat soaring emissions. Methane has as much as 80 times the warming potential as carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

Natural gas emits about half the carbon dioxide as coal when it is burnt and the US’ shale gas boom has been credited for bringing down the country’s energy-related emissions as it has eaten into coal’s market share. But many environmentalists argue that persistent gas flaring and methane releases undermine claims from the industry that it can be a green fuel.

Buyers such as utilities and power plants, are paying a small premium of several cents per million cubic feet for certified responsibly sourced gas, around 1 to 2 per cent over current natural gas prices, said PennEnergy’s Weber. But analysts say that for gas producers convincing investors that they’re cleaning up their operations is the bigger prize.

“Given where commodity prices are, we see capital cycling back into the industry and investors will be looking at the environmental footprint to differentiate companies,” said Nick Volkmer, an analyst at Enverus. “This is a way to attract capital.”

#######+++++++#######+++++++#######
NOTE: “Responsibly Sourcing” Gas versus “Fracking Responsibly”

Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, From Wikipedia

The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (H.R. 1084, S. 587, dubbed as the FRAC Act) was a 2009 legislative proposal in the United States Congress to define hydraulic fracturing as a federally regulated activity under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The proposed act would have required the energy industry to disclose the chemical additives used in the hydraulic fracturing fluid. The gas industry opposed the legislation.

The bill was introduced to both houses of the 111th United States Congress on June 9, 2009. The House bill was introduced by representatives Diana DeGette, D-Colo., Maurice Hinchey D-N.Y., and Jared Polis, D-Colo. The Senate version was introduced by senators Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The bill was re-introduced to both houses of the 112th United States Congress on March 15, 2011, by Rep. Diana DeGette and Senator Bob Casey.

The FRAC Act was reintroduced by Senator Casey to the 113th United States Congress as S. 1135 on Jun 11, 2013 and again as S. 785 on March 18, 2015 to the 114th United States Congress. Another FRAC Act bill was introduced in the 115th United States Congress by Senator Casey on April 6, 2017 as S. 865.

2015 explosion at Exxon Mobil Corp.'s Torrance, Calif., refinery

From an Article by E.A. Crunden, Greenwire, E&E News, December 2, 2020

EPA will not require three major industries to guarantee funding for toxic waste cleanups under federal Superfund law, finalizing a controversial rule in the last months of the Trump administration.

The agency said it would not mandate the chemical manufacturing, oil and gas, and coal power plant industries to provide financial assurance in the event of major accidents and crises.

“EPA has found that existing environmental regulations and modern industry practices are sufficient to mitigate any risks inherent in these industries,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a statement Wednesday.

The agency said it analyzed the need for new financial assurance requirements for those industries under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), looking at financial risks associated with those sectors. EPA said it also evaluated a range of other factors including the history of Superfund cleanups, economic trends and input from the public in its assessment.

“EPA reviewed and considered public comments to conclude that the level of risk is addressed by existing requirements and does not warrant new requirements for these industries,” the agency stated in its announcement.

That decision means no new rules will be introduced addressing the issue. It runs counter to the Obama administration’s argument that industries should have the financial means to fund toxic waste cleanups to ease strain on the government.

The decision affecting the three industries follows a similar move on hardrock mining. In 2017, the Trump administration opted not to impose new insurance requirements on that industry, generating significant litigation (Greenwire, Dec. 4).

Advocacy organizations have already slammed EPA’s new rule as detrimental for taxpayers and the environment, as well as vulnerable communities. They say companies often declare bankruptcy to avoid liability for cleanups, something financial assurance can help prevent.

“For years, it’s been the most important rule that nobody knows about,” said Lisa Evans, senior counsel for the group Earthjustice, calling EPA’s findings “really a huge step backwards.”

Evans said the move holds outsize environmental justice implications, as industrial sites are often located near low-income communities and people of color. She said financial assurance both guarantees a source of funding for cleanup and encourages companies to adopt safer backups to begin with, limiting the chances of future Superfund sites.

Superfund experts say the program has suffered from chronic underfunding in recent years under Democratic and Republican administrations alike. That limited budget has hindered the pace of cleanups, with more than 1,300 sites currently on the National Priorities List. Proponents of financial assurance see it as a key mechanism for ensuring a responsible party is attached to a site in the case of a cleanup. Accident insurance is an example of a financial assurance mechanism.

The incoming Biden administration is likely to take a different approach and push forward financial assurance rules, but Evans said that would take some time given the nature of the rulemaking process. She criticized the Trump administration’s decision as a last-minute action that could extend that process by several years.

“We’re back to square one,” Evans said.

#####. #####. #####. #####. #####.

See also: One person killed in Belle chemical plant explosion, Charleston Gazette Mail, December 9, 2020

Explosion and fire disturb Kanawha River valley in West Virginia on 12/9/20

Cancer causing chemicals are a major problem

From an Article by Joce Sterman, Alex Brauer and Andrea Nejman, WTOV, September 17, 2020

WILLOWBROOK, Ill. (SBG) —A Spotlight on America investigation discovered an invisible gas may pose a cancer risk to dozens of towns across America. But now, ethylene oxide, a known carcinogen, is taking center stage in a national conversation, with lawsuits filed across the country and Congress calling for accountability.

Willowbrook Mayor Frank Trilla said it was like a nightmare when he found out the people he represents may be at risk of cancer from a toxin in the air. He found out in a letter that landed on his desk in 2018. It was an evaluation of the air by the American Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, that looked at ethylene oxide, or EtO, which was emitted by a medical sterilization facility called Sterigenics. According to the letter, “If measured and modeled data represent typical EtO ambient concentrations in ambient air, an elevated cancer risk exists for residents and off-site workers in the Willowbrook community surrounding the Sterigenics facility. These elevated risks present a public health hazard to these populations.” For the leader of a town of 8,500 people, the information was a shock, but it had to be shared.

“My alternative was throw it in the garbage and pretend it didn’t happen or go public. I had to go public. You can’t not tell the people,” said Willowbrook Mayor Frank Trilla.”

Trilla’s decision set off a heated hometown battle over EtO, that would ultimately end in Sterigenics leaving town. Willowbrook may have been the first to launch the fight, but they’re far from the only place impacted. Ethylene oxide is commonly used at chemical plants and sterilization facilities throughout the U.S., with some estimates claiming emissions could impact up to 288,000 people in 36 states.

An arm of the World Health Organization and Environmental Protection Agency have labeled EtO a carcinogen. According to the EPA, long-term exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of cancers of the white blood cells, including Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and lymphocytic leukemia. The EPA says studies also show that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of breast cancer in females. In 2016, the EPA found that ethylene oxide was 30 times more toxic than originally believed and that people who spend their lifetimes near ethylene oxide facilities are at the greatest risk.

In 2016, EPA said ethylene oxide was 30 times more carcinogenic than previously believed.

According to the EPA’s own Inspector General, 25 communities across the U.S. have been labeled “high priority” by the agency because of elevated cancer risks. But as a Spotlight on America investigation discovered, 16 of those communities still haven’t been warned about the risk by the EPA.

Federal and state lawmakers have been calling for action to address concerns surrounding EtO. Last year, 16 attorneys general wrote the EPA, urging “stricter standards for ethylene oxide emissions.” The attorneys general also called for the EPA to work with the Food and Drug Administration to find alternate methods of sterilization to reduce the use of ethylene oxide.

We are concerned that the current EPA standard for EtO fails to adequately protect workers and communities,” wrote 16 attorneys general in a letter to the agency.

Spotlight on America repeatedly offered on-camera interview opportunities to the EPA. It declined. We also sent the agency a detailed list of specific questions which it failed to answer. Instead, the EPA sent a statement saying:

“As EPA pursues its mission to protect human health and the environment, addressing emissions of ethylene oxide remains a major priority for the Agency. EPA is making steady progress under its two-pronged strategy for addressing ethylene oxide emissions. Under the first prong, EPA is reviewing its air toxics regulations for facilities that emit ethylene oxide. On May 29, 2020, the Agency finalized the review of one of these rules: the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing. This rule, often referred to as the “MON,” will significantly reduce risk from exposure to ethylene oxide and other air toxics at affected facilities. Separately, the Agency is reviewing its NESHAP for ethylene oxide commercial sterilizers and expects to issue a proposal later this year for public review and comment. Under the strategy’s second prong, EPA is providing support to our state and territorial air agency partners as they look more closely at emissions in areas that the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) identified as potentially at increased risk of cancer from continuous, 70-year exposure to ethylene oxide in the outdoor air. Already, this work has led to steps that will reduce emissions at facilities in a number of areas in states such as Colorado, Georgia, Illinois and Missouri – faster than EPA’s rulemaking process can provide. EPA will continue to provide our partner agencies support in both follow-up technical work and in their efforts to share information with the public.”

Lawmakers, including those at the local and federal level, have been critical of the EPA’s response to ethylene oxide emissions. In an interview with Spotlight on America, Congressman Bill Foster, D-Ill., who serves on a bipartisan congressional task force on ethylene oxide, criticized the agency for sending an inexperienced representative to answer questions and handle response during a town hall meeting in Willowbrook, back in 2018. Foster and Willowbrook Mayor Frank Trilla sat front and center at that meeting, which was attended by hundreds of residents.

On Capitol Hill this summer, Senator Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., and Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., introduced legislation requiring the EPA to improve monitoring for toxic pollutants like EtO, through deploying new air quality sensors and expanding the air monitoring network currently in place. But some have raised concerns that air quality monitors at EtO facilities may not even work. In May, a coalition of nearly 60 Congressional lawmakers wrote to the EPA to request information about how air pollution data is collected. The letter asked whether the EPA planned to implement fenceline monitoring near sources of ethylene oxide, and asked whether the agency was taking action to protect communities where an air monitor detected air pollution. Spotlight on America discovered, that request for information was never answered.

Part of the problem, according to experts like Genna Reed, lead science and policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is that in the absence of stronger action from the EPA, the industry often polices itself when it comes to reporting potential hazards determined through air monitoring. “Where these monitors are, how often they’re running, all of the burden of making sure that data is accurate and gets to the agency is put on industry,” Reed told us. “So, you have to hold industry accountable.”

That’s where attorney Shawn Collins comes in. He represents 85 people in Willowbrook, mostly cancer patients, who blame their sickness on EtO emissions from the Sterigenics facility in town. Similar lawsuits have also been filed in several other states related to other ethylene oxide facilities. “The focus needs to be where it belongs,” Collins told us. “If you’re making the profit, it’s your job to make sure you’re not hurting your neighbors.” Collins told us the science surrounding ethylene oxide’s link to cancer is indisputable, and he’s prepared to prove it in court. With regard to companies emitting EtO in residential communities, he said, “They’re playing Russian roulette with their health and their lives.”

Carol Tufo has endured extensive chemotherapy & radiation treatment

“It just seems common sense that you can’t spew poison in the air,” said Carol Tufo. “Especially in a residential community.”

Today, the Sterigenics facilities in Willowbrook are shut down, after public outcry, but the lawsuits are the start of another chapter. Since Sterigenics shut down, Illinois passed a unique state law barring sterilizing facilities from operating unless they can contain 100% of EtO emissions.

Spotlight on America contacted Sterigenics over the course of the last three months, offering the opportunity to do an on-camera interview on numerous occasions. The company declined, but has created a website detailing its response to developments related to Willowbrook. The company provided this statement to Spotlight on America:

“Sterigenics plays a vital role in providing critical medical care to millions of people. Hospitals and patients in the United States and around the world depend on Sterigenics’ ethylene oxide sterilization process as the safe, effective, and FDA-compliant way to sterilize surgical kits, devices used in cardiac procedures, syringes and IV tubing, protective barriers to prevent infection, and many other vital medical products and devices. We remain committed to safely meeting their needs.”

“Sterigenics empathizes with anyone battling cancer, but we are confident that our Willowbrook operations are not responsible for causing the illnesses the lawsuits allege. The science does not support the plaintiffs’ claims in these cases. As we have stated previously, we intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs’ unfounded and meritless claims.”

Mayor Frank Trilla can still see the former Sterigenics building from his window at Village Hall. His souvenir from the battle to have the facilities shut down is a box full of documents about EtO and Sterigenics. Still, he told us, he looks forward to someone taking over the space for a new purpose. “I’m not going to rest until there’s new tenants in the buildings,” he said. “It’s not over until it’s over.”

CH4, methane leaks and vents and flares are significant pollutants

Dear Friends & Concerned Citizens, September 15, 2020

President Trump just announced the finalization of his reckless rollback of methane pollution standards for oil and gas facilities built since 2015. Methane is 87 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time period. 25 percent of the effects of climate change we see today are caused by methane pollution.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just recorded Summer 2020 as the hottest ever in the Northern Hemisphere. This is no time to eliminate greenhouse gas pollution standards.

Please tell your federal elected officials to publicly denounce the finalization of this dangerous backslide of public health protections and to support the lawsuit against it. Real science and direct reporting show leaks are being underreported by up to 60%, and industry production is expected to significantly increase in the next 5 years.

The EPA admits on its own website that this rollback would raise methane emissions by 370,000 tons before 2025.

This harmful rollback of critical air quality standards during a pandemic threatens the health and safety of every person in the U.S., and disproportionately Black and Brown communities.

The last thing that communities already bearing a heavier public health burden need is the elimination of pollution protections that keep them safe.

Tell your elected officials to denounce the finalization of this dangerous backslide … !!!

Sincerely, Joseph Otis Minott, Esq.
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Clean Air Council — Clean Air Council

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: “Clean Air Council Condemns EPA’s Dangerous Rollback of Methane Protections,” August 13, 2020

PHILADELPHIA, PA (August 13th, 2020) – Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its unlawful rollback of the 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector, directly contradicting EPA’s obligations under the Clean Air Act. The NSPS has been in full effect and successfully implemented for years now and has prevented millions of tons of methane, an extremely potent climate pollutant, from leaking into the atmosphere. The NSPS rollback has faced major opposition from the general public, scientists, health experts, and even major oil and gas companies, including Exxon Mobil and BP. Methane leaks at every phase across the oil and gas supply chain, and is responsible for about one quarter of the anthropogenic climate change we are experiencing today.

In addition, other harmful pollutants, including known carcinogens such as benzene, leak alongside methane from oil and gas operations. The 2016 NSPS required natural gas drilling companies to perform routine, commonsense inspections and repair leaks at oil and gas facilities. EPA’s unlawful rollback reduces inspection frequency substantially despite no factual basis in the record for doing so. Indeed, the evidence is clear that frequent inspections are necessary to identify leaks, that doing so is cost-effective, and that inspections actually generate substantial savings for operators.

Methane is 25 to 40 times more damaging than carbon dioxide as a GHG

From an Article by Reid Frazier, StateImpact Pennsylvania, August 13, 2020

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler came through Pittsburgh Thursday to announce a rollback of an Obama-era regulation on climate-warming methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.

Big oil companies favored the rules, which curb powerful greenhouse gas pollution. And, some states have their own controls on methane. Natural gas is most often between 80 to 90% methane, CH4.

The rule requires oil and gas companies to monitor and fix leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and applies to new wells, pipelines and other infrastructure. In making the announcement, Wheeler said it was redundant with rules that make companies fix leaks of smog forming volatile organic compounds.

“In reality, these emissions are already captured by other means,” Wheeler said, to a room of masked reporters, local Republican elected officials, and Trump administration officers at the not-for-profit Energy Innovation Center.

“Industry already has more than enough incentive to capture methane without reporting requirements and other obligations,” Wheeler said. “Methane is the key constituent of natural gas and a valuable commodity. So companies are motivated to keep it in the pipeline system.”

The rollback removes transmission and storage facilities from methane monitoring requirements, and rescinds emission limits for methane from the production and processing of oil and gas. It also reduces monitoring of leaks at compressor stations, which process oil and gas, from quarterly to twice a year, and exempts lower-producing wells from some monitoring requirements.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas — 25 times “better” at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over the course of a century, and even stronger on shorter time scales. It’s responsible for around 17 percent of global warming to date, according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The rollback is opposed by environmental groups, but also by large oil and gas companies, who argue it undercuts the climate benefits of natural gas use.

Shell US president Gretchen Watkins said in a statement the company has “consistently urged the Trump Administration to directly regulate methane emissions” from oil and gas operations. “The negative impacts of leaks and fugitive emissions have been widely acknowledged for years, so it’s frustrating and disappointing to see the Administration go in a different direction,” Watkins said.

But, according to Wheeler, the rollback would save money for smaller companies, which he credited with creating a drilling boom around the country. “The big multinational corporations are in a much better position than some of the small or medium-sized (companies)” to comply with the Obama-era methane rules, he said.

Wheeler said the rollback would save the oil and gas industry between $17 and $19 million a year. “These are important savings, especially to small and mid-sized oil and gas operators,” Wheeler said. “It’s important, vitally important to remember that it was the small exploration companies, not the multinational corporations, that made the breakthroughs here in the Marcellus Shale.”

Environmental groups in Pennsylvania say the rollback increases the stakes for Governor Tom Wolf’s attempts to regulate methane leaks in the commonwealth. “As the federal government is stepping back, it becomes even more important for states to step up,” said Matthew Garrington, senior manager of state campaigns for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Pennsylvania already has methane rules for wells that went into service after 2018. The Wolf administration is crafting rules that would apply to tens of thousands of existing wells in the state. Those rules would apply mainly to deeper Marcellus shale wells. Garrington said they should also apply to shallow conventional wells, which the EDF estimates account for around half of Pennsylvania’s methane emissions.

Other states, like Ohio and Colorado, also have their own methane rules, but Garrington said there are plenty that do not. “If we’re going to address climate change, we need a strong federal floor when it comes to requirements to reduce emissions across the oil and gas supply chain,” Garrington said.

Several environmental groups announced they will sue the Trump administration to prevent the rule from taking effect.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

SEE ALSO: The science and impact of climate change, KSAT Explains, San Antonio, August 14, 2020

Episode 9 of “KSAT Explains” covers what the future climate of Texas will look like, why you should care and what made the issue so polarizing.

Don’t Allow More Toxins in West Virginia’s Waters

From the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, 5/11/20

Watch our new video fact sheet on human health criteria by clicking here in this sentence.

Source: WV Rivers Coalition, Charleston, WV

Right now, in the midst of a public health crisis, the WVDEP is proposing to allow even more dangerous toxins in our water. Act Now! Tell WVDEP to respect your water and your health, don’t allow more toxins in West Virginia’s water!

WVDEP’s proposal is related to a critical portion of West Virginia’s water quality standards called human health criteria. Human health criteria determines how much of a dangerous toxin can be in our water before it harms our health.

West Virginia’s current human health criteria is based on data that is nearly 40-years old and citizen advocates have long fought for more protective criteria. Sadly, WVDEP’s proposal exposes us to higher amounts of certain toxic chemicals and known carcinogens. It also leaves out updated protections for several toxins the EPA has recommended WV to adopt since 2015.

Enough is enough! Demand WVDEP respect your water and your health, tell them not to allow more toxins in West Virginia’s water.

Act Now — It’s hard to believe that WVDEP is even considering such a proposal at a time when public health is a global priority. Speak up for clean water and public health! Tell WVDEP not to allow more toxins in our water!

You can submit comments on the proposed rule through May 19th. So Act Now on this important issue. See our WV Rivers Coalition website here for more information.

West Virginia Rivers Coalition
3501 MacCorkle Ave SE #129 | Charleston, West Virginia 25304
304-637-7201 | wvrivers@wvrivers.org