West Coast’s two monster faults could trigger back-to-back quakes

Damage to Interstate 880 in Oakland after it collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake

By Rong-Gong Lin II, Los Angeles Times

  • New research suggests the San Andreas fault and the Cascadia subduction zone could produce devastating back-to-back earthquake disasters.
  • Scientists found evidence that major Cascadia quakes were followed by large San Andreas earthquakes in 1700 and throughout the last 2,500 years.

They are two of the West Coast’s most destructive generators of huge earthquakes: the San Andreas fault in California and the Cascadia subduction zone offshore of California’s North Coast, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.

The public has often thought of these danger zones as separate entities.

But what if they were capable of back-to-back disasters?

That’s the unsettling possibility described in a groundbreaking new study published recently in the journal Geosphere.

The authors suggest that, for thousands of years, large earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone were quickly followed by large earthquakes on the northern San Andreas fault.

A map of the Cascadia subduction zone
The Cascadia subduction zone, capable of producing a magnitude 9 earthquake, is offshore of California’s North Coast, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.
(John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis / USGS)

In 1700, a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake is believed to have measured around a magnitude 9. Based on archaeological evidence, villages sank and had to be abandoned, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. That earthquake was so powerful, entire sections of the Pacific coastline dropped by as much as 5 feet. In the Pacific Northwest, Native American stories told of “how the prairie became ocean” and canoes were flung into trees.

The study suggests the Cascadia earthquake was followed by a northern San Andreas fault earthquake from Cape Mendocino toward San Francisco, with a magnitude of around 7.9.

Read the full story

If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it. Try it free for a whole month

West Coast’s two monster faults could trigger back-to-back quakes Read More »

EPA Proposes Modifications to its Chemical Risk Evaluation Process

By Maureen O’Dea Brill, Peter N. Coneski, K&L Gates

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a new rule to revise how it evaluates the risks of chemicals currently in use under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This initiative follows a review prompted by Executive Order 14219 and aims to streamline evaluations while aligning with the current administration’s interpretation of TSCA. In response to concerns from the chemical industry and other stakeholders about the burden and complexity of the current risk evaluation process, the proposed modifications aim to streamline evaluations, increase transparency, and ensure a more predictable regulatory process for manufacturers (including importers) of chemical substances.

TSCA requires the EPA to prioritize and evaluate high-priority substances from the TSCA inventory. Risk evaluations under TSCA are primarily initiated by the EPA, either through its prioritization process or in response to manufacturer requests.1 These evaluations are triggered by statutory requirements, emerging scientific evidence, or industry interest in clearing regulatory uncertainty around specific chemicals.2

The EPA uses risk evaluations to determine whether an existing chemical poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment—based solely on scientific risk, not costs or other non-risk factors. These evaluations include unreasonable risks to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation under the specified conditions of use (COUs). COUS are the circumstances under which a chemical is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed, used, or disposed of.

The EPA initially issued its procedural framework rule in 2017 and then revised it in 2024 under the Biden administration to require a single, comprehensive risk determination for each chemical across all COUs. EPA wants to return to evaluating each COU separately, reversing the 2024 rule and returning to the approach established during the first Trump administration.3 The EPA is seeking public comment on whether the procedural framework rule should include regulatory text specifying that the EPA has discretion to exclude COUs, exposure pathways, and routes and to coordinate actions with other EPA-administered laws to ensure that chemical risks “could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent” by other EPA actions, as permitted under TSCA section 9(b). Notably, if the proposed rule is finalized and subsequently challenged, as anticipated, the courts will not defer to either of the EPA’s interpretations. Instead, they will focus on determining the best interpretation of the statute consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).

Read the full story

If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it. Try it free for a whole month

EPA Proposes Modifications to its Chemical Risk Evaluation Process Read More »

Are New Jersey’s Upcoming Electricity Rates Rigged?

In our latest EnviroPolitics interview, we investigate a troubling trend.

New Jersey’s electricity rates are about to soar—and some experts believe the system may be rigged.

Rate expert Lyle Rawlings unpacks the mechanisms behind rate-setting — explores who sets them, who benefits, and raises challenging questions about transparency and accountability.

If you’re a ratepayer, policymaker, or journalist, this is a must-watch exposé on the forces shaping your energy bill.

Watch the full interview here

If you like this interview, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it. Try it free for a whole month

Are New Jersey’s Upcoming Electricity Rates Rigged? Read More »

NJ electric rates are about to soar. Learn why they aren’t justified

After the upcoming November elections, New Jerseyans will face a shocking 18 percent rate hike for their electric service.

Solar energy expert Lyle Rawlings has been reviewing the opaque files of PJM — the entity that oversees electricity rates — and has uncovered a number of questionable factors that the regional energy grid is using to justify its increase.

Tomorrow, in our interview with Lyle, you will learn facts about the murky entity that controls the movement of electricity in all or parts of 13 states .

His findings will leave you disturbed and eager to know more about how your rates are being set (or, should we say, manipulated).

Frank Brill
EnviroPolitics
editor@enviropolitics.com
609-577-9017

NJ electric rates are about to soar. Learn why they aren’t justified Read More »

Neighbors protest NFL owner’s plan to cut down 30 acres of trees 

By Nyah Marshall | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

When a sudden downpour swept through West Orange this summer, Roy Oser stood at his front door and filmed what he called a “rushing river” of water pouring past his walkway.

Flooding is nothing new for the 300-home West Essex Highlands condominium community, which sits at the edge of the Watchung Mountains and backs onto Essex County’s last remaining forests.

But with Zygmunt Wilf, a billionaire developer and co-owner of the NFL’s Minnesota Vikings, proposing to clear part of the forest to make way fora 496-unit apartment complex, residents fear the flooding will only get worse.

“I’ve lived in New Jersey long enough to know you don’t see undeveloped woods just sitting there,” Oser said. “Any increase in flooding would be devastating.”

Oser, a retired lawyer, and his wife moved into their condo in 2018, in a unit that borders the woods.

At the time, he was told wetlands protections would prevent large-scale construction. But two years later, he learned the condo board had quietly signed a settlement with the Wilf family’s company and the township to allow development — without homeowners’ input.

Read the full story

If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it. Try it free for an entire month

Neighbors protest NFL owner’s plan to cut down 30 acres of trees  Read More »