Firefighting foam leaves a toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water

Bethany Slavic Missionary Church

By DAVID S. CLOUD, ANNA M. PHILLIPS, TONY BARBOZA, LA Times
OCT. 8, 2019 3 AM

SACRAMENTO —  It was a Sunday tradition at Bethany Slavic Missionary Church. After morning services, Florin Ciuriuc joined the line of worshipers waiting to fill their jugs with gallons of free drinking water from a well on the property, a practice church leaders had encouraged.

“I take it for my office every week,” said Ciuriuc, a 50-year-old Romanian immigrant and a founding member of the largely Russian-speaking church, which claims 7,000 congregants.

Church leaders boasted it was the cleanest water in Sacramento, according to Ciuriuc. In fact, test results showed the water contained toxic chemicals from firefighting foam used for decades on a now-shuttered Air Force base a mile away. Church leaders say they did not understand their well was contaminated.

The church’s well is one of thousands of water sources located on and near military bases polluted with chemicals from the foam, which was used by the armed services since the 1960s.

Defense Department officials know that the chemicals, called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have seeped into the groundwater underneath nearly two dozen military bases throughout the state. But the department has conducted only limited testing off base and cannot say how many civilian water sources they’ve polluted or who will pay for it.

Since 2016, when the Environmental Protection Agency classified PFAS as an “emerging contaminant” linked to liver cancer and other health problems, the Pentagon has found the pollutants at levels above federal health guidelines in soil and groundwater at more than 90 bases nationwide.

Bethany Slavic Missionary Church

California has the most of any state, with contamination at 21 bases, including six where the chemicals threaten the water supply in nearby communities, according to a review of hundreds of pages of Defense Department records by the Los Angeles Times.

In Riverside County, Barstow, Orange County and Sacramento, PFAS have been detected in private wells or public water systems outside the boundaries of military installations, records show.

At Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos and Fresno Air National Guard Base, the chemicals are suspected of moving into the community water supply.

One military contractor warned in September that residents “using groundwater for drinking water” near Los Alamitos “may potentially be exposed to migrating PFAS contamination.” Another contractor said in March that five wells west of the Fresno airfield could be affected.

But the Pentagon has not completed off-base testing at either location, and at other California bases, leaving the full extent of the contamination unknown.

The Pentagon faces the prospect of a gigantic environmental cleanup that officials estimate could cost in excess of $2 billion and take decades to complete. The day Defense Secretary Mark Esper took office in July, he appointed a task force to oversee the Pentagon response.

Wherever they have already found PFAS in drinking water above the EPA health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion, the military has supplied bottled water, paid for filters and purchased clean water for both military personnel and civilians, officials say.

Firefighting foam

“Our first priority is to cut off human exposure, and everywhere we’ve identified that someone’s drinking water is above the EPA health advisory level, we are doing everything we can to provide alternative drinking water,” Maureen Sullivan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for environment, said in an interview.

Citing limited funds from Congress for cleanup and testing, the Defense Department only acts when water sampling finds contamination levels above EPA health advisory level for two of the most common variations of PFAS.

The threshold, which was set in 2016, is nonbinding, and officials in several states have set much more stringent standards. Congress is currently debating whether to force the Trump administration to adopt an enforceable nationwide standard, a proposal the White House has said it opposes.

California regulators have few legal tools to force the Pentagon to expand its sampling to groundwater near bases.

“We’re doing everything we can to compel the owner, the Department of Defense, to conduct the investigations, to show us it’s not a problem,” said Doug Smith, assistant executive officer with Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, which monitors groundwater at seven California bases.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research organization, about 85% of Californians depend on groundwater for some portion of their water supply.

Regulators and environmental groups warn that the slow pace of Pentagon testing has left an unknown number of people drinking contaminated water.

“The PFAS plumes are spreading near these military bases, and DOD is turning a blind eye,” said Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, an environmental group that has pushed for more stringent PFAS cleanup standards.

Ruben Mendez

‘Forever chemicals’ spread

Nationwide, the chemicals have been found at 401 current and former military bases. When testing was conducted off-base, the pollutants were found in 1 in 4 wells and water systems, according to a 2018 Pentagon report to Congress.

Among them is the well at Ruben Mendez’s home in the Inland Empire.

Mendez said he had no reason to think something was wrong with his well water until Air Force officials knocked on his door a few years ago.

“They said, ‘We spilled something, and you need to stop drinking the water for a while,’” Mendez said in an interview on the front porch of his peach-colored home.

In 1993, when the Mendez family built the ranch-style home that Ruben, 64, and his 91-year-old mother now share, they settled on property about a mile southeast of March Air Reserve Base. They had a private well dug more than 400 feet down, and for years authorities came every few months to test the water. Mendez said he attributed these visits to his home’s proximity to the base.

March Air Reserve Base

In 2016, after the EPA set its health advisory, officials abruptly told the Mendezes and another family nearby to stop drinking the water.

“We thought we had nice, clean water,” Mendez said.

At that point, the Air Force “immediately contacted the two private well owners, provided them with bottled water and advised them not to use the well for any consumption purposes,” Air Force spokesman Mark Kinkade said.

The Air Force delivered free five-gallon jugs of water to the Mendez home for more than two years. In 2018, it paid to have the house connected to the municipal water system. Ruben Mendez said he now pays $100 a month for water he used to get for free.

Ruben Mendez

The toxic plume that spread from the base has also made its way into the public drinking-water system.

The Eastern Municipal Water District, which supplies a swath of the Inland Empire that is home to some 825,000 people — from Temecula to Moreno Valley and Perris to Hemet — closed one of its large supply wells in 2016 when the EPA set its new health advisory level for the chemicals.

“We took that well out of service the same day,” said Lanaya Alexander, the water district’s senior director of water resources planning.

But the chemicals had spread further south. In February, after a second well tested above California’s notification level, the district shut it down too.

An emerging health threat

Often referred to as “forever chemicals,” PFAS can persist indefinitely in the ground and water, be absorbed into people’s blood and accumulate in their bodies for years.

Some states and public health advocates say PFAS are harmful at much lower levels than the federal health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion. California requires state regulators to be notified at levels as low as 5.1 parts per trillion.

In January, a new state law will mandate that customers be told if any of the chemicals are detected.

Contamination from these chemicals come from many sources, not just aircraft foam. They were widely used in commercial products like nonstick pans, waterproof clothing and food packaging.

In Southern California, a major source of the pollutants is believed to be chrome-plating factories.

Most vulnerable are mothers and young children, whose reproductive and developmental health can be altered by even tiny amounts of the chemicals being passed to fetuses during pregnancy and to nursing infants through breast milk.

Since only small amounts can be absorbed through the skin, the greatest risk of exposure is from drinking contaminated water.

Firefighting foam is considered a major contributor to the contamination, because it contains high concentrations of PFAS. Developed by the Navy and 3M Co., the chemicals create a film that cools burning aircraft fuel and blankets flammable vapors.

Foam used in plane crash

Because of concerns about PFAS contamination, the Pentagon promised in 2016, after the EPA issued its health advisory, that it would phase out use of the foam. It has halted its use in training, but continues to apply it in aircraft fires.

Outrage over PFAS contamination has been building in the Midwest and on the East Coast for years, where companies like 3M, DuPont and its spin-off, the Chemours Co., which made the chemicals, have sought to downplay their health risks.

New Hampshire has set some of the toughest PFAS drinking-water limits in the country. Pennsylvania has tested the blood of residents in heavily-affected areas to measure their exposure. New Mexico’s attorney general sued the Air Force this year to compel the military to pay for the cleanup of two contaminated bases.

But in California, which state regulators say does not have any companies that manufactured PFAS, the scope of the contamination is only beginning to be understood.

California regulators have launched a multi-part investigation, focusing first on more than 600 drinking-water wells located within one or two miles of commercial airports and municipal landfills, where discarded household items release the chemicals.

They plan to widen their search in the coming months, sampling water from wells near military bases and manufacturing plants.

“We’re going to take it case by case,” said Dan Newton of the state Water Resources Control Board. “Where we find hot spots, we may chase those out further to identify plumes or areas of concern.”

Georgia base

High levels found, but not enough testing

One of the California bases with the highest levels of on-base contamination, Edwards Air Force Base, has carried out little testing off-site.

A vast aircraft testing facility in the high desert north of Lancaster, Edwards has 24 contaminated sites where firefighting foam was sprayed heavily.

At a training site where firefighters practiced dousing flames with the toxic foam, the contamination level in soil samples reached 18,000 parts per trillion, more than 250 times higher than the EPA threshold, according to a contractor’s 2018 report to the Air Force.

Tests of the base’s drinking water did not show high readings. Still, the environmental testing company hired by the military called for further investigation into whether chemicals from the foam were leaching into the groundwater, noting at least “39 off-base water supply wells are within a 4-mile radius” of a contaminated site at Edwards.

Federal and state regulators agreed that more testing was necessary.

In March, the EPA complained in an email to base authorities that while the base was conducting limited testing, it had made “no commitment to ensure the nature and extent of … PFAS contamination is investigated.”

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control recommended in a July 22 letter to base officials that the Air Force expand its testing to include off-base wells.

Sanford Nax, a spokesman for the agency, acknowledged that regulators were concerned about “the limited nature of the sampling.”

The Air Force is preparing to do further on-base testing next month near the base’s northern boundary, it said in a statement. None of the 24 contaminated sites found at the base to date “are in close proximity to any on-base or off-base drinking water wells,” it said.

If future sampling finds contaminated drinking water that exceeds the EPA recommended level, “we will immediately provide alternate drinking water to impacted residences and facilities and begin working with the community and state regulators,” the statement added.

Other bases have even higher PFAS contamination.

At China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, a massive Navy testing facility and airfield near Ridgecrest, groundwater samples in 2017 turned up PFAS levels of 8 million parts per trillion, the highest in California.

Sampling in 2017 at Naval Base Ventura County found PFAS contamination of 1.08 million parts per trillion.

And near San Francisco, at Naval Air Station Alameda, the levels reached 336,000 parts per trillion, while at Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, a shuttered base in Orange County, samples were as high as 770,000 parts per trillion.

Recently released Pentagon documents obtained through a public records request by the Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy group, showed three more bases in California with elevated contamination levels.

They include Joint Forces Training Base, a California National Guard airfield in Los Alamitos, and Ft. Hunter Liggett, an Army training base in southern Monterey County. The third, Sierra Army Depot, a military storage facility, is located north of Lake Tahoe.

Although the military has tested on-base at all of the facilities, their response to the spreading of the contaminants to off-base drinking supplies has been spottier.

California regulators say there is little they can do to speed up the military’s testing or cleanup efforts around its contaminated bases. Because the EPA has delayed setting a standard for cleaning up groundwater contamination, the military has avoided large-scale remediation costs.

Mather Airport

Growing frustration with Pentagon response

In Rancho Cordova, a city of more than 72,000 people just east of Sacramento that abuts the former Mather Air Force Base, a drinking-water well owned by the California American Water Co., one of four utilities that sells water to the town’s residents, has been contaminated.

City Manager Cyrus Abhar said that when the tainted water was discovered, the Air Force assured him it would deal with the problem.

“The Air Force is not going to leave the local communities holding the bag,” Abhar said.

But several years after test results showed high PFAS readings, the Air Force has largely evaded responsibility for removing the contaminant.

Instead, California American Water has spent $1.3 million to build a treatment plant that filters PFAS out of the groundwater. The Air Force has not reimbursed it for this expense, said Evan Jacobs, a California American Water spokesman.

In a statement, the Air Force said, “Congress has provided no authority” to pay for constructing the facility, but that it was in negotiations with the company to pay for its operation costs.

In a sign of growing frustration with the Defense Department, the company has filed a property damage claim against the Air Force — a first step before a lawsuit.

Tim Miller, California American Water’s senior director of water quality, warned regulators at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board last spring that the Mather PFAS plume could grow.

“The risk of PFAS contamination continuing to spread in the groundwater basin underneath the city of Rancho Cordova is increasing,” he said.

If no one acted to prevent it, Miller said, the chemicals could leach into five more drinking-water wells within the next five years.

The pollutants have already reached Bethany Slavic Missionary Church, which is housed in a former health club a mile from Mather.

A deep well on the property supplies the Pentecostal church with its drinking water and is used to fill an outdoor swimming pool for baptisms.

Ciuriuc, one of the church’s founders, said he had no idea the Air Force was regularly testing the well for PFAS — or that the tests showed the contaminant level had risen from 14 parts per trillion in 2016 to 50 parts per trillion two years later.

Bethany Slavic Missionary Church

When the well was tested again in March, the chemicals had climbed to 59 parts per trillion, according to a letter disclosing the results the Air Force sent to the church’s pastor, Adam Bondaruk.

“The sample results” are “below the United States Environmental Protection Agency Lifetime Health Advisory level of 70 parts per trillion,” said the letter, a copy of which was provided by the church. “The Air Force is committed to protecting human health and the environment.”

Since the letter made no recommendations to limit use of the well for drinking water, the church initially took no action. When another sample was taken in June, it showed the contaminant level had dropped sharply — back to 16 parts per trillion.

But the church recently started taking precautions, after inquiries from The Times. Ciuriuc stopped taking water every Sunday. Highlands Community Charter School, which leases space from the church, began offering bottled water to its 44 adult students who attend class there.

Last month, church leaders padlocked the well.

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics.
It’s packed 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. No obligation.

Firefighting foam leaves a toxic legacy in Californians’ drinking water Read More »

EPA sued by Alaska Natives and fishermen or reversing Pebble Mine decision

Lakes fan out beneath the wing of a float plane as it flies above tundra in July near the site of Pebble Mine in Alaska.
A floatplane flies over the tundra in July near the site of Pebble Mine, a proposed open-pit copper and gold mine in southwest Alaska.(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

By RICHARD READ, LA Time Seattle Bureau Chief
OCT. 8, 2019 4:12 PM

SEATTLE —Trump administration officials broke the law when they reversed course and gave a green light to a proposed copper and gold mine near Alaska’s Bristol Bay, mining opponents said in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

Alaska Native, commercial fishing and economic development organizations said the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision July 30 to step aside and let the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determine whether to permit the Pebble Mine was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion” and illegal.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Anchorage is the latest challenge to the project that the EPA’s Seattle branch criticized in written comments July 1 before abruptly reversing course, withdrawing the agency’s option to block the proposed open-pit copper and gold mine. Last year, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to preserve the agency’s veto option over the Army Corps permitting process, saying that mining in Bristol Bay’s headwaters could risk harming the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery.

Representatives of the groups that filed the suit said at a news conference Tuesday in Anchorage that the Trump administration’s reversal ignored years of EPA research and public comments.

Don’t miss stories like this Click to receive free updates

“The politicians jumped in and changed the rules at the last minute,” said commercial fisherman Robin Samuelsen Jr., board chairman of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp., one of the plaintiffs.

An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment. The lawsuit names as defendants the EPA, its general counsel, Matthew Leopold, and agency Seattle Administrator Chris Hladick.

Mike Heatwole, a spokesman for the mining company, Pebble Ltd. Partnership, said that decisions on a “proposed determination,” as the EPA’s veto option is called, are “clearly within the discretion” of the agency administrator.

The suit argues that the agency changed course without good reason or explanation required by law, and asks that a judge nullify the move.|
_______________________________________________________________________________

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics.
It’s packed 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. No obligation.


EPA sued by Alaska Natives and fishermen or reversing Pebble Mine decision Read More »

NJ Transit’s self-driving shuttle could revolutionize transportation in NJ

By Michael Hill, NJTV News Correspondent | October 8, 2019, 5PM EST

Solutions engineer Aaron Foster offered a show-and-tell tour of Navya’s autonomous Michigan-made electric, self-driving vehicle to vendors at 2019’s NJ Council on Special Transportation Expo. With top speeds of 15 miles an hour and a maximum of 15 passengers, the shuttle is already earning positive feedback from test subjects, according to Foster.

“When they get a chance to ride, they say it’s like something at Disney World. It’s just so smooth,” he said.

If funding comes through for a pilot program, there’s a plan to test in New Jersey. For two years, Rutgers and NJ Transit will put three of the vehicles on the road at Fort Monmouth, not on regular streets around New Jersey. They plan to test them, vet them and see how well they perform.

Expo-goers posted one-word descriptions of it: “dangerous,” “innovative,” “futuristic.”

“I think it’s revolutionary,” said Total Transportation Corp’s corporate safety director Brandon Fox. “I think it would help our transportation needs very much with potential driver shortages.”

But, no steering wheel? No driver?

“I think it would be difficult for the consumer to swallow, but I think after the testing and proven testing, I think they would be able to trust the system and have it work in their best interest,” said Fox.

Jack Dean, program director of research and community services at NJ Transit, was left with a few questions about the vehicle.

“How is it controlled? How does it drive?” asked Dean. “And I think that’s the first important thing: safety. Is it safe to ride in? Is it safe to drive near? Is it safe to ride a bicycle around it? And so I think it really needs to prove itself, first and foremost, that it’s a safe technology, and build trust with the communities.”

Among the answers sought in the federally-funded research: How would the shuttle perform in New Jersey’s four-season weather?

“We’re using satellites as our main sensor system for finding ourselves. We’re not using cameras to look at lane lines. That can get covered up with snow or look for stop signs that can get knocked over,” said Foster. “So we wanted it to be as accurate and repeatable as possible. The fact that the LiDAR sensors are monitoring 360 degrees around the vehicle, sending out beams of light tens of thousands of times per second, they have a much better understanding of the environment than any human could. Even a team of humans wouldn’t be able to operate this safely.”

Foster says artificial intelligence makes autonomous vehicles safer because they react faster than humans, whose errors account for 93% of highway traffic deaths, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

“We have some emergency stop buttons just in case anyone feels unsafe on the vehicle,” said Foster.

The autonomous shuttle is for short hauls on a campus, in a city, and around town – not the highway. NJ Transit envisions it as multi-use, including for seniors and those with disabilities, once it’s equipped for accessibility. The transit agency says after two years of testing, it will offer transportation companies the research results so they can decide whether to steer their fleet toward shuttles without steering wheels. __________________________________________________________________________________
If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics.
It’s packed 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. No obligation.

NJ Transit’s self-driving shuttle could revolutionize transportation in NJ Read More »

Extinction Rebellion protesters pour fake blood over New York’s capitalist bull

Demonstrators were arrested in a wave of US protests that are part of a global week of action by the UK-based group

Oliver Milman reports for The Guardian in New York 
Last modified on Mon 7 Oct 2019 17.09 EDT

Extinction Rebellion climate crisis activists protest at New York City’s famous Charging Bull statue.

More than 20 people were arrested by police in New York City’s financial district after Extinction Rebellion climate protesters poured fake blood over the famous Charging Bull statue, a symbol of American capitalist might.

The protesters launched a wave of disruptive protests in the city on Monday. A smaller number of arrests were made at a “die in” outside New York’s stock exchange, with protesters subsequently blocking a nearby road to traffic.

Protests are also taking place in other US cities, including Washington DC and Chicago, as part of a global week of action by the UK-founded activist group, which is seeking to make its first major mark in America.

Climate crisis activists demonstrate in New York City where Extinction Rebellion organizers expect several thousand to congregate this week.
 Climate crisis activists demonstrate in New York City where Extinction Rebellion organizers expect several thousand to congregate this week. Photograph: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

Extinction Rebellion organizers expect several thousand people will congregate in New York’s Washington Square Park for a week of protests and speeches that are expected to involve actions that will prompt further arrests.

“There will be broad disruption of business as usual,” said a New York-based Extinction Rebellion spokesman. “Frankly we don’t have time to wait for an opportune moment. Climate breakdown is under way and we can’t afford to wait.”

Like this? Click to receive free EnviroPolitics Blog updates

Extinction Rebellion has a philosophy of nonviolent direct action aimed at pushing governments to confront the climate crisis. A key demand is that planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions are reduced to net zero within six years.

A climate crisis activist covered in fake blood is arrested in New York City during the Extinction Rebellion demonstration.
 A climate crisis activist covered in fake blood is arrested in New York City during the Extinction Rebellion demonstration. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP via Getty Images

The activist network has gained a high profile in the UK, following successful attempts to shut down parts of central London. Activists are hoping for a similar impact in the US, despite concerns over a more aggressive style of policing and an unsympathetic federal government, led by Donald Trump, that actively promotes fossil fuels and is regularly derisive of climate science.

“We need to account for the damage caused by fossil fuels because we have the chance of losing it all,” said Jim Navarre, a protestor from New York’s Long Island who help up a sign reading “You can’t comb over climate change” with a picture of Trump’s hair atop the globe.

Extinction Rebellion: 280 arrested in central London protests

Climate crisis activists gather in Battery Park during Extinction Rebellion demonstrations in New York.
 Climate crisis activists gather in Battery Park during Extinction Rebellion demonstrations in New York. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP via Getty Images

Yana Landowne, also from New York, said she was inspired to join the protests by British friends. “I see this as a movement I need to get behind, I realized I had to bring my whole being to this movement,” she said.

The stock exchange protest featured a mock funeral with people strewn on the ground, covered in blood. Tombstones mentioning hurricanes and fires made worse by the climate crisis were held aloft, along with a coffin with the words “Our future” written on the side. A New Orleans-style funereal band played for the several hundred protestors.

“It’s a powerful message,” Landowne said. “But more than death I fear living amongst the terror of people killing each other for water and food.

__________________________________________________________________________________

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics.
It’s packed 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. No obligation.

Extinction Rebellion protesters pour fake blood over New York’s capitalist bull Read More »

Baltimore City Council amends proposed plastic bag ban to allow for continued use of thicker bags

Kevin Rector reports for the Baltimore Sun
Oct 7, 2019 | 5:30 pm

A Baltimore City Council committee sided with retailers and against environmentalists in amending a proposed ban on plastic bags so that it only applies to particularly thin bags. In this file photo, a plastic bag is shown along a Virginia road.
A Baltimore City Council committee sided with retailers and against environmentalists in amending a proposed ban on plastic bags so that it only applies to particularly thin bags. In this file photo, a plastic bag is shown along a Virginia road.

A Baltimore City Council committee sided with retailers by voting Monday to amend a proposed ban on plastic bags so that it only applies to particularly thin bags, a move that upset environmentalists and the bill’s sponsor.

The amendment reduced the proposed threshold for banned bags from 4 mils — a mil is one thousandth of an inch — to 2.25 mils.

Retailers say bags that are 2.25 mils are reusable, and so should not be banned.

Environmentalists say such bags are barely distinguishable from the thinner grocery bags that can be found strewn throughout the community, and often enter the waste stream after a single use — just like the more common, thinner bags that still would be banned.

Related: Baltimore could become the latest city to outlaw plastic bags »

Democratic Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke, vice chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee, called the proposal “ridiculous” and asked that it be tabled so that members could have more time to consider it. She was particularly concerned she hadn’t heard of the proposed change before Monday’s meeting. Democratic Councilwoman Shannon Sneed asked committee members to delay any vote until they could examine bags of different thicknesses.

But Councilman Eric Costello, the committee chairman, was joined by councilmen John Bullock, Leon Pinkett and Robert Stokes in a 4-2 vote approving the change, which Costello said was also supported by Mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young and Council President Brandon Scott. All are Democrats.

Democratic Councilman Bill Henry, the bill’s sponsor, worried retailers “could just continue to use plastic bags” under the amended language. He also said the added thickness of the permitted bags would not be enough to encourage their reuse by customers — leaving the city much in the same position as it is now.

“Nobody is going to keep one of those slightly thicker plastic bags in their trunk so they can go back next week and shop with it again,” said Henry, who is not a member of the committee.

“Nobody is going to keep one of those slightly thicker plastic bags in their trunk so they can go back next week and shop with it again.” 


Henry said he would do additional research on the issue.

Representatives of retailers and grocery chains in the city who attended the work session said that bags that are 2.25 mils thick are reusable, which is why the “industry standard” for plastic bag bans nationally is a 2.25 mils threshold.

Kate Breimann, an advocate with the organization Environment Maryland who also attended the hearing, said the amendment was bad policy.

“The term ‘reusable plastic’ is a misnomer,” she said, and the amendment “really compromises the integrity of the bill.”

Related: Council delays action on plastic bag ban as it weighs paper bag fee of up to 10 cents »

She said she was frustrated that she and other environmental advocates were not asked to testify, while industry representatives were asked to do so.

The committee remains hung up on other aspects of the legislation, including a proposed fee for customers who choose paper bags at checkout and how much of that amount retailers could keep.

__________________________________________________________________________________

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics.
It’s packed 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. No obligation.

Baltimore City Council amends proposed plastic bag ban to allow for continued use of thicker bags Read More »

Enviros assail plan for Liquefied Natural Gas export terminal in South Jersey

JON HURDLE reports for NJ Spotlight

Developer says truck traffic will be around 360 vehicles a day, in line with Army Corps projections. Sierra Club says it will be closer to 2,200.

Environmentalists on Monday renewed their attack on plans to build New Jersey’s first terminal for the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the site of a former DuPont explosives factory at Gibbstown in South Jersey.

Around 30 people attended a public meeting in nearby Cherry Hill to call on regulators to halt the plan by Delaware River Partners to add a dock at the proposed Gibbstown Logistics Center where at least 360 trucks a day would load the potentially explosive material on to ocean-going tankers.

The company wants to build the terminal as an addition to an earlier plan to trans-ship goods including automobiles, refrigerated cargo and natural gas liquids (NGLs) such as propane and butane. The original proposal was already opposed by environmental groups including the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Environment New Jersey, in part because it would involve shipment of products from fracking.

LNG drives up the environmental ante

But the LNG component — which was exposed by Delaware Riverkeeper through a Freedom of Information Act request in June — creates a “completely new ball game” that requires increased regulatory scrutiny, detailed health and safety analysis and much greater public review and input, the DRN said.

Environmental groups under the anti-fossil fuel organization Empower NJ have accused the port developer of giving inconsistent information about the project to state and federal regulators — some of whom, critics say, are operating in “silos” rather than coordinating their evaluations.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for example, said the LNG terminal would be served by up to 360 trucks a day around the clock, while a consultant for Gloucester County estimated there would be “nearly 1,650” daily truck trips to and from the site, according to documents.

Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, told the meeting the number of trucks is likely to be closer to 2,200 a day, based on the capacity of the ships. He said former Gov. Chris Christie rejected an earlier plan for an LNG terminal off Asbury Park seven years ago, and said the current administration of Gov. Phil Murphy should do the same.

The trucks would arrive at the port with LNG from a planned liquefaction plant in Bradford County, Pa., one of the “sweet spots” of natural gas production in Pennsylvania’s gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation. The truck trip would be approximately 175 miles.

Tracy Carluccio of the DRN said the lack of clarity confuses the public and raises questions about whether the developer is being candid about its plans.

Keeping public ‘in the dark’

“Facts are obscured, information has been kept hidden, agencies don’t communicate with each other and the public is left in the dark,” she said. “It seems to be a tactic by the company to keep the truth from being understood by the public and even the agencies that will make the key decisions.”

Liz Thomas, a spokeswoman for the DRP, said the number of trucks serving the facility would be in line with that stated by the Army Corps in an amended Public Notice in July.

“The anticipated number of loaded and empty trucks entering and leaving the terminal are specified in the Public Notice issued by the Army Corps of Engineers on July 16, 2019,” Thomas said in a statement. “The new bypass road on which they would enter and leave the terminal has been permitted and expected to open next year, but the number of trucks in the Public Notice would not be seen for at least two years.”

Like this? Click to receive free EnviroPolitics Blog updates

Noting that the project will be regulated by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and other state and federal agencies, Thomas said it will comply with all laws.

“Delaware River Partners will comply with all laws and regulations applicable to the handling of any hazardous materials at the facility and such laws and regulations will ensure that any handling of any such products will be done safely and without incident,” she said.

The DRP, which purchased the site in 2016, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fortress Transportation and Infrastructure Investors LLC, parent of New Fortress Energy which plans the Pennsylvania liquefaction plant.

The LNG plan was approved in June by the Delaware River Basin Commission, which had been accused by the DRN of concealing the plan.

But after a request from the DRN, the interstate water regulator said in September that it would reconsider the application at an “administrative hearing”, a trial-like proceeding in which both sides are represented by counsel, and the presiding officer reports back to the full commission. No date has yet been set for the hearing.

The DRBC, which has jurisdiction only over the construction and dredging aspects of the project, said its agreement to hold the hearing doesn’t mean its original ruling was in error, and is “merely giving the requester an opportunity to show that the decision should be changed.”

Loading LNG a mile from nearest houses

The Army Corps, which is required to evaluate the proposal on environmental, aesthetic, historical and a host of other grounds, said in July that all loading and unloading of LNG would take place at least a mile from the nearest residences. Since then, it has received more than 100 pages of information about the project from the public and the applicant, said spokesman Steve Rochette on Monday. He said the Corps is working with other federal agencies to “try to bring this matter to a conclusion.”

The United States began exporting liquefied natural gas in early 2016 in response to a surge in domestic production caused by hydraulic fracking of shale reserves, including those in Pennsylvania. Most export terminals are on the Gulf Coast but they also include one at Cove Point in Maryland.

Carolyn Carbone, 74, a psychologist from Haddonfield, said that although she doesn’t live close enough to Gibbstown to be harmed by any explosion, she was alarmed by the projected number of trucks and the broader environmental effects of the proposed plant, and so will be protesting to her elected representatives including Gov. Phil Murphy.

“I didn’t realize how bad it was and how much danger we are really in, and how it’s going to affect so many different aspects of our life,” she said after the meeting. “I’ve always been an environmentalist, but I feel much more motivated now to take action.”

The project has received some permits from the NJ DEP but needs others from the Army Corps, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Energy, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It also needs several permits from local authorities.

Related news stories:
DRBC to Reconsider Approval of Proposed New Jersey LNG Export Terminal
Trump administration touts liquefied natural gas as ‘freedom gas’
Proposed LNG terminal plan needs more public voices | Editorial

__________________________________________________________________________________

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics.
It’s packed 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. No obligation.

Enviros assail plan for Liquefied Natural Gas export terminal in South Jersey Read More »