triazine
California water: Return to sender.
As climate change takes its toll, can recycled sewage water provide the answer to California’s water woes?
As climate change takes its toll, can recycled sewage water provide the answer to California’s water woes?
02.06.2017 / BY Sasha Harris-Lovett and Mallory Pickett
JOIN THE DISCUSSION SHARE
IN JULY 2014, in the middle of one of the hottest and driest summers in California history, Silicon Valley celebrated the opening of its newest water supply facility: a $72 million purification plant that can produce clean water from sewage. A small crowd of local and state officials stood on stage. Before them sat an audience of nearly 200, and behind them loomed the new Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center. Its pipes and filters would take treated sewage effluent from San Jose’s wastewater treatment plant across the street and turn it into fresh water to irrigate the landscaping at the new Apple headquarters, the Villages Golf and Country Club, and the new Levi’s 49ers stadium in Santa Clara, among other sites.
Although California is experiencing a welcome respite from its years-long drought, the state’s water woes are far from over.
The plant’s completion was 10 years in the making, and officials on the stage planned to christen the opening of the plant with a symbolic watering of two potted peach trees. They lifted their beakers of water, which just days prior had been flushed down Silicon Valley’s toilets, and held them high as if raising Champagne flutes for a toast.
But they didn’t water the trees. Instead, taking everyone by surprise, they brought the water to their lips and drank.
Pam John, the center’s senior engineer, clapped from the audience. She wasn’t shocked at the board’s decision to toast the facility with a drink — she’d tasted purified water from plants like this many times — but she knew most of the audience would be. After all, that water was extracted not just from sewage from people’s homes, but also from the stuff flushed down the toilets and drains of hospitals, laboratories, and manufacturing plants.
While the event that summer was simply a demonstration, it was illustrative of much longer term ambitions for the plant, which include using the water it treats to recharge groundwater basins in Santa Clara County and, if regulation is passed, to someday pipe the water directly to customers.
The Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center takes treated sewage effluent from the wastewater treatment plant across the street and turns it into fresh water.
Visual by Sasha Harris-Lovett
Reusing wastewater isn’t a new concept. Many countries have long used recycled water for non-potable purposes like irrigation and landscaping. And some, including the United States, Israel and Australia, also treat recycled water so that it can added to groundwater supplies. This process, known as “indirect potable reuse,” is supposed to help keep consumers safe — and it has been used in California for over 40 years. In theory, allowing this treated, recycled water to percolate through an aquifer’s natural soil and rock filtering systems sufficiently dilutes any remaining contaminants — and it also gives managers, water quality engineers, scientists, and technicians time to detect and respond to any potential hazards.
California’s current regulations, enacted in 2014, require recycled water to stay underground for two months before it is withdrawn for drinking. Many water utilities seem not to mind: Drawing drinking water from an aquifer helps preserve the illusion that it’s “natural,” even if it was sewage just a few months ago.
But not every utility that wants — or needs — to recycle water has a handy aquifer beneath it. That leaves some areas looking hard at the prospect of what’s known as “direct potable reuse.” In short, that’s sending sewage first for treatment, and then directly to your tap.
That leaves some areas looking hard at the prospect of what’s known as “direct potable reuse.” In short, that’s sending sewage first for treatment, and then directly to your tap.
This method, which in 2013 was active in fewer than a dozen municipal water plants around the world, according to a report by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, could be implemented more or less anywhere. In Texas, for example, severe drought drove the city of Big Spring to build the first direct potable reuse plant in the U.S. in 2013. The next year, the nearby city of Wichita Falls also implemented the process, though only as a temporary emergency measure which has since been taken offline.
The city of El Paso, Texas is now preparing to use direct potable reuse to supplement its water supplies — and its the sort of solution that a growing number of cities might be forced to consider. The United Nations estimates that water scarcity is already affecting more than 40 percent of the world’s population, and the problem is only expected to get worse amid a changing climate. Although California is experiencing a welcome respite from its years-long drought, the state’s water woes are far from over.
“California needs more high quality water, and recycling is one way of getting there,” declared California Governor Jerry Brown’s 2014 California Water Action Plan, the administration’s signature response to the drought that had been crippling the state. That year, the state government enacted regulations to govern additions of recycled water to underground drinking water sources. Since then, they have streamlined permitting processes, provided financial and technical support for water recycling projects, and convened an expert panel to create recommendations for regulations for recycled water.
The federal government is enthusiastic about water reuse too: A grant last year provided $30 million of funding to seven different recycled water projects in California.
Those projects, the largest of which is in Orange County, use indirect potable reuse. But once regulation is passed, the Silicon Valley plant is poised to become the state’s first direct potable reuse project. Planning to purify millions of gallons of water per day, it would likely also be the largest in the country, though Zach Dorsey, director of communications at the trade organization WateReuse, said utilities with indirect potable reuse projects may come to decide that moving to direct makes sense.
While drinking water extracted from sewage may sound profoundly unappetizing, as the state continues to grapple with limited water resources, public health experts say there needs to be discussion of the potential risks and benefits of “toilet-to-tap” technology.
ON A CLOUDLESS DAY in March 2015, four years into the drought and one year after Governor Brown declared it a state of emergency, Pam John was preparing to give a tour at the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center in San José, California. At 56, she’s cheerful and energetic, with big sunglasses and a red-and-black jacket. Over 22 years working in the Santa Clara Valley Water District, John has witnessed the explosion of the region’s economy and stretching of its water resources first-hand. And as one of the senior civil engineers who helped design the Advanced Water Purification Center, and the facility’s manager from January 2015 until her retirement last May, she knows the place inside and out.
“We want to ensure that the economic engine keeps on churning,” John says with a wide smile.
From the street, it doesn’t look like much. A few low-slung buildings and some large tanks and pipes sit in an open field behind a chain-link fence. But this plant, set on the southern edge of the San Francisco Bay, is poised to become the first in Northern California to purify recycled sewage to replenish groundwater aquifers. It could also be the first to send the water directly to consumers if the state approves new regulations for direct potable use, with the potential to serve up to eight million gallons of drinkable water daily.
Though the water it produces is now used for non-potable purposes only, it’s designed as a demonstration plant, John explains. “When we built this plant, we knew what we wanted,” she says. She gestures animatedly as she speaks. “We wanted to get to potable reuse.”
As the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center’s senior water engineer, Pam John had tasted water recycled from sewage many times.
Visual by Michael Macor / San Francisco Chronicle / Polaris
Here in the heart of Silicon Valley, water is in short supply. Santa Clara County, where the plant is located, is home to the state’s booming tech industry. Growing businesses demand water, and John is determined to get them what they desire.
“We want to ensure that the economic engine keeps on churning,” she says with a wide smile. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a powerful trade organization that includes corporations like Chevron, Google, and Intel, wrote a letter of support for the purification center when the Santa Clara Valley Water District applied for state grants to help fund the project.
About half of the water used in urban California is used outdoors, largely for irrigating lawns and gardens, and Silicon Valley is no exception. “We spend thousands of dollars on good backyards and front yards, and yet not to be able to maintain it…” John says. “We want to make sure that quality of life continues.”
According to John, the water utility is doing everything it can to stretch existing supplies, which are imported from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 150 miles away, and pumped from local groundwater. They’re encouraging water-wise landscaping. They’re giving rebates for high-efficiency appliances. They import water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. They capture rainfall and infiltrate it back into the groundwater basin. But when it doesn’t rain, water capture doesn’t help.
“We are entering the Fourth. Year. Of drought,” John enunciates. Which leads us back to the sewer as an option of last resort.
“We don’t have to be stranded in a state where we’re at the beck and call of hydrologic cycles,” John says, her voice resonating.
She starts the tour by the pumps, where treated sewage from the wastewater treatment plant across the street enters the purification center. Silicon Valley’s sewage, like all sewage, is nasty stuff. After standard treatment, it still contains trace amounts of salt from bodily fluids and water softeners, bacteria from feces, pharmaceutical drugs and hormones we take and excrete, and chemicals we use around our homes. That’s not all. Silicon Valley’s treatment plant also accepts industrial wastewater, which contains a slew of different compounds used in processing and manufacturing. Since about 10,000 new chemicals are developed each year, a leading textbook on water reuse, published in 2007, states that knowing exactly which chemicals are in wastewater at any given time is an “unachievable goal.”
When the wind blows just right, the smell of sewage wafts on the breeze from across the street.
John’s low-heeled black boots clack on the cement as she heads to the next stop, a large warehouse. Another set of pumps bringing wastewater over to the purification center whir like airplane propellers. Everything looks spotlessly clean. The place is remarkably devoid of humans. Other than a water quality engineer crouched by one of the valves, a smartphone edging out of the back pocket of her jeans, everything is automated. If something goes wrong, alarms will sound and the equipment will automatically shut down, John says reassuringly.
Poster-sized photos hang from the warehouse ceiling: a smiling woman with a full glass of water, a sprinkler on a sports field, freshly harvested produce. On the right are long banks of filters, standing nearly 8 feet tall, which strain out anything bigger than 0.1 micron, which is about 1/1000th the width of a human hair. On the left are stacks of pipes that house reverse-osmosis membranes.
Reverse osmosis takes care of salts, microorganisms, and viruses, though some contaminants can potentially slip through.
The plant’s microfiltration system strains out anything bigger than 0.1 micron, which is about 1/1000th the width of a human hair.
Paolo Baltar, an assistant engineer for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, explains the plant’s final step of treatment with ultraviolet light.
Visuals by Mallory Pickett
Reverse osmosis works by pushing contaminated water against a semi-permeable membrane at high pressure. Ideally, only water molecules are forced through. Everything stuck on the wrong side of the membrane — that is, anything wider than 0.0001 microns across, including salts, microorganisms, viruses, and contaminants from most personal care products and pharmaceuticals — is sent back through the wastewater treatment plant across the street to either be recycled or treated again before being released into San Francisco Bay.
In reality, mostly only water molecules get through reverse-osmosis membranes. The technology filters out most contaminants but not all of them. Some especially small molecules, like acetone (the stuff in nail polish remover), 1,4 dioxane (an industrial solvent), or n-nitrosodimethylamine (formerly used to manufacture rocket fuel), can potentially slip right through.
Yet even “fail-safe” engineered systems — like the Titanic or the Fukushima nuclear power plant — can malfunction under unusual circumstances.
How well reverse osmosis works to filter out other contaminants, like pharmaceuticals and pesticides, depends on the specific chemical and the amount of pollution in the water. The water reuse textbook states that reverse-osmosis membranes strain out 90 to 96 percent of the toxic pesticide atrazine, for example, and 85 to 95 percent of the poisonous element arsenic. Most of the time, this means there is a very small amount of these pollutants left in the water after reverse osmosis. But if there were an atrazine spill, and a lot of the pesticide was washed into the sewer, then a potentially harmful dose of the toxin could make it through reverse osmosis.
The final step of treatment is a blast of ultraviolet light. If any germs or harmful chemicals make it through reverse osmosis, the UV light is supposed to scramble their DNA or shatter their molecular bonds. If the water is used for drinking, advanced oxidation processes will be added to break down any remaining toxic organic compounds. John declares these combined water treatment technologies “fail-safe.” Yet even “fail-safe” engineered systems — like the Titanic or the Fukushima nuclear power plant — can malfunction under unusual circumstances.
Near the end of the tour, there’s a table set up with several beakers of water on it. Each beaker holds water from a different part of the process. When the wastewater first enters the purification center, it’s slightly cloudy, with a hint of a golden-brown hue. (One tries not to think about what made it that color.) By the time it leaves, it really is completely clear, and completely odorless (and tasteless, stripped of the minerals that normally flavor tap water). Then it’s off to a massive holding tank before being sent out to customers through non-potable pipes — for now.
When John describes the process, she sounds like a preacher talking about redemption. “We don’t have to be stranded in a state where we’re at the beck and call of hydrologic cycles,” she says, her voice resonating. “Will it rain, will it not rain? Maybe we can change that paradigm.”
Improving on such hydrologic cycles is hardly a new idea in California. For nearly a century the state has been building dams and hundreds of miles of canals to transfer water and snowmelt from the wetter regions of California to its arid cities and farms. Based on the host of unforeseen ecological outcomes that arose from building dams, one can’t help wondering if water recycling will also have unexpected consequences.
FLORENCE BONVIN STUDIES the traces of chemicals that get through the advanced water treatment technologies the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center and similar facilities use. Athletic, with an easy smile, she specializes in a set of tiny chemical molecules that aren’t dangerous, but that can leave a telltale smell in highly treated wastewater.
One of these chemicals is vanillin, the primary component in vanilla bean extract, which smells sweet and delicious. “But most of them are not as nice,” Bonvin says. “They’re musty, earthy, medicinal.” She knows that if recycled water smells bad, people won’t want to drink it.
And if there isn’t a way to test for them, they could make it past treatment.
Human noses are remarkably sensitive chemical detectors. “Even if we remove 99.9 percent of a specific compound during treatment, [that might] not be sufficient to have levels below the odor threshold,” Bonvin explains. The odor threshold is the lowest concentration at which 50 percent of a human panel can sniff out one of these chemicals. And for many of the chemicals she studies, the threshold is less than 10 parts per trilion. That’s like being able to smell one grain of wild rice in 3.4 million pounds of white rice.
A promotional video produced for the Advanced Silicon Valley Water Purification Center makes the case for such systems.
Bonvin recently completed a stint as a postdoctoral researcher at UC Berkeley. (She now works in research for a private potable reuse company in Switzerland.) In the spring of 2015, she gives a tour of her lab on the second floor of a bulky concrete building on the Berkeley campus.
Bonvin moves gracefully through the lab to her workbench, where vials of perfectly clear water, which she has spiked with minute amounts of different chemicals, are lined up by on a lab bench, ready for analysis.
The instrument she uses for the analysis is topped by a little red box, which shakes rhythmically. It mixes the water in one of the vials around a thin wire, which sticks into the fluid and will trap chemicals on its surface. Those chemicals are injected into an instrument called a gas chromatograph, where they can be separated based on their different characteristics. By measuring their different masses, Bonvin is able to detect ever-lower concentrations of some of the smelly chemicals. But she concedes that there are many more potential chemical contaminants for which no measurement method has yet been developed.
And if there isn’t a way to test for them, they could make it past treatment.
The smelly molecules that come through wastewater treatment are only part of the problem. When these chemicals get through advanced treatment, it means that other, more dangerous, compounds have likely gone through as well. “On the one hand, you have the taste and odor, which are not dangerous to human health, but aesthetically, could alter public perception of the water,” Bonvin says. “And then on the other side you have the solvents, which we can’t really see or taste, but could have effects on human health.”
Solvents are a class of chemicals used for a range of purposes from dry cleaning to paint thinning to manufacturing. Many of them are small molecules, so they can slide untreated through reverse osmosis. And many of them are poisonous to humans.
Solvents and other industrial chemicals that can disrupt hormones in the body’s endocrine system are particularly worrisome. With a litany of dreadful health effects like cancer, birth defects, and infertility, these endocrine-disrupting chemicals can be extremely toxic even at the very low levels that could potentially get through even the most advanced water treatment, including reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation.
“It’s not reassuring to me to hear that chemicals are present “only” at parts per trillion levels,” said Ted Schettler, a physician and the science director of the non-profit Science and Environmental Health Network. “There are many chemicals that you would worry about at parts per trillion.”
Parts per trillion is really tiny — like having one drop of poison spread throughout 20 Olympic-size pools. For some chemicals, we don’t even have analytical methods that can accurately detect such low concentrations. Yet even such a minuscule amount can have an effect on our bodies. “Our bodies’ hormone systems operate at low parts per trillion levels,” Schettler explained. “The hormone receptors are exquisitely sensitive to even minor shifts in those concentrations.”
“It’s not reassuring to me to hear that chemicals are present “only” at parts per trillion levels.”
The Environmental Protection Agency counts about 85,000 industrial chemicals registered for current use, but requires additional toxicity testing for only about 200 of them. Pesticides in home and garden products, which are regulated by the EPA’s Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, can also make their way down the drain, as can FDA-regulated pharmaceuticals, which people excrete naturally after use.
This all means that tens of thousands of different chemicals may be present in sewage before treatment — and after treatment we still don’t have a full idea of the range of chemicals that get through. “What you really need to do is figure out what’s in the water, and at what levels,” Schettler said.
But that’s easier said than done.
No one knows exactly what’s in sewage at any given time — people and businesses don’t dump things down the drain on a regular schedule. It’s very hard for a water scientist or public health official to know everything to look for. And since detecting tiny amounts of chemicals relies on identifying them by their unique characteristics, it’s nearly impossible for them to recognize a chemical they weren’t already looking for.
Of the contaminants that are detected in recycled water, many of them have unknown health effects. “There’s a lot [of chemicals] out there, that show up in monitoring, but that we don’t really know what the broad effects might be from them,” said David Spath, the former chief of the Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management for the State of California. Even more troubling is that a combination of chemicals can be more toxic than the sum of their parts. It could be a big problem, according to Spath, “if you get three or four chemicals that are all endocrine disruptors that disrupt the same endocrine process, or if you have two or three chemicals that are all carcinogens that result in the same carcinogenic endpoint.”
Only one major epidemiological study has documented the human health effects of drinking recycled water. Conducted by a private research corporation and commissioned by a water utility, the study is now 25 years old. (“The chemicals that they’re now looking for weren’t even in anybody’s vocabulary at the time,” Spath said.) The science was inconclusive: Because of confounding factors like smoking and alcohol consumption, researchers couldn’t prove or disprove the notion that drinking recycled water caused cancer or heart disease. The fact that some chemicals could disrupt hormone functioning hadn’t yet been discovered at the time the study was published.
“It is a difficult situation,” Spath added. He sighed. “You’ve got the pressure to move forward, and in some cases the need to move forward with these types of uses, because of the water resources situation in California.”
The timeline for sending Silicon Valley’s recycled water directly into the drinking-water pipes is uncertain, pending the state’s development of regulations for direct potable reuse, which are estimated to be completed in the next few years.
In the meantime, the water agency plans to stick with indirect reuse: sending the recycled water back into the aquifer, and then pumping it out for drinking. And Garth Hall, Deputy Operating Officer of the Santa Clara County Water District, estimates Silicon Valley will be drinking this recycled water by 2020.
In 2015, California Gov. Jerry Brown mandated that all California water districts cut their water use by 25 percent — but some sites in Silicon Valley were spared.
Visual by Neon Tommy/Flickr/CC
After Governor Brown mandated in early April 2015 that all California water districts cut their water use by 25 percent, Silicon Valley residents were limited to watering their gardens twice a week. Grassy medians turned brown. Burbling fountains fell silent.
But 750 sites in Silicon Valley were spared the water restrictions. These sites, ever lush and green, include various city parks, the Intel corporate campus, and the grounds of Great America amusement park. As customers of the South Bay Water Recycling Program, some of the water they use comes from the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center.
Walking through two of these city parks on a Sunday afternoon during the dry spring of 2015, most park-goers had no idea recycled water was currently used for irrigation or that Silicon Valley was planning to use recycled water for drinking in the near future.
“I think recycled water is a great thing,” said LaRee Rouse of Santa Clara, as she watched her children climb on a play structure surrounded by the verdant lawns of Lick Mill Park. She paused, “But I don’t know much about drinking recycled water, how good it is for you or not. For watering grass it makes sense.”
For Ana Reyes, who recently moved to San José from San Antonio, Texas, people who live in an arid environment have to learn to be thrifty with water. “I can’t believe y’all are just doing conservation efforts now,” she said. But if it comes down to it, she says she would drink recycled water. “I’m fine with it as long as it’s safe,” she added.
Reyes isn’t alone. In a 2014 poll from the non-profit National Resources Defense Council, 64 percent of the 1,000 Californians surveyed said “building local water-recycling plants is a very important water supply solution.” But when it comes to the long-term health effects of drinking recycled water, no one really knows for sure.
“I think prudence would argue for a slow, measured process that assesses the risk.”
California has since lifted its statewide water restrictions and allowed counties to set their own goals, but the Santa Clara Valley Water District is still aiming to cut water use by at least 20 percent. The state legislation is moving to develop regulations for the use of treated sewage as a drinking water supply. The recycled water unit chief for the State Water Resources Control Board, Randy Barnard, said in 2015 that the current advanced treatment technologies, like those at Silicon Valley’s Advanced Water Purification Center, are covering all contaminants and that testing has found “no measurable health risk.”
Knowing that there’s no good data on the long-term health effects of ingesting trace amounts of countless chemicals and pharmaceuticals in recycled water, Spath, the retired chief of the Division of Drinking Water, is wary. “I think prudence would argue for a slow, measured process that assesses the risk,” he said. In his view, recycled water should be used for the lowest-risk purposes, like watering plants, first. Part of the discussion about integrating recycled water directly into our drinking water supplies should include “an understanding of the potential for future health consequences,” he wrote in an email.
Last December, California water regulators released a report to the State Legislature on the feasibility of developing state-wide criteria for direct potable water reuse, based on the recommendations of an expert panel and an advisory board convened by the state. They concluded that while creating regulations to recycle sewage into drinking water is certainly feasible, there is a need for better methods to identify potential contaminants and to study their effects on our health.
A draft analysis concluded that while creating regulations to recycle sewage into drinking water is certainly feasible, better methods are needed to identify potential contaminants and to study their effects on our health.
After a draft of that report came out in September, Barnard took a more cautious stance. In an email dated October 3, 2016, he stated that while direct potable reuse has great potential, there are “very real scientific and technical challenges that must be addressed before DPR can be consumed by public water system customers.”
But the state isn’t planning to wait for this research to be done before passing regulations to allow direct potable reuse; the report (which was supported by “significant time, effort, and investment” from water reuse advocacy groups) concluded that the research could be done concurrently with developing regulations.
While Barnard could not say when such regulation will be passed, Silicon Valley, along with other California cities, continues to move forward with plans to use recycled water for drinking. During her tour, Pam John showed a map of Santa Clara County that gave a glimpse into the future. Different colored lines squiggled across the city streets, marking the current location of drinking water pipes in green and recycled water pipes in purple. John had delineated all the places where recycled water produced at the purification center could be connected directly to drinking water pipes.
“There are options,” she said, smiling.
IN THE TWO AND A HALF YEARS since the Silicon Valley Advanced Purification Center came online, Pam John has retired but the plant’s ambition and influence have kept growing.
In keeping with its mission as a demonstration facility, the plant hosts visitors from water districts throughout the state and international guests who come to learn about their technology, and their marketing. Last June, water officials from the City of Pleasanton, which is considering building a similar facility, came to discuss their options.
“All water on Earth is recycled. There’s no new fresh water anywhere.”
This time their host was a young engineer, Paolo Baltar, fresh out of graduate school but cool and confident, and Marta Lugo, the center’s polished and knowledgeable outreach coordinator. The Pleasanton officials were just as keen on the details of the plant’s public outreach as its technology. The Dublin San Ramon Services District, which provides wastewater treatment for the City of Pleasanton, had tried to implement an indirect potable reuse project years ago, an effort abandoned in the face of opposition from citizens disturbed at the prospect of drinking purified sewage. But that was before the drought. Baltar and Lugo assure them that things are different now. People understand the value of a reliable local water source, even if the source is a bit icky.
Water engineers frequently point out that in comparison to some other water supplies, like imported water from the Colorado River, recycled water actually contains fewer known contaminants, like nitrates or arsenic. Many people are already drinking recycled water treated much less thoroughly than what happens at the Santa Clara plant. Besides the aquifers in Orange County and the lake water in Texas, hundreds more are located downstream from sewage effluent, so residents’ water supply contains wastewater that hasn’t been treated to recycled water standards so much as diluted, what water officials call “de facto” or “unplanned” potable reuse.
“Do you tell people they’ve been drinking recycled water for 50 years?” one of the Pleasanton officials asked Lugo. “How much do you leverage that?”
“We don’t focus too much on de facto recycled water,” Lugo said. “We don’t want to get them focused on ‘Oh, what’s in the Delta water?’ or go down that path.”
Instead, she says they remind their customers, “All water on Earth is recycled. There’s no new fresh water anywhere.”
california, direct potable, drought, indirect potable, silicon valley, water, water recycling
Keep reading...Show less
Will better science help protect us from chemical exposures?
A new National Academy of Sciences' risk assessment could accelerate public health protection from pesticides.
A new National Academy of Sciences' risk assessment could accelerate public health protection from pesticides.
BY ELIZABETH GROSSMAN | ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Pesticides
01.18.17
In California’s Central Valley, some farmers are using wastewater from oil and gas extraction to irrigate food crops to augment water supplies reduced by the ongoing drought. But that recycled water is known to contain chemical contaminants—some occur naturally, but many others are used to operate and maintain oil and gas wells. It’s a contentious issue, and industry groups and clean water advocates are locked in an ongoing debate over whether this water is safe to use on crop fields. And yet, as is often the case, neither group has a complete picture of the water’s toxicity—or its potential to impact the health of farms and people nearby.
At the same time, residents of the Central Valley’s agricultural communities are regularly exposed to elevated levels of multiple environmental pollutants—including pesticides and vehicle emissions. Now, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences (NAS), the scenario in the Central Valley, and similar regions around the country, may no longer be constrained by a lack of good data.
The new report, commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other federal agencies, looks at various high-technology, rapid-screening testing methods that could be used to assess not only a single chemical, but also chemical mixtures. Such technologies could speed our understanding such a mixture’s chemical contents and potential health effects. The report also recommends ways this technology could be used to accelerate and improve understanding of how, when, and where people are exposed to potentially hazardous chemicals—everything from pesticides to food additives and beyond—individually or in concert.
“Science has advanced and we have all these new and exciting tools … that advance understanding of what we are exposed to, and we now have to learn how to use them and put them into practice,” Jonathan Samet, the NAS report’s committee chair and director of the University of Southern California Institute for Global Health, told Civil Eats.
While the report is far from what anyone might consider “beach reading,” it could well influence the safety of the food we eat, the health and safety of those who grow our food, and that of their families and communities. That’s because the report is intended to inform how the EPA and FDA go about deciding, for example, what levels of pesticide exposure or other chemicals we may encounter through food and drinking water are safe.
The report builds on two previous NAS reports that also recommended adopting computerized “high-throughput in vitro tests”—these use test tubes or the equivalent rather than live animals for testing—to speed evaluating the many chemicals about which we currently lack full toxicity information. There is broad support in the scientific community for using such methods to close this data gap.
However, some environmental health scientists caution that while these tests can catch potential adverse health outcomes before they become a problem, that’s not a guarantee. That depends on how individual tests are designed—and how researchers designing the test decide what constitutes an adverse health effect. For example, would chemical exposures that set the stage for, or increase the risk of, developing a disease like diabetes or cancer constitute an adverse health effect, or would there have to be current evidence of a full-blown disease itself?
The Report’s Findings
As NAS committee member and director of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Lauren Zeise, explained on a webinar, the report outlines the vast array of technologies available to measure and assess chemical contaminants and pollutants. These range from environmental monitoring, such as remote sensing via satellite and personal sensors that can pick up specific exposures, to rapid, computerized “in vitro” chemical testing that can quickly screen numerous chemical samples. The EPA, FDA and other federal agencies are already using the latter in their ToxCast and Tox21 programs. There are also many complex and sophisticated new ways of analyzing and modeling how chemical exposures affect biological systems—from the whole body to the genetic level.
“With all of these advances come numerous and very rich data streams,” said Zeise. Among the report’s recommendations are improvements for, as she put it, “handling the expanding universe of data.” The aim is to use all this advanced technology and the wealth of data it produces to more efficiently—and precisely—understand how chemicals behave environmentally and biologically, and do a better job than we have historically of assessing chemicals’ potential hazards.
Another goal, committee member and Procter & Gamble Victor Mills Society research fellow George Daston told Civil Eats via email, is how to use these methods to “greatly improve the process of prioritizing chemicals for further study, based on their potential to affect key biological processes and the potential for human exposure and/or environmental persistence.” And he noted, “These are problems that risk assessors”—that is, those making decisions about regulating chemicals—“deal with on a daily basis. The report is intended to provide tools that they can use to do their jobs better.”
What the Report Doesn’t Address
What the NAS report does not do is recommend ways to use all this data to improve public health. And that is, of course, where the rubber meets the road. Or, as Kathryn Guyton, scientist with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who served as a report reviewer, explained via email: “The report highlights the promise of new technologies to advance issues such as identifying the chemicals present at contaminated sites, prioritizing agents for testing and analysis, and characterizing exposures and toxicity. However, it doesn’t comment on if or how the new science will be bring about timely and effective public health policies.”
And for some observers, this is where cautionary flags go up. These new analytical tools may produce more detailed data, says University of Massachusetts Amherst biology professor, R. Thomas Zoeller, but the information may be used to inform decisions that go in very different directions. For example, the rapid screening data can be used to catch—and restrict—a potentially hazardous chemical before it goes into wide production and use. But the ability to seek out more precise details could prompt regulators and other decision-makers to say, “Wait until we know more.”
“There’s been this huge movement and investment in these genomic, high-throughput assays,” said University of San Francisco School of Medicine professor Tracey Woodruff. “In the ideal world, they would be quite useful and could be used to predict disease, and predict bad actor [chemicals] before they get out. But they could also be used to exonerate chemicals we don’t know enough about.”
UMass’s Zoeller is equally cautious. “The concept of a precautionary approach”—acting based on what’s known to prevent harm—“is always presented in the context of people. But we’re incredibly careful and precautionary about the effect on industry, not so much with respect to people.”
Unfinished Pesticide Business
As the Obama administration leaves office, many decisions remain in process. Among those are ongoing human health evaluations of a number of widely used pesticides that include atrazine, chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, and malathion. Also unfinished will be the EPA’s response to a formal legal petition from 15 environmental and farmworker advocacy groups asking that the agency evaluate the synergistic impacts of pesticide mixtures.
EPA risk assessments for a number of neonicotinoid pesticides are also in process. Neonicotinoids have been implicated in adverse impacts on honeybee and other pollinator health, and their human health impacts are not yet fully understood.
And while the EPA last month denied a request from the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture to postpone implementation of the agency’s new standard to protect agricultural workers from pesticide exposure, it’s not entirely clear if this will be the last word on the issue under the new administration.
The chemical assessment and exposure techniques the NAS report touts, could lead to swifter, more health protective decisions about these chemicals—or not.
For new scientific technology or old, the NAS report acknowledges, current decision-making continues to rely on “expert judgment.” When it comes to the many big (and big-ticket) decisions facing agencies like the EPA—decisions that will affect the food eaten and grown by millions of Americans and their communities—whether these judgments will be “timely” or protective, remains to be seen. And given the current Congress and incoming administration’s anti-regulatory stance, it’s even less clear how this science will be used.
Cropdusting photo CC-licensed by Roger Smith.
VIEW COMMENTS
Keep reading...Show less
For US science policy, big shift ahead.
Here’s how Congress and Trump could affect the chemistry enterprise.
Here’s how Congress and Trump could affect the chemistry enterprise
By Government & Policy Department
Credit: Mike Segar/Reuters/Newscom
A new, Republican-controlled Congress is planning to curb regulation and cut at least parts of the U.S. budget. Incoming President Donald Trump, who so far has made no strong connections to the science community, is out to make fundamental changes to the federal government. How their actions will ultimately reverberate through the chemistry enterprise is not yet clear. But leaders in Washington could affect U.S. chemists through shifts in trade policy, research funding, and regulation of drugs, pesticides, commercial chemicals, and more.
Jump to Topics:
- Research funding: Uncertainty surrounds federal budget
- Chemical regulation: TSCA implementation a priority
- Nuclear power: Waste could finally find a home
- Energy: Unclear path, tumultuous time for energy policy
- Climate Change: U.S. future in Paris Agreement uncertain
- Pesticides: EPA to decide on several crop protection products
- Trade: Trump signals major shift in import-export policy
- Environment: Scrutiny of EPA’s scientific review process will continue
- Policy outlook roundup
↑ Top
Research funding: Uncertainty surrounds federal budget
The election of Trump last fall was a shock for the science community. Now, it is grappling with more uncertainty than it has faced in years over science policy and the future of research funding.
“There is a new cast of characters and certainly not the traditionally strong ties to the scientific community,” says Howard Garrison, director for policy at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, which represents 30 societies. “We are just going to have to wait and see.”
“If the size of the sandbox is shrinking, that is going to bring science with it.”
—Matthew Hourihan, Director of the R&D; Budget & Policy Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be support for research. In the past, Republicans have been advocates for funding basic science, which they see as an important role of the federal government. This played out most recently in the 21st Century Cures Act, a law pushing for medical innovations, which passed in December with bipartisan support.
But many Republicans also present themselves as budget hawks who want to slash the federal deficit. That means they could push for overall cuts to the discretionary budget, which includes almost all science funding. They might also want to enforce sequestration, which passed in 2011 and mandated budget cuts that never fully went into effect but still resulted in the lowest grant funding rates in years for research agencies.
“If the size of the sandbox is shrinking, that is going to bring science with it,” says Matthew Hourihan, director of the R&D; Budget & Policy Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science in controversial areas such as climate change or social science might be most at risk of cuts, he adds.
The nomination of Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) as director of the White House Office of Management & Budget could indicate cuts are on the horizon. OMB coordinates fiscal policy and the President’s proposed budget.
“We know that Rep. Mulvaney has spoken positively about sequestration, and he’s certainly a fiscal hawk,” Hourihan says. Mulvaney also questioned the government’s role in research funding during a congressional debate over Zika funding last year.
That means that supporters of science research will likely turn to the Congress to bolster science support. With dozens of new members of Congress and new chairs of important committees, “the general consensus is that we need to completely rebuild. And that’s okay,” explains Anthony Pitagno, director of advocacy at the American Chemical Society, which publishes C&EN.;
The changes also might force research advocates to go beyond the traditional science-oriented committees to lobby those that have broader control over spending, especially the House and Senate budget committees. “This gives us an opportunity to reframe our issues,” he says. “We have to work channels that we haven’t for the last couple of years.
Garrison advocates for science groups maintaining a low profile while Trump and Congress work on fulfilling some of their campaign promises such as reforming Obamacare or immigration reform.
“Let’s wait until the dust settles and then build bridges to the new Administration,” he says.—Andrea Widener
↑ Top
Chemical regulation: TSCA implementation a priority
2017 TSCA milestones
EPA is expected to meet several deadlines this year mandated under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act
▸ May: Publish scope of first 10 high-priority chemical risk evaluations
▸ June: Develop process for determining whether chemicals are low or high priority for risk evaluation
▸ June: Develop risk evaluation process
▸ June: Require manufacturers to provide information to EPA on chemicals they made or used within the last decade
Determining how to review the potential risks of commercial chemicals is at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency’s agenda this year. EPA faces several deadlines related to implementation of the new Toxic Substances Control Act, which was enacted in June 2016. Over the next several years, the agency must evaluate the potential risks of chemicals in household items and industrial products sold in the U.S., starting with 10 high-priority substances. The new law gives EPA authority to request safety data for such chemicals, as well as to collect fees from industry to conduct evaluations.
EPA has already identified the first 10 high-priority chemicals for evaluation. By May, the agency must describe the scope of those evaluations. By June, EPA must have a risk evaluation process in place and a method to identify whether chemicals are low or high priority for evaluation. Also by June, EPA must require manufacturers to provide the agency with information on chemicals they made or used within the last 10 years.
The chemical industry and environmental groups are heavily engaged in discussions with the agency about new policies under TSCA. Early policies and interpretations of some provisions of the new law, particularly those related to EPA’s evaluation of new chemicals, have sparked debate.
The chemical industry claims that the agency’s interpretation of the law is slowing down the review of new chemicals and delaying their entry into the U.S. market. Public health and environmental activists are urging EPA to continue thoroughly reviewing the risks of all new chemicals.
At the very least, EPA under incoming President Trump will reconsider how it evaluates new chemicals, representatives from the chemical industry predict. It is less clear how the Trump Administration will handle pending TSCA rules developed by the Obama Administration, including proposals to ban the use of methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone in paint strippers. Proposed rules restricting the use of trichloroethylene in aerosol spray degreasers, vapor degreasing agents, and dry cleaning spotting agents are also up in the air.—Britt Erickson
↑ Top
Nuclear power: Waste could finally find a home
The Department of Energy bored more than five miles of exploratory tunnels into Yucca Mountain.
Credit: Department Of Energy
Though completion of nuclear waste repository Yucca Mountain stalled in recent years, an effort to identify volunteer host sites for interim storage of nuclear waste gained traction last year and many expect it to gain momentum in 2017.
The Department of Energy last January kicked-off its community engagement program to identify U.S. sites willing to take on interim storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste. A final report from DOE released in December 2016 outlined the initiative’s process and progress and summarized public comments.
According to the report, approximately 75,000 metric tons of used fuel from commercial nuclear reactors by the end of 2015 was being stored on-site at nuclear power plants throughout the U.S. An additional 2,000 metric tons is generated each year. Defense activities have produced more than 300 million liters of liquid, sludge, and solid high-level radioactive waste, DOE says.
Calls to solve the decades-old U.S. nuclear waste problem have come from outside and inside the halls of Congress.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who leads the Senate appropriations subcommittee on energy, has called on his congressional colleagues to invest in energy research and find a path forward for nuclear waste management.
“We need to move on all tracks at the same time to solve the nuclear waste stalemate,” Alexander says. In the coming year, he adds, Congress should pass the proposed Nuclear Waste Administration Act, greenlight a pilot program for consolidated nuclear waste storage, and approve funds for private interim storage.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a lobbying organization for the nuclear industry, outlined its priorities last month in a memorandum to Trump and his transition team. The group, which has been a proponent of moving the nation’s used fuel to Yucca Mountain, said DOE should complete the licensing process for the site.
“The 114th Congress saw numerous legislative initiatives aimed at addressing our nation’s used fuel management strategy. The nuclear industry anticipates that interest will grow in the 115th Congress,” says Maria Korsnick, NEI’s CEO.—Jessica Morrison
↑ Top
Energy: Unclear path, tumultuous time for energy policy
Credit: Shutterstock
In the early weeks of the new Congress, Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate are expected to develop plans to roll back energy- and environment-related programs and regulations. The exact hows and whats, however, are unclear.
Meanwhile, several aides say lawmakers will likely attempt to resurrect past bills cleared by the House in the last session of Congress but blocked in the Senate or by President Barack Obama. For instance, the House Energy & Commerce Committee is likely to revisit provisions in the proposed North American Security & Infrastructure Act, which cleared the House along party lines but did not pass the Senate. The measure’s provisions addressed electrical grid security, energy efficiency, and other areas.
Such bills are likely to be modified, reflecting the GOP’s new authority through the incoming Trump presidency as well as control of both bodies of Congress, aides say. Lawmakers are exploring legislative approaches that would spur energy-related infrastructure development.
On the Senate side, movement will be slower. The Senate Energy & Natural Resources committee will take up more than 40 of Trump’s nominees for key Energy and Interior Department posts. That will draw about three months of committee time, according to Senate aides.
Longtime supporters of energy R&D; funding and the jobs that have come with it are worried and looking for ways to protect and support the Department of Energy’s science and technology research programs.
“My hunch is the new Congress is going to be deeply involved in regulatory and nomination battles early on,” says Robert Cowin, Union of Concerned Scientists’ government affairs director. “But right now, we are watching congressional budget conversations from a clean energy standpoint. Particularly, we are looking at funding for programs such as energy efficiency, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), and grid modernization. On the basis of Trump’s transition team statements, these programs appear to have targets on their backs.
“But they are important and create jobs and we want to see them continue to be funded.”
Cowin notes the new Administration has promised to push tax reform. “There may be opportunities in tax code reform proposals to provide support for technology neutral, low-carbon projects.”—Jeff Johnson, special to C&EN;
↑ Top
Climate Change: U.S. future in Paris Agreement uncertain
Trump’s position on the Paris Agreement to stem climate change isn’t yet clear. During the 2016 campaign, he pledged to “cancel” the Paris Agreement. After he was elected, Trump told the New York Times that he has “an open mind” about the climate deal.
The 2015 international agreement, ratified by 122 countries and the European Union, calls for each country’s greenhouse gas emissions to be capped at levels sufficient to keep global temperature rise below 2 °C, a goal set by policymakers. Some scientists say this level is likely to be sufficient to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
“Trump could formally pull the U.S. out over the next three years under the terms of the agreement,” says David Waskow, director of the international climate initiative of the World Resources Institute, an environmental nonprofit. The impact would be “significant” with worldwide repercussions, he says.
“Climate change has moved to the core of international agreements and diplomacy,” he says. “Retreating from Paris will send negative signals internationally, frankly, in other areas as well as climate. And it will make it very difficult for the U.S. to play a leadership role in the huge and emerging international marketplace for clean energy products,” Wasko says.
He pointed to China’s recent announcement that it will invest more than $360 billion over the next four years to speed up its use of renewable energy.
Environmental activists are gearing up to defend the Clean Power Plan, an Obama Administration regulation designed as the main means for the U.S. to implement the Paris Agreement. A group of states is contesting that rule in federal court—an effort that until recently was led by Trump’s pick to captain EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.
Congress, too, may consider legislation to revoke that EPA rule, given that Republican lawmakers attempted to do so in 2015.—Jeff Johnson, special to C&EN;
↑ Top
Pesticides: EPA to decide on several crop protection products
Chlorpyrifos
EPA is under a court order to make a final decision about the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos by March 31. In response to a petition from environmental groups, the agency twice last year proposed to revoke all food tolerances for the chemical. Industry and farm groups say it is unlikely that the Trump Administration will support the proposed action because of the importance of the chemical to crop protection, but it is unclear how EPA would justify reversing course. The assessments underlying the agency’s proposal are controversial because EPA used human epidemiological data in some of its determinations. The chemical industry is challenging those assessments.
Atrazine
EPA plans to have its pesticide Scientific Advisory Panel of outside experts review the agency’s draft ecological assessment of the herbicide atrazine this year. EPA released the draft assessment in 2016, concluding that atrazine poses a health risk to many plants and animals. Farm groups and pesticide makers are urging the agency not to tighten restrictions on atrazine, saying it would render the chemical useless in controlling weeds. EPA is also expected to release its human health assessments for three triazine herbicides, including atrazine, later this year.
Glyphosate and 2,4-D
EPA is expected to finalize a proposal early this year that would allow the herbicide Enlist Duo—a combination of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and glyphosate—to be used on genetically engineered cotton. The proposal would also expand the number of states where the controversial mixture can be used. Enlist Duo, manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, is already approved for use on genetically engineered corn and soybeans in more than a dozen U.S. states. Wine growers in Texas are raising concerns about expanding the use of Enlist Duo, saying volatile herbicides such as 2,4-D are drifting into their vineyards from nearby cropland and damaging their fruit.—Britt Erickson
↑ Top
Trade: Trump signals major shift in import-export policy
Trump is promising to usher in a new era for trade policy that could signal trouble ahead for U.S. chemical manufacturers.
Last August during the campaign, Trump said he would shift the focus from expansive multilateral trade agreements to renegotiation or withdrawal from existing pacts that he contends have failed to protect U.S. manufacturing jobs.
“We will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores.”
—Donald Trump
As one of the nation’s top exporting industries, the chemical sector has been a strong proponent of the 14 free trade agreements the U.S. has entered into with 20 countries.
“We would like to see a continuance of trade policies that will create new opportunities and address barriers that impede the ability of U.S. specialty chemical manufacturers from growing their businesses,” says Brittany Mountjoy, manager of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, an industry trade group.
SOCMA’s member companies—mainly small and mid-sized businesses—are “hopeful about the new Administration,” and the benefits it might bring to specialty chemical makers, Mountjoy says.
Trump, who has long disdained international trade deals that he says make it easier to offshore U.S. jobs, has promised to immediately ditch the Trans Pacific Partnership. He has described the pending free trade agreement signed by 12 countries around the Pacific Rim, including the U.S., Japan, and Australia, as a job-killing “potential disaster for our country.”
“Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores,” Trump said in a late November 2016 video announcing his transition plans.
Last June, he threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the North American Free Trade Agreement, which connects Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, if Mexico doesn’t agree to renegotiate the pact. The 22-year-old agreement, Trump argues, has hollowed out U.S. manufacturing to Mexico’s benefit.
With vast supplies of low-cost natural gas from shale deposits and $175 billion invested in new factories and expanded production capacity, U.S. chemical exports are projected to grow on average 7% per year through 2021, according to the American Chemistry Council, an industry association. But meeting that potential will require new trade agreements, it claims.
“We agree that trade should be fair, and also know firsthand that trade can unlock potential in our economy and create jobs here at home,” ACC says. “We hope to work with Congress and the Trump Administration to chart a path forward on trade that will help American businesses thrive and benefit American workers.”—Glenn Hess, special to C&EN;
↑ Top
Environment: Scrutiny of EPA’s scientific review process will continue
Congressional scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific review process could signal changes for the agency this year.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, last month challenged the scientific validity of the Environmental Protection Agency’s multiyear hydraulic fracturing study. Smith accused EPA of changing its mind on the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies.
“It is clear that the agency needs to enact reforms of its entire scientific review process,” Smith said in a statement after the release of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. “I look forward to working with the next Administration to enact critical reforms to put EPA back on course in pursuing transparency and sound science.”
Smith cosponsored legislation in the 114th Congress aimed at changing the way EPA selects external experts. The House passed the proposed EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 1029), but a companion bill introduced in the Senate failed to gain traction.
The legislation, which could re-surface, would have set new requirements for membership selection to EPA’s expert advisory committees and panels.
The 2015 bill would have opened the door to more EPA advisers from industry.
It also would have prohibited scientists who have received EPA grants within three years from serving, restricted experts from participating in advisory evaluations related to their own research, and required the board to provide written responses to “significant comments” from the public.—Jessica Morrison
↑ Top
Policy outlook roundup
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Speaker of the House of Representatives, determines which legislation will come before lawmakers for a vote.
Credit: Associated Press
Business: Administration could seek to stop chemical makers’ mergers
The Trump transition’s agriculture adviser, Bruce Rastetter, wants the incoming Administration to halt pending mergers of major chemical and seed companies. These include deals between Dow and DuPont, Bayer and Monsanto, and China National Chemical and Syngenta. Rastetter, CEO of Summit Agricultural Group, told theDes Moines Register the mergers would jack up farmers’ costs because they would amalgamate seed suppliers and agrochemical producers.—Cheryl Hogue
Diversity: Immigration reform efforts could impact scientists
Immigration reform was a cornerstone of President-elect Trump’s campaign platform, with Trump saying he wanted to limit the number of foreign workers who came into the U.S. Scientists are most worried about crackdowns on the H-1B, the visa for highly skilled workers. Trump has attacked the H-1B visa the past.—Andrea Widener
Consumer products: Momentum to boost cosmetics oversight grows
Credit: Shutterstock
Cosmetics and personal care products manufacturers, health groups, and others are urging U.S. lawmakers to reintroduce the Personal Care Products Safety Act this year. The legislation would boost FDA’s oversight of cosmetics ingredients and require cosmetics companies to register with the agency.—Britt Erickson
Drug development: FDA to implement 21st Century Cures law
FDA is gearing up to approve pharmaceuticals more quickly through a new law enacted in December. Though opponents question the safety of accelerated approval, outgoing FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf says the law will support agency “efforts to modernize and improve efficiency in clinical trial design.” The Trump transition team has made no announcement about FDA work on the 21st Century Cures law as yet.—Jessica Morrison
Education: Higher education legislation may gain momentum in 2017
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has been working on a revamp of the Higher Education Act for several years, so he will likely push it in 2017. The parts of the bill that focus on science teacher training, access for disadvantaged students, and reducing administrative burdens for universities are all of interest to the science community.—Andrea Widener
Persistent Pollutants: Industry continues to seek U.S. ratification of treaty
Chemical manufacturers are asking Congress to make the U.S. an official treaty partner to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Under that agreement, countries are reducing or eliminating the release of substances that can cause serious health problems. Among chemicals it covers are several obsolete pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls. The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, supports the U.S. becoming a full participant in the 2001 accord, a move that environmental activists back too. “As we work to highlight issues that are important to U.S. manufacturers and American competitiveness, ACC will continue to include ratification of the Stockholm Convention,” the group says.—Cheryl Hogue
Keep reading...Show less
Trump’s picks for EPA and Interior threaten the future of clean water.
Environmentalists have been rightly focused on the fact that climate deniers Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, whom he is expected to nominate for the Department of the Interior, could devastate the Clean Power Plan, the Paris Accord and, through them, national and even global progress on climate change. But Trump’s picks could permanently damage the country’s waters, too.
TRUMP€™S PICKS FOR EPA AND INTERIOR THREATEN THE FUTURE OF CLEAN WATER
Sharon Lerner
2016-12-09T21:39:26+00:00
Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE BEEN rightly focused on the fact that climate deniers Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, whom he is expected to nominate for the Department of the Interior, could devastate the Clean Power Plan, the Paris Accord and, through them, national and even global progress on climate change. But Trump’s picks could permanently damage the country’s waters, too.
Both have a record of wide-ranging hostility toward the environment. As Attorney General of Oklahoma, Pruitt repeatedly (and often unsuccessfully) sued the EPA to stop the agency from doing its job. McMorris Rodgers, a conservative member of the House from Washington who has received almost a half-million dollars in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies, earned a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Both have already made the dismantling of water protections a particular priority.
If appointed, these two foes of the earth will likely usher in dark days for our nation’s lakes, streams, and rivers. Our waterways are already in serious peril, according to an EPA evaluation of U.S. lakes released Friday. According to the report, 30 percent of lakes now contain the pesticide atrazine.
Water contamination will almost certainly increase if Pruitt declines to issue penalties to polluters and cuts the budgets of divisions responsible for enforcement, as his record and rhetoric has indicated he will.
“A lot of how much protection we get has to do with whether the agency chooses to buddy up to the industry or really hold them accountable for the violation of the laws,†said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper. Van Rossum is currently involved in fighting fracking and more than a dozen pipeline projects and fears the threats to the river basin will only increase.
“Under a Pruitt EPA, we’re going to have a whole agency that’s about turning a blind eye, rather than holding industries accountable and protecting the people,†said van Rossum.
While it will take years to feel the full effects of some environmental disasters, the impact of not enforcing water laws will be felt more quickly. “The scary thing about water is there’s no wiggle room,†said Lisa Garcia, vice president of litigation for healthy communities at Earthjustice. “Once you discharge contamination into our drinking water, that’s an immediate impact. This could turn into real impacts to human health. It’s not something you want to play around with.â€
Yet Pruitt and McMorris Rodgers already have. Both nominees have vocally opposed the Waters of the United States Rule, which would extend federal protection to thousands of lakes, rivers, and streams and allow the EPA to use the Clean Water Act to prosecute people who pollute them. Last year, Pruitt sued the EPA over the rule because it would harm the “property rights of the average American.â€
Though a court is currently reviewing the rule, as EPA head Pruitt could decide not to defend it or even withdraw it. Other water protections in the works that he could snuff out include a tightening of the rules on lead and copper piping. If finalized, those rules could help prevent another Flint.
“We’re really concerned about lead and copper,†said David Goldston, director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But really it’s everything.â€
The fact that Trump has already surrounded himself with so many enemies of the environment makes the threat all the worse. “An entire constellation of anti-environmental people would clearly put in place policies that are counter to the public interest,†said Goldston.
Now environmental groups are turning their energies to fighting the appointments. Some have noted that only a few Republicans would need to break ranks to block Pruitt’s path in the Senate. And the opposition to McMorris Rodgers has already begun. Just hours after Trump’s choice was reported, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, called on any senator “with a concern for future generations of Americans” to oppose her: “Rep. McMorris Rodgers poses a clear and present danger to our treasured public lands.”
Keep reading...Show less
Trump's EPA pick says pesticides aren't bad for you.
In addition to not believing in climate change, Myron Ebell has several other lovely qualities.
In addition to not believing in climate change, Myron Ebell has several other lovely qualities.
TOM PHILPOTTNOV. 16, 2016 6:00 AM
Like pesticides? Trump's got the right man for you. hedgehog94/iStock
To craft environmental policy for the next administration, President-elect Donald Trump settled on notorious climate-change denier Myron Ebell. The decision rattled climate activists—see Julia Lurie's interview with Bill McKibbon and David Roberts on Vox. But it isn't just greenhouse gas emissions that are likely to get a free ride under an Ebell-influenced Environmental Protection Agency. Farm chemicals, too, would likely flow unabated if Ebell's agenda comes to dominate Trump's Environmental Protection Agency.
Ebell's group dismisses the well-established existence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals as a myth conjured by "anti-chemical activists."
Ebell directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The group's website, SafeChemicalPolicy.org, exists to downplay the health and ecological impacts of chemicals.
If the incoming EPA takes its cues from Ebell's group, the agency's coming decisions on some widely used farm chemicals won't be hard to predict.
Take the class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. An ever-accumulating weight of evidence links declining honeybee health with neonicotinoids, which have exploded in use since the late 1990s. Yet CEI completely denies any harm to bees from the chemicals, and rejects any role for government action in protecting bees.
The EPA has been in the midst of a long, slow review of the chemicals, produced by pesticide giants Syngenta and Bayer. Last January, the agency released its assessment of the most prominent one, Bayer's Imidacloprid, which is heavily used on cotton and soybean fields. The result: EPA scientists found the chemical so harmful to bee colonies, at the levels commonly found in cotton fields, that the agency "could potentially take action" to "restrict or limit the use" of the chemical by the end of this year, an agency spokesperson told me in an emailed statement. So far, the EPA has not taken such an action.
As for soybeans, a massive user of Imidacloprid, the EPA found that it simply lacked the data from Bayer to assess it—even though the pesticide has been improved for use since the 1990s.
The agency is committed to releasing a slew of other neonic assessments in 2017—and intervening to restrict their use, if they harm honeybees. If the Competitive Enterprise Institute view of things holds sway, expect very little, if any, action to come of this effort.
Then there's atrazine, perhaps the most controversial pesticide that's used widely on US farm fields. Banned in Europe, it's an endocrine disrupter, a term used for chemicals that mimic hormones and "produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife," according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Widely found in streams and drinking water near farms where it's used, atrazine triggers sex changes in frogs at extremely low levels, according to research from University of California-Berkeley scientist Tyrone Hayes—work that has earned Hayes a long harassment campaign from the chemical's maker, Syngenta.
Again, the EPA is in the midst of a slow, grinding reassessment of whether or not to restrict atrazine use. Don't expect much from a CEI-influenced EPA. SafeChemicalPolicy.com's atrazine page pitches it as a chemical with "low" risks and "high" rewards, and attacks Hayes. Another page dismisses the well-established existence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals as a myth conjured by "anti-chemical activists."
So, Ebell's group doesn't just brazenly trash established science when it comes to climate change, to the delight of the fossil fuel industry. CEI provides the same service for the companies that dominate agrichemical production. And it's not hard to see why. The center does not reveal its funding sources, but back in 2013, it allowed a Washington Post reporter to have a look at the biggest donors to its annual gala dinner that year. Predictably, the group got a nice cash infusion from petroleum, coal, and auto interests. But Big Ag chipped in, too: Pesticide/seed giants Monsanto and Syngenta each gave $10,000, as did their trade group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
President-elect Trump has been roundly mocked for running as a crusading reformer, and then tapping a bunch of industry lobbyists and apologists like Ebell to lead his transition. Rather than "draining the swamp" in Washington, Trump seems to want to inject it with agrichemicals.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
