Cookies Notice

This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services, to personalize ads, and to analyze traffic. Information about your use of this site is shared with Google. By using this site, you agree to its use of cookies.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Prepare for smoggier, less healthy air if Trump's pick for EPA is approved

Residents of the San Joaquin Valley and the Los Angeles area are well aware of how bad photochemical smog can be. Both areas still fail to meet not only federal but also California standards for clean, healthy air.

However, based upon testimony during his confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate, residents of those areas had better start getting prepared for a return to smoggier days based upon Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's answers yesterday.


Scott Pruitt, Photo by Michael Reynolds / EPA - Fair use


Pruitt, President*-elect Trump's pick to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has long been a friend to the oil and gas industry and a vocal opponent of several ground breaking environmental laws. During his testimony he refused to say that he would support a certain federal waiver that allows California and other states to adopt air pollution regulations that are more stringent than what EPA requires.

This waiver has allowed California to adopt tougher air pollution controls for motor vehicles, for example, as well as adopting stronger air permitting and air pollution control requirements for industrial sources as well. Those more robust regulations have demonstrably resulted in far greater progress in reducing air pollution in California than otherwise would have occurred under EPA regulations alone.

However, Pruitt, who has a history of arguing for state's rights when it benefits industrial concerns, hinted that continuation of the waiver if he is approved to be EPA's leader will not be a given.

Get out the gas masks - the air around here is going to get hard to breathe real soon.

Friday, January 13, 2017

Will 2017 be the year that all diesel car makers get nailed by EPA and CARB for emission control cheating?

Will 2017 be the year that all diesel car makers get nailed by EPA and CARB for emission control cheating?

Fresh after recent news that the EPA and CARB have agreed on settlement penalties (and some engine fixes) related to the Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche emissions cheating scandal, the agencies announced this week that they are charging Fiat/Chrysler with similar nefarious misdeeds and are issuing Notices of Violation to the corporation and its applicable entities.


Photo: 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee, Jeep website, Fair use

Apparently a number of auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) were found in 3.0 liter diesel Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ram pickup trucks from the 2014 - 2016 model years. The devices were not disclosed to either of the agencies when they were submitted for certification under the Clean Air Act.

According to the government, the devices significantly increase emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), a precursor to photochemical smog.

The NOVs apply to about 104,000 of these vehicles nationwide and 14,000 in California.
CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols said, "Once again. a major automaker has failed to meet their (sic) legal obligations for vehicle certification and gotten caught. CARB and USEPA made a commitment to enhanced testing as the Volkswagen case developed, and this is a result of that collaboration."

Nichols was referring to a September 25, 2015 notice that it sent out to all major automakers that diesel vehicles would face expanded emissions testing as part of CARB's In-Use Compliance Program. The program was developed as a result of the Volkswagen scandal.

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for USEPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, added, "Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle's engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe...All automakers must play by the same rules, and we will continue to hold companies accountable that gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage."

In defense of his company, FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne reportedly ripped into USEPA, saying that his company had done nothing illegal. He referred to the charges as "offensive" and "incredibly belligerent."  He said, "We're trying to do an honest job here. We're not trying to break the bloody law."

He added that anyone who disagreed with his assertion that there is nothing in common with what VW did and the charges against FCA must be "smoking illegal material."

So far, VW, Audi, Porsche and now Jeep and Dodge have run afoul of EPA and ARB regulators. Many are now asking how many others will be found to have done similar things before the year is over?

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Noted environmentalist Santa Claus isn't giving coal to bad kids this year

Apparently even Santa Claus is concerned with global warming and the possible effects of all that heat on his North Pole headquarters.

As a result, he reportedly is no longer giving out lumps of coal to bad kids this year, according to investigative reporters at AboveAverage.com. Instead, he's handing out solar panels, obviously a more sustainable gift than coal but one that the kids will hate anyway!


Photo: https://aboveaverage-xbarkgu.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/solarpanel-notcoal-800x0-c-default.jpg; Fair Use

Get all the exclusive details here: 

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

EPA's final fracking report unable to calculate severity or frequency of drinking water contamination

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued it's final report on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water supplies. Although the report identifies several areas of concern in the "fracking" process with the potential to cause problems, EPA was unable to conclusively characterize the severity or frequency of fracking impacts on drinking water.



The tone of the final report appears to be less dismissive of fracking concerns as the previous EPA "draft" report seemed to be. However, although it gives detailed information about potential vulnerabilities to drinking water resources, EPA said it was not designed to document specific impacts that have occurred.

Nevertheless, the latest findings are sure to do nothing to lessen the debate between those who favor the practice and those who vehemently oppose it.

"The value of high quality science has never been more important in helping to guide decisions around our nation’s fragile water resources. EPA's assessment provides the scientific foundation for local decision makers, industry, and communities that are looking to protect public health and drinking water resources and make more informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing activities,” said Dr. Thomas A. Burke, EPA's Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development. "This assessment is the most complete compilation to date of national scientific data on the relationship of drinking water resources and hydraulic fracturing."

Hydraulic fracturing is a process that involves injecting large volumes of water and chemicals into oil and gas containing formations underground to break or "fracture" those formations to facilitate the production of oil and natural gas that might not otherwise be recoverable. 

Critics have claimed the practice is unsafe and should be banned everywhere, pointing to examples of drinking water wells contaminated with methane gas and other harmful chemicals, as well as the increased frequency of earthquakes that they claim is the result of fracking.

Supporters have pointed to a fracking history of over 40 years that has shown little, if any, of the problems critics describe in the overwhelming majority of sites that have been fracked.

The new report looked at every step of the hydraulic fracturing process, including some areas that arguably are common oil & gas industry practices for non-fracked wells. These include:

(1) Acquiring water to be used for hydraulic fracturing (Water Acquisition),
(2) Mixing the water with chemical additives to make hydraulic fracturing fluids (Chemical Mixing),
(3) Injecting hydraulic fracturing fluids into the production well to create and grow fractures in the targeted production zone (Well Injection), 
(4) Collecting the wastewater that returns through the well after injection (Produced Water Handling), 
(5) Managing the wastewater through disposal or reuse methods (Wastewater Disposal and Reuse).

According to the Executive Summary in EPA's latest report, the agency's review of peer reviewed scientific data led it to identify those areas in which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities CAN be more frequent or severe, including:

  • Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
  • Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
  • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
  • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
  • Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and
  • Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.

For more information: