by Spencer Helm

The former site of C & D recycling in Foster Township, PA has been deleted from the EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL). This site was used from 1963 to 1984 to reclaim metallic copper from old copper cables. This process resulted in hazardous waste and the contamination of soil and water. From 1984 until 2016 the site was being restored, requiring the disposal 80,000 tons of soil, along with another 10,000 tons of other contaminated media, and the demolishing of structures and reseeding to prevent soil erosion. Sites can be deleted from the NPL with state concurrence when they have been entirely restored to their natural state, and no further response is necessary. Because all site clean-up goals have been met, the EPA opened for comment on deleting the site from the NPL, and after receiving no resistance from the public, has gone through with this decision.

While the fact that the EPA saw this project through to the end is admirable, it is unfortunate that this situation arose in the first place. The tendency of the US to outsource hazardous refining and recycling processes to developing nations is very much a policy of “shallow ecology”.

https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0300881#bkground

by Eric Guzy

Donald Trump’s campaign in Erie, Pennsylvania left many wide bright perspectives for the future of the hometown great lake. Promises of economic recovery were stated with strong confidence and passion, but only to be met with the exact opposite come time to take action. Residents of Erie were heart-broken to here that the budget for the great lake’s restoration from $300 million to a mere $30 million. The great lakes restoration project was an Obama administration initiative to provide fresh water to over 40 million people. This funding has allowed for local great lake initiative projects to prevent the pollution and runoff of local creeks and waterways running off into the lakes. The health of the lakes (in Erie specifically) depends on the funding that is allotted to help prevent such forms of pollution from being a problem. Pollution would also be a detriment to Erie’s tourism industry which could be a deficit of up to $1 million. This would take away even more potential funding for the lake and would even further perpetuate the issue of pollution in the lake. Pennsylvania representatives have been working rigorously to ensure that the funding for the great lakes initiative. In the Obama administration as well budget cuts were sought, just not as drastic. This does however show a lack of awareness in the White House for the issue of environmental affairs and should be addressed.

http://www.goerie.com/zz/shareable/20180228/106-million-people-watched-mash-finale-35-years-ago-no-scripted-show-since-has-come-close?utm_medium=web&utm_source=endwidget&utm_campaign=shareable

Here are the results of a new study on corporate sustainability:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150736.htm

Philadelphia Energy Solutions’ refinery presents an environmental hazard to the state’s largest city.

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/02/20/philadelphia-energy-solutions-a-giant-polluter-looms-over-the-lives-and-health-of-its-neighbors/

by Audrey Fleming

Since the approval of the budget on Feb. 9, Congress began writing the dozen appropriations bills that are likely to be apart of one giant spending measure. In 2015, the Obama administration adopted a landmark rule aimed to increase protections for smaller streams and wetlands, which are crucial to the country’s drinking water and wildlife; the bill basically restated the Clean Water Act of 1972. Farmers complained to Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA and he is now working on an alternative option to appeal to more commercial interests. The Obama Administration approved two rules to decrease emissions of methane; the EPA would regulate emissions from oil and gas wells; the Interior Department would require oil and gas companies to control venting and flaring from existing wells on public lands. The House and Senate have made attempts to rewrite these rules, which could extremely effect clean air and climate. The Sage grouse, a bird who’s numbers are decreasing, who are being denied endangered species protections from the House and Senate. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke believes that this plan is too kind to the bird and too harmful for the oil and gas companies, therefore he wants to end it. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Senate interior and environment appropriations subcommittee, is looking to propose an amendment that would weaken protections against the destruction of trees in the Tongass National Forest.

What will be the cost to our environment if these proposals are passed? How badly is our climate, air quality and water access going to decrease? Our environment is at risk under these proposals by our lawmakers. In all the effects of the Obama Administration to help the environment, it is troubling that all of that could be taken away.

“The Dirty Little Deals That Would Foul the Environment.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Feb. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/opinion/republican-environment-policy.html.

by Luciano DiElsi

The Trump administration is attempting to remove Obama era rules on how gas and oil companies deal with methane leaks, gas flares, and oil leaks. When drilling and fracking occur the pipelines used to extract the gas or oil often times leak; In the case of fracking, additional pockets can open within the earth between the gas suppositories and surface away theses are called gas flares. Before the Obama Administration these flares were allowed to spew out millions of gallons of resources into the atmosphere increasing greenhouse emissions and wasting precious domestic resources. When Obama took office, he set forth a number of provisions which forced the gas and oil industry to recapture and put into circulation the gas and oil ordinarily lost in flare offs and leaks. The Obama administration framed the plan as a win-win, greenhouse emissions were drastically reduced and the oil gas industries profited from the recaptured gas and oil.

However, in recent weeks the Trump administration has sought to lift these provisions clamming that the cost of recapturing the gas flares and oil leaks have turned out to be higher than sales received for the recaptured gas. The Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals gave this quote, “In order to achieve energy dominance through responsible energy production, we need smart regulations not punitive regulations,” said Joe Balash, assistant secretary for land and minerals management. “We believe this proposed rule strikes that balance and will allow job growth in rural America.”

Currently the Secretary of Bureuer of Land Management Ryan Zinke is facing a number of attempts to block the proposal from the Trump Administration. Critics of the proposal are demanding that a serious explanation and detailed reasoning be set down on why the Obama Provisions should be replaced which would result in an increase of greenhouse Emissions.

The natural gas industry in the state of Pennsylvania would be greatly impacted by this legislature both economically and environmentally, what are your guys thoughts? Do you think the lifting of cost incurred by the gas and oil industry under the Obama Administration would result in job growth in rural America? And if the provision is lifted and job growth increase would it offset the millions of gallons of lost resources? And lost royalty fees for the American tax payer?

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13022018/methane-leaks-monitoring-global-warming-oil-gas-flares-air-pollution-trump-greenhouse-gas