MVCAC February 2022

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1 participants
7 discussions

Preparing for Petrochemicals: Virtual Community Meeting - 12/8/21
by Duane Nichols 23 Feb '22

23 Feb '22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rCZxEa4KHY >>>. Full event video. Event took place on December 8, 2021. A virtual community meeting to discuss issues and concerns as the Shell petrochemical plant nears start-up operations. The evening was facilitated by Sr. Kari Pohl, Coordinator of Justice and Peace Ministry for the Sisters of St. Joseph of Baden. Topics and Speakers include: • Shell Plant Overview - Dr. Clifford Lau, Duquesne University and Beaver County Marcellus Awareness Community (BCMAC) (featuring photography by Ted Auch/FracTracker Alliance) • Final Permitting and Fenceline Monitoring - Adam Kron, Earthjustice and Karl Koerner, Clean Air Council • Petrochemical Health Impacts - Dr. Ned Ketyer, Physicians for Social Responsibility PA and Environmental Health Project • Air Pollution Monitoring - Ana Hoffman, CMU CREATE Lab, Mark Dixon, BlueLens • Water, Noise, Light and other Pollution - Terrie Baumgardner, Clean Air Council, Beaver County Clean Air Outreach Coordinator and BCMAC • Emergency Response System - Mr. Eric Brewer, Beaver County Emergency Management • Texas Experiences - Yvette Arellano, Fenceline Watch, Houston, Texas >>> Q & A Event partners: Beaver County Marcellus Awareness, Community (BCMAC), Blue Lens, LLC, Breathe Project, Clean Air Council, CMU CREATE Lab, Communities First Sewickley, EarthJustice, Environmental Health Project, Environmental Integrity Project, Fractracker Alliance, League of Women Voters of PA, Physicians for Social Responsibility PA

1 0

PLASTICS Problems Can Actually Get Worse ....
by Duane Nichols 22 Feb '22

22 Feb '22

Trend Study Chemical Recycling (“extract”) — Technologies, key players, plants & projects and status of the plastic waste treatment as a business, February 2022 https://www.ecoprog.com/fileadmin/user_upload/extract_Trend_Study_Chemical_…

1 0

Sierra Club and Partners File Brief in High Stakes West Va v. EPA Case o
by Duane Nichols 13 Feb '22

13 Feb '22

https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2022/01/sierra-club-and-partners-file-b… Sierra Club and Partners File Brief in High Stakes West Va v. EPA Case By Andres Restrepo and Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club USA, January 19, 2022 The Sierra Club, together with a coalition of environmental organizations, public health advocacy groups, and others, filed a brief yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case West Virginia v. EPA. The brief forcefully opposes an attack on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Air Act authority launched by right-wing politicians and coal industry executives allied with them. With the support of polluter-backed special interest groups and other far-right extremists, the petitioners in this case are asserting a legal theory invented by the Trump Administration that would gut EPA’s ability to rein in climate-disrupting carbon dioxide pollution from existing fossil fuel-burning power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. One year ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected those arguments and ruled in favor of Sierra Club and its allies; the case is now before the Supreme Court. The Court’s decision in this case could severely undercut EPA’s power to protect public health and welfare by combatting the climate crisis. As our brief makes clear, EPA has not only the authority, but the duty to issue meaningful safeguards against carbon pollution from power plants, despite the Trump Administration’s previous efforts to read that authority out of the law. More to the point, our brief demonstrates that the Court should promptly dismiss this case without addressing the legal merits: the Court has no jurisdiction over this case since no EPA regulations currently exist that implicate these legal questions. Unfortunately, the coal companies and politicians litigating this case are not content to focus on the narrow question of statutory interpretation at hand. Instead, they are seizing this case as an opportunity to strike a body blow against EPA’s authority to carry out vital Congressional directives. The petitioners’ briefs to the Court focus largely on what is known as the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle concerning the interpretation of laws and their implementation by federal agencies. In certain prior cases, the Supreme Court has held that when a federal agency interprets a Congressional statute in a way that would have “vast economic and political significance,” a court will look for a “clear Congressional authorization” in the governing law, rather than interpret statutory silence or ambiguity as permitting the agency’s interpretation. In this case, the petitioners – coal companies and their political allies – are trying to use the major questions doctrine to strip EPA of its authority to consider any emission reduction techniques under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act except those that can be implemented within the walls of each individual plant. Their theory would permit EPA to adopt only exceedingly weak measures that would shield power companies from the obligation to pay anything other than minimal costs for the dangerous pollution their plants emit. However, they ignore the fact that the Supreme Court already held in AEP vs. Connecticut that “Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from powerplants,” and that section 111(d) “speaks directly” to EPA’s authority in this regard. The petitioners’ legal theory, and their understanding of the major questions doctrine, would decimate EPA’s authority to take meaningful action to reduce power plants’ dangerous carbon dioxide emissions. But the damage wouldn’t end there. They are directly targeting federal agencies’ authority in general to develop policies and take action to protect the public’s health, welfare, and safety. Indeed, just yesterday, the politician leading the attack on EPA’s regulatory authority–West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey–told the press that the petitioners’ legal theory in this case is “not only about our coal-fired power plants,” but also “deals with consumer-related matters” and raises “fundamental questions about the size and scope of government.” Here’s what that really means: Morrissey and his allies want to use this case to torpedo the ability of public servants at government agencies to do their Congressionally-mandated duty to enforce laws and safeguard our air and water, ensure that businesses from agriculture to telecommunications to transportation treat consumers fairly, and protect the health of our families and communities. A ruling in their favor could send us back to the period of American government that preceded the Great Depression, commonly known as the “Lochner era,” when corporate power went largely unchecked and federal agencies had little authority to protect the public. The sweeping ruling these politicians and coal companies are pushing for would undermine the will of the people, a century of laws, and decades of legal precedent. We are confident that each of their claims lacks merit, and our brief explains exactly why. In response to this blatant and dangerous overreach, the key points of the brief are as follows: First, there is no standing for this attack. This case should be dismissed because the petitioners lack standing to pursue their claims. Their arguments focus on the implementation of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan–a policy that never went into effect, and whose emission targets were already reached a decade ahead of schedule due to industry trends, even without that regulation in place. Instead, EPA plans to issue a new rule on a blank slate to limit power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions, and the petitioners’ preemptive attacks against those standards are entirely speculative. Rather than raise their legal claims in the abstract, the petitioners must await the result of EPA’s new rulemaking, which will both define the issues for judicial review and avoid entangling the court in an unnecessary advisory exercise over regulations that never went into effect. Second, even if this were a live issue instead of speculation, the petitioners’ arguments would fail because the Clean Air Act gives the EPA clear authority to act. Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act simply does not include the restrictions on EPA authority that the petitioners claim it does. Just as the Trump Administration did, the petitioners contort the plain meaning of the statute and read into it words that Congress did not include. This is the only way they can support their interpretation of section 111(d), which would severely and unjustifiably restrict EPA’s authority to limit carbon dioxide pollution from existing power plants. Third, the “major questions” issue does not apply in this case. Precedent makes clear that the major questions doctrine is relevant when the policy in question would have “vast economic or political significance.” Yet the Clean Power Plan never even took effect, and market-driven trends in the electric power sector have rendered its emission-reduction targets immaterial. The Supreme Court has never applied major questions principles to an agency rule that is defunct, not under review, and that would have no meaningful impact even if it were reinstated. In any event, Congress included clear instructions in section 111(d) for EPA to follow in regulating air pollution; those instructions do not include the limits that the petitioners claim, and that is all the specificity that the law requires. As our brief makes clear, the extreme positions of the petitioners are out of line with the Clean Air Act and with the governing legal precedent. The case should therefore be dismissed; otherwise, the Supreme Court should uphold the D.C. Circuit’s decision rejecting the legal theory that the petitioners use to attack EPA’s Clean Air Act authority. As we look ahead to oral arguments before the Supreme Court, which will occur on February 28, Sierra Club and its partners will continue to beat the drum in support of our position in this case. More broadly, we will continue to use all of our tools of advocacy to ensure that we defeat the vision for our climate, our country, and our world held by the coal industry and its political allies, like Patrick Morrissey. And we will not stop in our work to secure a just and prosperous future that provides 100% clean and renewable energy for all. >>>>> You can help, see ..... FrackCheckWV.net

1 0

Justice Dept. Seizes $3.6 Billion in Bitcoin and Arrests Married Couple - The New York Times, February 8, 2022
by Duane Nichols 09 Feb '22

09 Feb '22

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/politics/ilya-lichtenstein-heather-mo… Justice Dept. Seizes $3.6 Billion in Bitcoin and Arrests Married Couple The couple were accused of conspiring to launder Bitcoin that had been stolen in 2016 from Hong Kong-based Bitfinex, one of the world’s largest virtual currency exchanges. From an Article by Katie Bender, New York Times, Feb. 8, 2022 WASHINGTON — The Justice Department said on Tuesday that it had seized over $3.6 billion worth of stolen Bitcoin and arrested a married couple accused of laundering the cryptocurrency that hackers had stolen six years ago. The couple, Ilya Lichtenstein, 34, and Heather Morgan, 31, were accused in a criminal complaint of conspiring to launder 119,754 Bitcoin that had been stolen in 2016 from Hong Kong-based Bitfinex, one of the world’s largest virtual currency exchanges. The value of the currency at the time of its seizure last week makes it the department’s largest financial seizure ever, officials said. The breach in 2016 was among a spate of hackings into currency exchanges that have allowed for the theft of large amounts of digital currency. After the hacking of Bitfinex, one of the largest exchanges in the history of the cryptocurrency market, the value of Bitcoin initially plunged about 20 percent. Mr. Lichtenstein and Ms. Morgan appeared in a federal court in Manhattan on Tuesday afternoon. A judge ordered them released on bond: $5 million in Mr. Lichtenstein’s case and $3 million in Ms. Morgan’s. A lawyer representing them did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr. Lichtenstein, who goes by the nickname Dutch, has both American and Russian citizenship and has described himself as a tech entrepreneur, according to the complaint. Ms. Morgan describes herself on her LinkedIn page as “a serial entrepreneur” and an “irreverent comedic rapper.” The complaint, which also accuses the couple of conspiracy to defraud the United States, suggests Ms. Morgan also goes by the alias Razzlekhan. The deputy attorney general, Lisa O. Monaco, said in a statement that the arrests “show that cryptocurrency is not a safe haven for criminals.” According to court documents, the hacker who breached Bitfinex’s systems initiated 2,000 transactions to send 119,754 stolen Bitcoin to a digital wallet that was under Mr. Lichtenstein’s control. The investigators traced the movement of the Bitcoin on the blockchain, the permanent fixed electronic ledger that records each time a Bitcoin moves to a new digital wallet. And some of those funds were eventually deposited into financial accounts controlled by Mr. Lichtenstein and Ms. Morgan, who used some of the money to buy items such as gold, nonfungible tokens and a Walmart gift card, according to the complaint. Law enforcement officials gained access to Mr. Lichtenstein’s wallet on Jan. 31, after they obtained a search warrant that gave them entry to encrypted files in Mr. Lichtenstein’s cloud storage account. The next day, investigators seized the 94,636 Bitcoin that remained in that wallet, which were worth more than $3.6 billion, according to court papers. The total 119,754 Bitcoin that were stolen, worth about $71 million when Bitfinex was hacked in 2016, are now worth more than $4.5 billion, according to the Justice Department. The arrest shows that “we will not allow cryptocurrency to be a safe haven for money laundering or a zone of lawlessness within our financial system,” Kenneth A. Polite Jr., the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in a statement. With more Americans buying and selling cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, regulators have brought some large exchanges in the United States under official oversight. But cryptocurrencies move through decentralized computer networks that are not under the control of any single government or company, so most trading occurs on largely unregulated exchanges like Bitfinex, which give consumers little information about their operations. The lack of regulation has led to a host of problems in the world of virtual currency exchanges, threatening to impair consumer confidence in cryptocurrencies and to slow widespread adoption. The first Bitcoin exchange, Mt. Gox, collapsed in 2014 after hackers breached its security systems and siphoned away $500 million in customer money.

1 0

Federal pipeline agency shifts focus to cut methane - E&E News
by Duane Nichols 05 Feb '22

05 Feb '22

Federal pipeline agency shifts focus to cut methane - Mike Soraghan, E&E News, January 18, 2022 https://www.eenews.net/articles/federal-pipeline-agency-shifts-focus-to-cut… The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) was given a broad new responsibility by Congress to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and the "thousands" of inquiries it’s planning to make to companies about their methane emissions this year will be some of the earliest tangible signs of that mandate. "Congress was very clear that we must not just reduce these emissions, but we must do all we can to minimize these emissions," Tristan Brown, PHMSA’s deputy administrator, said in a speech late last year. In late 2020, Congress ordered pipeline companies to update their inspections and maintenance plans to find ways to reduce methane emissions. It ordered PHMSA to check those plans with inspections. Meanwhile, the agency is also writing rules on methane, requiring companies to find and fix leaks. It says it’s aiming to have a proposed rule published in the Federal Register by May.

1 0

Allegheny County Health Dept. to U.S. Steel: Air quality mitigation plans unacceptable - resubmit or face possible $25K-a-day fines
by Duane Nichols 03 Feb '22

03 Feb '22

From: GASP, Group Against Smog and Pollution <amanda(a)gasp-pgh.org> > Date: February 3, 2022 at 3:09:02 PM EST > Subject: Allegheny County Health Dept. to U.S. Steel: Air quality mitigation plans unacceptable - resubmit or face possible $25K-a-day fines > > > > Join GASP > > > > > > > > > > > GASP on Wednesday was the first to report that the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) notified U.S. Steel and other major source polluters that emissions mitigation plans submitted to comply with Mon Valley Air Pollution Episode Rules are “unacceptable,” and ordered them to modify and resubmit paperwork or face possible fines. > > > > You can read all about that Mon Valley Episode Rule here. > > > > In a Jan. 31 Order of Disapproval and Order for Compliance, ACHD notified U.S. Steel that the mitigation plan submitted for its Clairton Coke Works facility was insufficient for myriad reasons. Chief among them: that the 3 percent estimated plantwide reductions in particulate pollution (both PM 10 and PM 2.5) were not great enough. > > “Source is required to resubmit a plan that will reflect a greater reduction of its actual emissions from (30 listed processes) such that said reductions will have an appreciable effect on air quality…during any air pollution episode,” the order noted. > > > > ACHD issued a similar order to the company over mitigation plans submitted for its Edgar Thomson facility in North Braddock – noting among other things that U.S. Steel’s proposed 4 percent reduction in PM10 and PM2.5 are “insufficient.” > > > > Orders were also issued to: > > Clairton Slag in West Elizabeth Township > ELG Metals in McKeesport > TMS (USX Edgar Thomson) > TMS (West Mifflin) > > The companies have a period of 30 days to either resubmit their plans or appeal the ACHD’s decision. Noncompliance could result in fines of up to $25,000 a day. The orders indicate that the current mitigation plans are to remain in effect until the modified documents are submitted. > > While GASP appreciates that ACHD appears to be carefully reviewing the mitigation plans and pushing for greater emissions reductions that better protect ambient air quality and public health, we remain disappointed by the lack of transparency. > > “These mitigation plans are a necessary tool for protecting the public’s health, we don’t see any reason why the health department cannot and should not make these mitigation plans available for public review,” GASP Executive Director Patrick Campbell said. “We encourage the health department to post these plans on its website for transparency’s – and accountability’s – sake.” > > Rest assured that GASP will continue to press ACHD on this issue and report back to you what we find out. > > Editor's Note: ACHD on Thursday issued a news release related to the Mon Valley AIr Pollution Episode mitigation plans. You can read more about that on our blog. > Announcement: Allegheny County's Air Pollution Advisory Committee meets Monday. CLICK HERE to get details on that & other upcoming events. > Together, we can make a difference in our region's environment. We won't trade or sell your email address with other organizations or inundate you with messages. Visit our website at gasp-pgh.org or call us at (412) 924-0604 for more information or to become a member today. We can't do this without you! > > > Our mailing address is: > Group Against Smog and Pollution > 1133 South Braddock Avenue > Suite 1A > Edgewood, PA 15218 > > >

1 0

Air Quality Approves Ten Mon Valley Episode Rule Plans, Rejects Six
by Duane Nichols 03 Feb '22

03 Feb '22

From: Allegheny News <AlleghenyNEWS(a)alleghenycounty.us> > Date: February 3, 2022 at 9:17:58 AM EST > Subject: Air Quality Approves Ten Mon Valley Episode Rule Plans, Rejects Six > > > > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > February 3, 2021 > Contact: > Chris Togneri > Public Health Information Officer > 412-578-8312 (office) > Christopher.Togneri(a)AlleghenyCounty.us > > > Air Quality Approves Ten Mon Valley Episode Rule Plans, Rejects Six > > PITTSBURGH –The Allegheny County Health Department has reviewed air emissions mitigation plans for 16 sources that are required to submit such plans under the Mon Valley Air Pollution Episode Rule; 10 were approved, and six were rejected. > > Enforcement orders identifying deficiencies in the six sources were issued January 31 after the Air Quality Program determined that the submitted plans were inadequate. Sources were instructed to resubmit plans with more information and/or pollution reductions. > > “The Mon Valley Episode Rule is an important and innovative enforcement tool designed to protect people in an area that has long suffered from poor air quality,” Health Department Director Dr. Debra Bogen said. “Everyone has the right to clean air, and our Air Quality program staff will ensure cooperation and compliance from all sources, for the health and wellbeing of everyone in the Mon Valley.” > > Letters of approval and enforcement orders rejecting plans can be found here. > > The Mon Valley Episode Rule, an addition to Article XXI - Air Pollution Control Regulations, was signed into law in September 2021 by Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald to develop and implement a system to respond to weather-related inversions in the Mon Valley, which can result in episodes of high levels of particulate matter pollution (PM2.5). > > Under the rule, Air Quality staff monitors pollution forecasts for conditions that could lead to an episode. When conditions are likely to exceed acceptable levels for the Mon Valley, sources are required to follow approved mitigation plans to reduce their emissions. Under the direction of the Health Department Director, an Air Pollution Watch is issued when weather conditions are forecast to cause a high concentration of particulates in the Mon Valley, and an Air Pollution Warning is issued when the exceedance occurs and is expected to continue for 24 hours. > > The rule applies to sources within or near the following municipalities: Braddock, Braddock Hills, Chalfant, Clairton, Dravosburg, Duquesne, East McKeesport, East Pittsburgh, Elizabeth Borough, Elizabeth Township, Forest Hills, Forward, Glassport, Jefferson Hills, Liberty, Lincoln, McKeesport, Munhall, North Braddock, North Versailles, Port Vue, Rankin, Swissvale, Turtle Creek, Versailles, Wall, West Elizabeth, West Mifflin, White Oak, Wilkins, Wilmerding and Whitaker. > > Notifications and alerts will be sent out using Allegheny Alerts. To sign up, go here. Notifications can be sent to you via email, text, and/or phone call. A free subscription is required. > > More information on the Episode Rule can be found here. > > # # # > > > Debra L. Bogen, MD, Director > Allegheny County Health Department – Public Information Office > 542 Fourth Avenue │ Pittsburgh, PA 15219 > Phone: 412-687-ACHD (2243) │ Fax: 412-578-8325 > www.alleghenycounty.us/healthdepartment > > Follow us: allegheny alerts | facebook | instagram | linkedin | twitter | youtube

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC February 2022