EWG: Natural Resources

Gas Company Won't Drill in New York Watershed

JAD MOUAWAD and CLIFFORD KRAUSS, New York Times — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

JAD MOUAWAD and CLIFFORD KRAUSS at New York Times

October 28th, 2009

Bowing to intense public pressure, the Chesapeake Energy Corporation says it will not drill for natural gas within the upstate New York watershed, an environmentally sensitive region that supplies unfiltered water to nine million people. The reversal seems to signal a more conciliatory tone from the gas industry, which is facing mounting opposition in New York to its drilling practices. The decision also increases the pressure on state regulators to reverse their decision to allow drilling within the watershed. “We are not going to develop those leases, and we are not taking any more leases, and I don’t think anybody else in the industry would dare to acquire leases in the New York City watershed,” Aubrey K. McClendon, the chief executive officer at Chesapeake Energy, said in an interview on Monday in Fort Worth. “Why go through the brain damage of that, when we have so many other opportunities?” Read the entire article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/business/energy-environment/28drill.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

EWG Warns of Drilling Threat to NYC Drinking Water

Environmental Working Group — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

October 28th, 2009

Statement of Dusty Horwitt, JD Senior Counsel, Environmental Working Group Oversight Hearing on the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement Relating to Drilling for Natural Gas in New York State Using Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing Before the New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection Friday, October 23, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Submitted for the Record Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee: My name is Dusty Horwitt, and I am Senior Counsel at Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, DC, Oakland, California and Ames, Iowa. I thank the members of the Committee for this opportunity to testify. For the last several years, Environmental Working Group has used government and industry records to track a virtually unprecedented increase in oil and gas drilling in the Western United States. We have found that much of this drilling has been completed with exemptions under most major federal environmental laws. As part of our work, we have investigated the practice pioneered by Halliburton known as hydraulic fracturing that is the subject of today’s hearing. Last year, we worked with Theo Colborn, a distinguished scientist in Colorado who has identified dozens of chemicals used by the natural gas industry. We found that at least 65 chemicals used by the natural gas industry in Colorado – many of them used in hydraulic fracturing – were listed or regulated as hazardous substances under six federal statutes including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Superfund but are largely exempt from these laws when used in oil and gas drilling. We have continued to investigate hydraulic fracturing this year and have uncovered some troubling information about chemicals used in this process. I’d like to add to the testimony I presented to the committee last year by making a few comments about New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation’s Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program, Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs. We have reviewed much of the document and believe that the state is still not taking seriously the threat that hydraulic fracturing and natural gas drilling poses to New York City’s drinking water. Nor is the state taking seriously the risk of water contamination in other parts of New York. Our analysis confirms our belief that New York State should not allow drilling in the watershed for New York City’s drinking water supply nor should it allow drilling in other areas where drinking water supplies might be compromised. Given the seriousness of this issue and the 800-page length of the draft EIS, the state should give citizens more than 60 days to comment. Petroleum Distillates are a Major Concern Perhaps the leading reason to prevent natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing near drinking water supplies is the use of petroleum distillates. The DEC notes that “diesel-based fracturing fluid is not proposed or reviewed by this Supplement….” However, Environmental Working Group has recently conducted an analysis which found that diesel – like any substance distilled from crude oil – is a petroleum distillate. And the DEC has identified at least 14 different petroleum distillates that are used or proposed for use in the Marcellus Shale formation in New York. The DEC has also identified as chemicals that are used or are likely to be used in New York’s Marcellus Shale formation aromatic hydrocarbons that are likely to be found in petroleum distillates. Environmental Working Group will release its complete analysis of petroleum distillates within the next few weeks, but I will share a few of our findings today. Our research shows that petroleum distillates are likely to contain benzene, one of the aromatic hydrocarbons identified by the state. The EPA has found benzene to be a known human carcinogen that is toxic in water at levels greater than five parts per billion. Petroleum distillates are also likely to contain all of the so-called BTEX chemicals – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. The EPA has concluded that all of these substances are toxic in water at very low levels. Diesel has received much of the attention when it comes to dangerous fracturing fluids. But when companies say that they will not use diesel and then use petroleum distillates, the data shows that it’s a bit like promising not to smoke Marlboros and then smoking Camels, Kools, Virginia Slims and every other type of cigarette. As far as the toxic components, the products are roughly the same. A major concern with petroleum distillates is benzene. To put the toxicity of benzene in perspective, and to demonstrate the risks to water supplies for New York City and other towns, consider these facts from the DEC’s draft EIS. The DEC estimates that the amount of water used to hydraulically fracture a single well in the Marcellus Shale will range from about one million gallons to eight million gallons. The DEC estimates that the amount of friction reducer mixed with the water will comprise about 0.08 percent of the total fracturing solution. Petroleum distillates are commonly used as friction reducers and are also used in other components of fracturing solutions. Therefore, the amount of petroleum distillate used for fracturing a well in New York is likely to range from 800 gallons to 6,400 gallons (0.08 percent of between one and eight million gallons of water). Published levels of benzene in petroleum distillates with names similar to those used or likely to be used in New York range from 700 parts per million for 140˚ flash aliphatic solvent, to 1,000 parts per million for Stoddard Solvent to 4,000 parts per million for kerosene to 93,000 parts per million in naphtha solvents. In other words, these levels of benzene range from 140,000 times the EPA’s safe level to 18.6 million times the EPA’s safe level. These figures mean that if 800 gallons of petroleum distillate were to contaminate a water supply, depending on the benzene concentration, it would likely take somewhere between 112 million gallons (800 X 140,000) and 14.9 billion gallons (800 X 18.6 million) of water to dilute the benzene to EPA’s safe level. If 6,400 gallons of petroleum distillate were to contaminate a water supply, it would likely take somewhere between 896 million and 119 billion gallons of water to dilute the benzene to EPA’s safe levels. For comparison, the total amount of water used daily by New York City according to the DEC is 650 million gallons, or less than the amount of water that would be needed to dilute the benzene in a spill of petroleum distillates in many scenarios. In some cases, even the total amount of water used each day by the entire state of New York (9-10 billion gallons per day) would not be enough. To be sure, it is possible that all or part of the petroleum distillate used to fracture a well would not contaminate water supplies. Some or all could be trapped underground. Petroleum distillate that is spilled prior to fracturing or after fracturing in drilling wastewater might be absorbed by soil or otherwise contained before it reaches water supplies. But the amounts of petroleum distillate likely to be used are significant and petroleum distillate in the form of diesel will be used to power drilling equipment even if diesel is not used in hydraulic fracturing. The DEC reports that an average of 29,000 gallons of diesel fuel was required to complete fracturing jobs in the Marcellus Shale in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. This diesel used to run equipment will likely add to the total amount of petroleum distillate used for the fracturing fluid. The result is an increased likelihood that, somewhere in the process, some quantity of petroleum distillate will spill or leak, threatening water supplies with benzene contamination. It is also important to note that there may be thousands of wells drilled in New York, each of which could cause benzene contamination. And, as we have seen, a little bit of benzene goes a long way. Recent Cases of Contamination Linked to Fracturing, Drilling Contamination from benzene or related chemicals associated with drilling is not just a hypothetical scenario. In the summer of 2008, in one of the few government tests ever conducted on water contamination near natural gas fields, the Bureau of Land Management found benzene in drinking water wells in Sublette County, Wyoming. Although researchers did not identify the source of the contamination, the only likely source in the otherwise rural area is intensive natural gas drilling involving hydraulic fracturing. In May 2008, Colorado outfitter Ned Prather drank water from the tap in his rural cabin. The water was contaminated with all of the BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene), including 100 parts per billion benzene. Natural gas companies have drilled 18 wells within 3,000 feet of the spring that supplies his water, there is a pit of production water on a hill overlooking his cabin, a second pit was reclaimed shortly after Prather took his toxic drink, and in the winter of 2007, a company spilled nearly 8,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a nearby hill when a spigot was accidentally left open. The Denver Post reported that “bad water has decimated his outfitting business. Hunters don't want to stay in a cabin with suspect water or to harvest deer and elk they fear could be drinking contaminated water.” Thus far, medical tests have found no damage to Prather, but he has suffered unexplained health problems that predate his toxic drink. His hands and head shake and the tremors have grown worse recently. “Not that many people have turned up a glass and drank that much benzene at one time,” he said. In March and April 2004, the natural gas company EnCana fractured an improperly cemented well in Garfield County, Colorado. Gas escaped from about 7,000 feet underground, entered a natural fracture about 3,000 feet below the surface, and traveled laterally about 3,500 feet from the well where it contaminated Divide Creek, forcing local residents to drink bottled water. Inspectors found high levels of benzene in the water (99 parts per billion) the day after residents noticed unusual bubbles in the creek. One nearby resident, Lisa Bracken, described the creek as having so many bubbles that it looked like a “popped can of soda.” Another nearby resident, Steve Thompson, said that "I came down with a funnel and scooped some of the biggest bubbles with it….I lit the bubbles with a match, and they burned like gas. It even melted my funnel." A report prepared for Garfield County found that the contamination also included methane gas and toluene, ethylbenzene and xyleneithin. In August 2004, the COGCC fined EnCana a record $371,200 and imposed a moratorium on drilling within a two-mile radius of the seep. EnCana has operated an air sparge system for the past four years to reduce benzene levels in the creek. This system involves the injection of air into the creek to dissipate benzene into the atmosphere. In the spring of this year, Pennsylvania officials fined Cabot Oil and Gas for an 800-gallon diesel spill from a truck that overturned. It is unclear whether benzene contamination resulted from the spill, but diesel typically contains benzene. Recently, state officials ordered Cabot Oil and Gas to stop hydraulic fracturing operations in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania after the company was involved in three spills in nine days. The DEC has noted that many states have reported no contamination from hydraulic fracturing, but we are not aware that any states have even looked for contamination from fracturing, including New York. Late last year, we sent a Freedom of Information Law request to the DEC asking for any tests that the agency had conducted on water contamination from hydraulic fracturing. The DEC said that it had conducted none, nor did it have tests conducted by others. In addition to the recent discovery of benzene in water wells in Sublette County, Wyoming by the Bureau of Land Management, the EPA this spring found that 11 of 39 water wells near Pavillion, Wyoming were contaminated with substances that may be linked to nearby gas drilling. More tests are planned. And Garfield County, Colorado officials released a study last year that linked methane contamination in water wells to methane in the same rock layer a mile and a half underground where gas companies are drilling. The scientists who conducted the study did not determine how the gas reached the water, but their results provide evidence that gas or other contaminants from drilling could work their way to the surface from deep underground. "It challenges the view that natural gas, and the suite of hydrocarbons that exist around it, is isolated from water supplies by its extreme depth," Judith Jordan, the oil and gas liaison for Garfield County told ProPublica. Disclosure Needed: Nurse’s Near-Death Experience Could be Repeated The DEC has proposed that companies be required to disclose their fracturing chemicals before fracturing begins. While this requirement is a step in the right direction, it is unclear whether this disclosure would be to the DEC or to the general public. It is critical that the public know what chemicals companies are injecting into each well including Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) numbers so that the public and first responders can easily know what chemicals are being used. The DEC deserves credit for including CAS numbers in the DSGEIS. Public disclosure is especially important because one of the companies that supplied information to the DEC about chemicals proposed for use in fracturing shale formations in New York is perhaps the most infamous fracturing company in terms of public disclosure. In Durango, Colorado, in 2008, a valve broke on a tank carrying 300 gallons of a fracturing fluid called ZetaFlow manufactured by Weatherford, the Houston-based company that supplied chemical information to DEC. About half of the ZetaFlow spilled out. According to Clinton Marshall, who was one of the workers transporting the chemical, most of the spill was captured by a spill container, implying that some of the spill escaped. Cathy Behr, a nurse who later treated Marshall came in contact with the ZetaFlow that had spilled on him. As a result, Behr became gravely ill, suffering respiratory failure, heart failure and liver failure. As Behr’s doctor worked to save her life, Weatherford refused to disclose the chemical’s contents, citing trade secrets. Behr later recovered (Slowthower 2008, Hanel 2008a, Hanel 2008b). ZetaFlow is still advertised on Weatherford’s website. “This ZetaFlow system can be used on all types of formations, including a variety of sandstones, carbonates, coals and shales,” the company says. ZetaFlow is not mentioned in the DSGEIS, but the DEC must ensure that before ZetaFlow or other chemicals are used in the state, their names and constituents are made publicly available. And the state should prohibit the use of any chemicals, such as ZetaFlow, that are not proven safe. Recommendations The DEC deserves credit for proposing tougher standards for high-volume hydraulic fracturing such as water well testing before drilling and limits on the volume of wastewater that can be stored in pits and the duration that such water can remain in pits. However, the risks from drilling, particularly with benzene, are so great that Environmental Working Group continues to recommend that the DEC prohibit drilling in the watershed for New York City’s drinking water supply and in all other areas where drinking water supplies might be compromised. These risks are compounded by the fact the DEC likely lacks adequate staff to enforce proposed or existing standards as Speaker Quinn demonstrated in her questioning of the DEC last September. Our upcoming investigation of petroleum distillates indicates that staffing shortages also exist for state and federal agencies charged with enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act. EWG also urges the DEC to adopt our recommendations made at previous city council hearings. These recommendations include: 1) Requiring public disclosure of chemicals used to drill each well prior to drilling including chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and 2) Prohibiting the use of chemicals that could compromise the quality of water supplies and that are not demonstrated to be safe for humans and the environment. The state should apply our recommended standards to all oil and natural gas drilling even if such drilling does not include “high-volume hydraulic fracturing” or horizontal drilling. Drilling for oil and natural gas involves extremely toxic chemicals that are harmful at microscopic levels. Just because drilling uses a lower volume of fracturing fluid or is strictly vertical does not mean that it is safer. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.

EWG Testimony before NYC City Council on Natural Gas Drilling

Environmental Working Group — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

October 27th, 2009

Testing for pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the New York City drinking water supply

Environmental Working Group — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:00:00 -0400

October 26th, 2009

Comments of Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist

Before the
Committee on Environmental Protection
The New York City Council

Hearing on the testing by the Department of Environmental Protection for the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the NYC drinking water supply

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee: My name is Olga Naidenko, and I am a Senior Scientist at Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, DC; Ames, Iowa; and Oakland, California. We focus much of our research on potential health risks from chemical contamination of food, water, consumer products and the environment.

With this testimony, we express our strong support for the proposed law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York that would require testing by the Department of Environmental Protection for the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the New York City drinking water supply and the effluent from wastewater treatment plants. We commend the Council for considering this important measure that will serve as an essential step toward protecting public health from potential adverse effects of life-long, cumulative exposure to mixtures of multiple pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting chemicals in drinking water.

The presence of hundreds of unregulated pharmaceuticals and other synthetic chemicals in the nation’s surface, ground, waste and drinking water has been documented in studies done by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and water utilities. Research demonstrates that although individual pharmaceuticals occur at relatively low levels, conventional wastewater treatment does not effectively remove them. This is cause for concern and a call for timely action.

Below, we highlight three key areas of concern around pharmaceuticals in drinking water:

The full spectrum of pharmaceuticals and related contaminants in the New York City drinking water supply is currently unknown; this gap must be urgently addressed by systematic, long-term water quality monitoring;
The results of the testing must be fully disclosed in order to maintain the public’s confidence in the health and safety of their drinking water;
The development of appropriate, economically feasible plans for the protection of drinking water and for ensuring the healthy survival of aquatic life requires a robust dataset on the occurrence of pharmaceutical contaminants in water sources.

Below we address these points in detail.

1. The full spectrum of pharmaceuticals and related contaminants in the New York City drinking water supply is currently unknown; this gap must be urgently addressed by annual water quality monitoring.

The Associated Press investigation ("AP Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water," March 9, 2008) brought to the attention of the public what the scientific literature has been documenting for a decade – our waters are polluted with a mixture of synthetic chemicals that have been designed to have powerful effects at very low concentrations. Of especial concern are human and veterinary medicines such as steroids, antibiotics, anti-depressants and hormones, which find their way into wastewater due to pharmaceuticals excreted by the body; disposal of unused drugs; farm fields treated with biosolids (sewage sludge); manure from animals fed antibiotics that is used as fertilizer; and industrial discharge from pharmaceutical manufacturing (AP (Associated Press) 2008).

There are no federal or state standards or monitoring requirements for the vast majority of these contaminants in drinking water or wastewater. While the health effects of these pharmaceuticals at therapeutic doses are relatively well-known, their ecological and public health impacts, especially their side effects and potential for synergism with other pollutants, remain to be addressed and cannot be dismissed (Jones 2003; Pringle 2008).

Some studies have suggested that for individual pharmaceuticals, a person would have to drink hundreds of gallons of water to get anywhere near a medical dose (Caldwell 2009; Snyder 2008). However, no study has so far addressed the cumulative human health risk posed by the mixtures of pharmaceuticals that we may ingest on a daily basis (Benotti M.J. 2009; Focazio 2008; Kingsbury 2008; Kolpin 2002). Meanwhile, according to the U.S. EPA, many drug classes of concern are found in the nation’s water sources, including (U.S. EPA 2009b):

Antibiotics and antimicrobials that may lead to the development of drug-resistant bacteria;
Estrogenic steroids that may affect the reproductive system in wildlife and people;
Antidepressants and calcium-channel blockers, which have been associated with effects on spawning in shellfish and "dramatic inhibition of sperm activity in certain aquatic organisms" (U.S. EPA 2009b);
Antiepileptic drugs such as phenytoin, valproate, carbamazepine that may act as human neuroteratogens and trigger cell death in the developing brain, which leads to neurodegeneration.
Genotoxic drugs that are primarily used at hospitals and have a high acute toxicity.

Scientists do not yet understand what impact all of these water pollutants will have on human and environmental health.

The presence of pharmaceuticals in the nation’s waters highlights the challenges we face from severe flaws in the nation’s current regulatory framework for water protection. The first step to address these challenges is to find out what pharmaceuticals and personal care products are actually found in the New York City drinking water supply. We strongly support the proposed law that would mandate annual water quality monitoring for the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in treated wastewater discharged from the city’s wastewater treatment plants and in drinking water, including sampling at drinking water treatment plants serving the city, at monitoring wells for underground aquifers and at distribution sites of drinking water.

With this law, New York will be able to devise a science-based policy by collecting real data on the occurrence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water sources and developing the necessary information for any mitigation steps that may be needed to avoid the risks to people and the environment.

2. The results of the testing must be fully disclosed in order to maintain the public’s confidence in the health and safety of their drinking water.

Up to now, New York City residents have been fortunate to enjoy some of the best drinking water in the world, well known for its purity and good taste. Yet, both water quality and public trust in the water that comes from the tap cannot be taken for granted. In addition to a pro-active testing program, protecting public confidence in the health and safety of drinking water requires transparency about the findings, particularly with respect to pharmaceutical contaminants that usually cannot be seen, tasted or smelled, yet may exert powerful effects on health. Infants and others who are vulnerable may be especially at risk from these involuntary exposures.

Members of the public do not want to wake up in the morning and read about anti-convulsive medication in their tap water. Hundreds of news stories around the country on pharmaceutical contaminants in drinking water clearly indicate the intense interest that all Americans feel about this issue. Snippets of data will not be sufficient to allay these concerns; instead, full disclosure is needed.

Drinking water utilities are supportive of this disclosure. The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, an organization of metropolitan drinking water suppliers had made the following statement in March 2008:

"Water utilities should take steps to keep their consumers informed of their efforts to monitor and remove pharmaceuticals from water sources. Just as water utilities need data to make informed decisions, we believe that consumers should have the information they need to make personal health decisions" (Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 2008).

Because utilities often do not disclose the presence of unregulated contaminants in tap water, and because there is no national, centralized source of information on tap water contamination, Environmental Working Group maintains a National Tap Water Quality database where people can find out what urban, industrial, or agricultural pollutants may be present in their drinking water (EWG 2005). The water quality testing data in our database have been obtained from records that state health and environmental departments obtain from drinking water utilities and include tests conducted by utilities for more than 44,000 communities nationwide. The drug residues in tap water join hundreds of other synthetic chemicals Americans are exposed to daily, as contaminants in food, water, air and in common consumer products.

Yet, we only have data on chemicals that are tested for by utilities. Only limited information is available about pharmaceuticals because very few tests are performed and even fewer are disclosed to the public. All of the pharmaceuticals reported in drinking water supplies are unregulated in treated tap water -- any level is legal. Not only have the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration failed to set standards for pharmaceuticals in water, but also they have failed to require mandatory testing for these chemicals. This situation needs to be remedied on the federal level (Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 2008).

According to the research articles published on the subject, there is a large range of concentrations at which pharmaceuticals, personal care product chemicals and endocrine disrupting compounds are present in water; there is also significant variation in the combinations of chemicals that are found at specific locations. Arguments are sometimes made that pharmaceuticals in drinking water pose little human or environmental health risk because they get diluted over the entire water supply (Grumbles 2008). This may be true for the majority of people; yet, people are exposed not to generalized risks but to specific, local risks and this information must be provided to the public.

We strongly support the provision of the proposed law that would require the mayor to submit to the council an annual report on the results of water quality testing. We also urge the city to make these data publicly available via the Department of Environment Protection website. This degree of transparency is essential in order to maintain public confidence in the quality of drinking water.

3. The development of appropriate, economically feasible plans for the protection of the drinking water and for ensuring the survival and thriving of aquatic life requires a robust dataset on the occurrence of pharmaceutical contaminants in water sources.

The occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the nation’s waters is a complex problem and requires a comprehensive multi-faceted response by policy makers, drinking water- and wastewater utilities, pharmaceutical industry, scientists and individual citizens. No individual group can solve the problem single-handedly. Moreover, they are all united by one common need: need for data.

Traditional wastewater systems are designed to treat microorganisms and nutrients, not pharmaceuticals and other synthetic compounds found in the studies across the country. Advanced treatments such as ozonation, granulated activated carbon, UV treatment and advance oxidation process can remove significant amounts of pharmaceuticals but are expensive (Benotti M. J. 2009; Gerrity 2009; Rossner 2009). Ozonation can remove many pharmaceuticals (Broseus 2009) but it is associated with the production of toxic byproducts (Stalter 2009). Activated carbon filtration and other absorbents may be a good alternative treatment (Rossner 2009), although the costs tend to be higher (Joss 2008).

To resolve these challenges, several water utilities in the US and a number of groups in Europe are actively involved in researching wastewater treatments that can remove pharmaceuticals (Gunnarsson 2009; Joss 2008; Radjenovic 2008; Southern Nevada Water Authority 2008). In order to make the treatment process as cost-effective as possible, we have to know what pharmaceuticals are most commonly found in water sources; which ones of them pose the greatest health risks; where they primarily released; how they are transported through the water supply; and what treatments are most effective in removing individual contaminants. There is a great need for research on treatment technology upgrades that industrial dischargers, large urban dischargers such as hospitals and nursing homes, wastewater systems and drinking water utilities can use to remove drugs from water (Pringle 2008).

It is also important to look at the risks posed by pharmaceutical pollutants to the aquatic life and thus, indirectly, to people. Studies by the U.S. EPA and academic scientists found that pharmaceuticals and personal care product chemicals can and do accumulate in fish and other aquatic animals (Brooks 2005; Chu 2007; U.S. EPA 2009c). In a recently published study, EPA researchers detected a range of pollutants in fish: diphenylhydramine (antihistamine); norfluoxetine and sertraline (antidepressants); other pharmaceuticals as well as galaxolide and tonalide, synthetic fragrances frequently added to personal care products (Ramirez 2009). These studies were of sufficient concern to the EPA, prompting the Agency to embark on a national survey of pharmaceuticals in 150 randomly-selected urban river sites across the country (U.S. EPA 2009a).

We do not know what would be the human health outcome of cumulative exposure to pharmaceuticals in water and in fish for people who are active in recreational fishing, a common pastime for many people who live in New York City and its suburbs. Exposure to toxic levels of water contaminants that accumulate in fish is a well-recognized public health problem for pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury (Fitzgerald 2007)

In order to forestall any potential human health problems due to pharmaceuticals in fish, it would be highly desirable to monitor the potential effects of pharmaceutical pollution on aquatic life and to ensure that these contaminants would not pose an adverse impact on aquatic ecosystems (Batt 2008; Molander 2009; Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) 2009). Aquatic species often serve as sentinels for human health (Kostich 2008). For example, it would take a lot of estrogen to cause an acute health effect. In contrast, low-level, chronic exposure to estrogenic pollutants in water has been associated with health effects as severe as gender change, such as feminization of male fish (Caldwell 2008; Tyler 2009). Clearly, this is not the type of severe change that we would be willing to accept with respect to human health.

By ensuring that the levels of pharmaceutical pollutants are safe for aquatic life, we will make a significant investment in the protection of human health as well, a key decision that will be greatly appreciated by our own children.

Ultimately, we would need to capture as much pollution as we can at the source by implementing pollution prevention and protection of water supplies (American Water Works Association (AWWA) 2008; Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 2008). The options may include environmentally friendly design of the waste stream, labeling of pharmaceuticals according to their proper disposal strategies, support for proper pharmaceutical disposal programs and treatment of significant point sources of pharmaceutical discharge into the wastewater (Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 2008; Joss 2008; Pringle 2008; Snyder 2008). These programs should be implemented in parallel with water quality testing and development of additional treatment infrastructure at wastewater plants.

We all know that bottled water is not a solution to concerns about pharmaceuticals in tap water: bottled water is much more expensive; it is drawn largely from the same sources as public tap water supplies; and it is associated with immense amounts of plastic waste (EWG 2008). Yet, for the public to not turn to bottled water, we need to focus on pollution prevention, data collection and disclosure and developing appropriate mitigation treatments.

Environmental Working Group congratulates the City Council for moving forward with this important legislation and we are glad to be of any assistance in accomplishing this task.

References
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2008. Available: http://www.awwa.org/publications/breakingnewsdetail.cfm?itemnumber=34374 [accessed October 23 2009].
AP (Associated Press). 2008. An AP investigation: Pharmaceuticals Found in Drinking Water. PHARMAWATER-METROS-BY RESULTS. . Available: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/pharmawater_site/day1_05.html [accessed July 29 2008].
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. 2008. AMWA Discusses Pharmaceuticals in Water Supplies. Available: http://www.amwa.net/cs/news_releases/March11 [accessed October 23 2009].
Batt AL, Kostich MS, Lazorchak JM. 2008. Analysis of ecologically relevant pharmaceuticals in wastewater and surface water using selective solid-phase extraction and UPLC-MS/MS. Anal Chem 80(13): 5021-30.
Benotti MJ, Stanford BD, Wert EC, Snyder SA. 2009. Evaluation of a photocatalytic reactor membrane pilot system for the removal of pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds from water. Water Res 43(6): 1513-22.
Benotti MJ, Trenholm RA, Vanderford BJ, Holady JC, Stanford BD, Snyder SA. 2009. Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in U.S. Drinking Water. Environ Sci Technol 43(3): 597-603.
Brooks BW, Chambliss CK, Stanley JK, Ramirez A, Banks KE, Johnson RD, et al. 2005. Determination of select antidepressants in fish from an effluent-dominated stream. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(2): 464-9.
Broseus R, Vincent S, Aboulfadl K, Daneshvar A, Sauve S, Barbeau B, et al. 2009. Ozone oxidation of pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and pesticides during drinking water treatment. Water Res 43(18): 4707-17.
Caldwell DJ, Mastrocco F, Hutchinson TH, Lange R, Heijerick D, Janssen C, et al. 2008. Derivation of an aquatic predicted no-effect concentration for the synthetic hormone, 17 alpha-ethinyl estradiol. Environ Sci Technol 42(19): 7046-54.
Caldwell DJ, Mastrocco F, Nowak E, Johnston J, Yekel H, Pfeiffer D, et al. 2009. An Assessment of Exposure to Prescribed Estrogens in Drinking Water. Environ Health Perspec: in press.
Chu S, Metcalfe CD. 2007. Analysis of paroxetine, fluoxetine and norfluoxetine in fish tissues using pressurized liquid extraction, mixed mode solid phase extraction cleanup and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1163(1-2): 112-8.
EWG. 2005. Environmental Working Group: National Tap Water Quality Database. Available: http://www.ewg.org/tapwater [accessed May 21 2008].
EWG. 2008. Bottled Water Quality Investigation: 10 Major Brands, 38 Pollutants. Available: http://www.ewg.org/reports/bottledwater [accessed November 10 2008].
Fitzgerald EF, Belanger EE, Gomez MI, Hwang SA, Jansing RL, Hicks HE. 2007. Environmental exposures to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) among older residents of upper Hudson River communities. Environ Res 104(3): 352-60.
Focazio MJ, Kolpin DW, Barnes KK, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Zaugg SD, et al. 2008. A national reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United States - II) Untreated drinking water sources. Sci Total Environ 402(2-3): 201-16.
Gerrity D, Stanford BD, Trenholm RA, Snyder SA. 2009. An evaluation of a pilot-scale nonthermal plasma advanced oxidation process for trace organic compound degradation. Water Res: in press.
Grumbles BH. 2008. Testimony of Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, Environmnetal Protection Agency, before the Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, United States Senate, April 15, 2008 Available: www.epa.gov/ocirpage/hearings/testimony/110_2007_2008/2008_0415_bhg.pdf [accessed August 26 2008].
Gunnarsson L, Adolfsson-Erici M, Bjorlenius B, Rutgersson C, Forlin L, Larsson DG. 2009. Comparison of six different sewage treatment processes--reduction of estrogenic substances and effects on gene expression in exposed male fish. Sci Total Environ 407(19): 5235-42.
Jones OA, Voulvoulis N, Lester JN. 2003. Potential impact of pharmaceuticals on environmental health. Bull World Health Organ 81(10): 768-9.
Joss A, Siegrist H, Ternes TA. 2008. Are we about to upgrade wastewater treatment for removing organic micropollutants? Water Sci Technol 57(2): 251-5.
Kingsbury JA, Delzer GC, Hopple JA. 2008. Anthropogenic Organic Compounds in Source Water of Nine Community Water Systems that Withdraw from Streams, 2002–05. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5208. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5208/ [accessed December 10 2008].
Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Thurman EM, Zaugg SD, Barber LB, et al. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance. Environ Sci Technol 36(6): 1202-11.
Kostich MS, Lazorchak JM. 2008. Risks to aquatic organisms posed by human pharmaceutical use. Sci Total Environ 389(2-3): 329-39.
Molander L, Gerstrand M, Ruden C. 2009. WikiPharma - A freely available, easily accessible, interactive and comprehensive database for environmental effect data for pharmaceuticals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol.
Pringle D. 2008. Testimony of David Pringle, Campaign Director, New Jersey Environmental Federation on Behalf of:
New Jersey Environmental Federation and Clean Water Action before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality "Pharmaceuticals in the Nation’s Water: Assessing Potential Risks and Actions to Address the Issue". Available: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=30641a14-802a-23ad-4b51-a10dd439793f [accessed October 23, 2009].
Radjenovic J, Petrovic M, Ventura F, Barcelo D. 2008. Rejection of pharmaceuticals in nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane drinking water treatment. Water Res 42(14): 3601-10.
Ramirez AJ, Brain RA, Usenko S, Mottaleb MA, O'Donnell JG, Stahl LL, et al. 2009. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in fish: Results of a national pilot study in the U.S. Environ Toxicol Chem: in press.
Rossner A, Snyder SA, Knappe DR. 2009. Removal of emerging contaminants of concern by alternative adsorbents. Water Res 43(15): 3787-96.
Snyder SA. 2008. Statement of Dr. Shane Snyder, Southern Nevada Water Authority before the Senate Subcommittee on Transportaion Safety, Infrastructure Secury, and Water Quality on Pharmaceuticals in the Nation's Water: Assessing Potential Risks and Actions to Address the Issue. Available: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=30641a14-802a-23ad-4b51-a10dd439793f [accessed October 23, 2009].
Southern Nevada Water Authority. 2008. Water Quality Research. Available: http://www.snwa.com/html/wq_research.html [accessed October 23 2009].
Stalter D, Magdeburg A, Weil M, Knacker T, Oehlmann J. 2009. Toxication or detoxication? In vivo toxicity assessment of ozonation as advanced wastewater treatment with the rainbow trout. Water Res.
Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra). 2009. MistraPharma Wiki Database. Identification and Reduction of Environmental Risks Caused by the Use of Human Pharmaceuticals. Available: http://www.wikipharma.org/welcome.asp [accessed October 23 2009].
Tyler CR, Filby AL, Bickley LK, Cumming RI, Gibson R, Labadie P, et al. 2009. Environmental health impacts of equine estrogens derived from hormone replacement therapy. Environ Sci Technol 43(10): 3897-904.
U.S. EPA. 2009a. Expanded Investigations of Pharmaceuticals in Fish Tissue. Available: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ppcp/studies/fish-expand.html [accessed October 23 2009].
U.S. EPA. 2009b. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs). Frequently Asked Questions. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/faq.html [accessed October 23 2009].
U.S. EPA. 2009c. Pilot Study of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Fish Tissue. Available: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ppcp/studies/fish-tissue.html [accessed October 23 2009].

Comments presented orally to the California Natural Resources Agency

Environmental Working Group — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:00:00 -0400

August 19th, 2009

Re: 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft at CNRA Public Consultation meeting in Sacramento on Thursday, August 13th

(Note: Formal Comments will be submitted later this month).

EWG would like to offer several suggestions for strengthening and prioritizing adaptation strategies presented for the agricultural sector. Given the significant costs and impact of climate change on agriculture, we believe that higher priority should be given to implementing near-term, cost-effective strategies to minimize that impact and reduce greenhouse gas emissions—starting with a stand alone priority recommendation for agriculture in the executive summary.

1. First, and most importantly, we believe the adaptation strategy should give higher priority to adaptation measures that will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, we would like to see greater emphasis on the promotion of proven, cost-effective soil management strategies, such as cover cropping, conservation tillage, mulching, nutrient management and organic agriculture. These practices will make soils healthier and more productive and farms more resilient. They will also reduce greenhouse gases, improve water quality and conserve soil and biodiversity.

2. While the report makes some excellent recommendations for addressing water quality and conservation, it fails to mention the value of these kinds of soil management practices (mentioned above) for improving water capture, infiltration, and storage. For example, increasing soil organic matter by one percent can enhance water storage in the soil by 16,000 gallons per acre-foot.

The document neglects another key strategy for conserving water: discouraging thirsty crops like alfalfa and cotton that just don’t make sense for arid climates. Alfalfa growers use as much water as all the cities in California put together. The strategy should recommend the use of incentives to encourage farmers to plant water-efficient crops.

3. As the climate warms, pests and weeds are expected to multiply more rapidly. The strategy should promote more strongly management techniques such as advanced integrated pest management, fertilizer efficiency and organic agriculture, to help farmers minimize the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

4. To be effective in targeting programs and information, California state agencies need a better understanding of the most urgent needs and opportunities for addressing climate change impacts on agriculture. The state currently lacks essential information about soil and water management practices on California farms as well as an understanding of the barriers that farmers face in implementing these practices. We strongly recommend that CDFA undertake a broad- based survey of the agricultural community to obtain this information, as well as to learn about farmers’s attitudes and knowledge about potential climate change impacts. The European Commission conducted such a survey, with important results. We will file that survey and results as part of our written submission.

5. Political decision-makers, the agricultural community and scientists do not have a robust mechanism for exchanging information on climate change. The adaptation strategy should give higher priority to sharing information with the farm community and to those working closely with farmers. It should create a mechanism for information exchange among the wide range of entities concerned with agriculture and climate change in California.

6. Ultimately, strategies are effective only if they are actually implemented. In this regard, we are very concerned about the lack of resources, institutional capacity and leadership in the state on agriculture and climate change issues.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has no staff or resources dedicated to agriculture and climate change.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) also has a very limited focus on agriculture and climate change.
The Agriculture Climate Action Team, initially established to give CARB input on agriculture and climate change, has been disbanded.

Given the strong links between adaptation and greenhouse gas emission reduction, EWG strongly recommends that the California Natural Resources Agency, CDFA and other relevant state and federal agencies, collaborate with CARB to form an inter-agency working group on agriculture and climate change that addresses both adaptation and reduced greenhouse emissions from agricultural activities.

This inter-agency group could provide a much-needed forum for intensive stakeholder engagement and outreach on these issues—and a means to folluw up on many of the worthy recommendations in the report—as well as other recommendations offered by farmers, scientists and others with a stake in the outcome.

7. In this time of scarce resources, the state must husband its time and money carefully. EWG believes that effective implementation requires a reallocation of resources within CDFA and/or the Resources Agency to establish at least one full time staff dedicated to the issue of ag and climate change. We would also like to work with you and other stakeholders to ensure that California takes advantage of United States Department of Agriculture conservation programs to integrate and prioritize support for ag adaptation strategies as it allocates funds.

We also believe allowance revenue generated by the cap and trade program, either at the state or federal level, should be used to support adaptation measures--with specific resources for agriculture.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer our comments. We look forward to working with you and other agencies and stakeholders to ensure implementation of many of the actions outlined in your report as well as additional actions that we and other organizations have suggested.

You Helped Protect the Canyon

Environmental Working Group — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:00:00 -0400

July 24th, 2009

Last week, those who support EWG saw some very tangible and important results, as we achieved a major victory in our quest to protect the Grand Canyon from additional uranium mining operations. U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar set aside nearly a million acres around the north and south rims of the canyon, preventing the mining industry from staking any new claims for at least 2 years, and possibly as many as 20.

While this is not a permanent fix to the problem, it gives EWG and other concerned organizations time to build support in Congress for legislation that would once and for all protect what is arguably America’s most iconic natural treasure from the threat of toxic mining operations. On behalf of all of us at EWG, thank you very much for your support.

Dusty Horwitt, Senior Public Lands Analyst

LAT: 2-year hold on mining claims near Grand Canyon

Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Julie Cart at Los Angeles Times

July 21st, 2009

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Monday called for a two-year "timeout" on new mining claims on nearly 1 million acres near Grand Canyon National Park in northern Arizona. The move reverses a decision by the George W. Bush administration to open the land flanking the park to hard-rock mining. That ruling, which opened the way for lucrative mining of uranium ore, was opposed by some in Congress and within the National Park Service over concerns about the toxic heavy metal's potential effect on the park's watershed, wildlife, and cultural and archaeological resources. Mining claims within five miles of the park increased to more than 1,100 last year, from 10 in 2003, according to government data reviewed by the Environmental Working Group. The entire article can be found here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-uranium21-2009jul21,0,5681114.story

Victory Closer in Battle to Protect Grand Canyon

Environmental Working Group — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Contact: EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, today proposed to place off-limits to new mining activity approximately one million acres near the Grand Canyon for up to 20 years. The proposal prohibits the staking of new mining claims for up to two years to allow for various studies to be performed. Previous attempts by a House committee to protect the Grand Canyon were ignored by the Bush administration. “Today’s decision is good news for the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River that provides drinking water for 25 million Americans,” said Environmental Working Group (EWG) senior public lands analyst, Dusty Horwitt. “Secretary Salazar and the Obama administration deserve credit for making good on their promise to bring a more balanced approach to management of our public lands. Given the toxic legacy and continued risks of uranium mining, we urge Secretary Salazar to complete the proposed withdrawal and we urge Congress to pass the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act so that these lands will be permanently protected from uranium mining.” “Congress must reform the antiquated 1872 Mining Law that leaves federal land managers virtually powerless to determine where mining can occur,” added Horwitt. “This iconic poster child for America’s natural treasures shouldn’t be threatened by toxic mining operations and a legislative relic of westward expansion.” Environmental Working Group’s analysis of Bureau of Land Management data found that the number of claims in the area that would be protected by the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act has skyrocketed from 110 in January 2003 to 8,543 in January 2009. Most, if not all, of these claims are for uranium. This area roughly matches the area proposed for withdrawal by Secretary Salazar. ### EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment. http://www.ewg.org

EWG Statement on S. 796, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009

Environmental Working Group — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:00:00 -0400

July 14th, 2009

Environmental Working Group (EWG) commends Senator Jeff Bingaman on the introduction of the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009 and for his leadership on this important issue. This bill marks the first serious effort to reform the 1872 Mining Law in the Senate since 1994.

The legislation would help move our mining law into the 21st Century by implementing a first-ever royalty and reclamation fee for hardrock mining and by creating an abandoned mine cleanup fund. The fund would help create jobs in rural communities to mitigate the boom/bust cycle of mining and would help address the estimated $20- $55 billion cleanup cost of abandoned mines. The legislation would put a permanent end to patenting – a giveaway under which mining interests have been able to privatize public land for as little as $2.50 an acre.

Mining reform is long overdue. Mining has been the United States’ leading source of toxic pollution for nine consecutive years according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory. According to our analysis of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) records, the number of mining claims on federal land has surged from 207,540 in January 2003 to 451,463 in January of 2009. Any of these claims could be developed into a mine including thousands of claims near communities and National Parks. The impacts to people, water and wildlife could be catastrophic. And yet, the industry continues to operate largely under a law signed by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1872 that treats mining as the highest and best use of federal land.

We urge the committee to pass comprehensive mining reform. While Sen. Bingaman’s bill is a significant step forward, the committee should work to strengthen the legislation by ensuring that reform includes the following provisions:

Balance mining with other interests: Land managers should have the ability to balance mining with other resources such as water quality. Currently, land managers take the position that they must approve mining no matter the impacts on other resources. Managers must have the ability to determine in some cases that mining in not appropriate just as they can with oil, natural gas and other extractive industries.

The situation near Grand Canyon National Park highlights this concern. In December 2007, the Forest Service approved a British company’s plan to conduct exploratory drilling for uranium as close as two miles to the park. “The 1872 Mining Law specifically authorizes the taking of valuable mineral commodities from Public Domain Lands,” the service wrote in justifying its decision. “A ‘No Action’ alternative is not an option that can be considered.” As of January 2009, there were 1,165 mining claims within five miles of the park, any one of which could be developed. This spring, the BLM gave the green light for a Canadian company to conduct exploratory drilling near the park.

The Bingaman bill takes a step forward by applying a standard to all federal lands that land managers must prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation” resulting from mining. However, federal land managers’ deferential stance toward mining on public lands and testimony presented to the committee last year from former BLM and Forest Service Chief, Mike Dombeck, suggests that this standard is not strong enough to empower land managers to say no to a mine. The committee should work to strengthen this standard.

Protect special places: Mining companies should generally be allowed to operate on federal lands, but some places should be off-limits to claims. These places include Forest Service Roadless Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, lands designated for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System, and lands petitioned for withdrawal from mining by tribal, state or local governments.

Once a claim is staked in these areas, taxpayers may have to spend millions to prevent mining. In 1996, the federal government paid $65 million to buy out patented claims just three miles from Yellowstone National Park that would have been the site of a major gold mine. The mine would have been located at the headwaters of three streams that flow into the park.

The Bingaman bill would help protect special places by authorizing a study of the areas mentioned above with the provision that the Secretary may put them off-limits to mining following completion of the study. The committee should go further and place these sensitive areas off-limits to claims.

Tougher standards for mine permits and cleanup: Mining companies should not be able to receive a mining permit if their mines would require perpetual water treatment or where operations would impair the resources of National Parks or Monuments. Companies should also put up enough money before operations begin to cover the full costs of cleanup should the company go bankrupt or abandon the site.

The Bingaman bill would help improve mining standards by allowing the government to order creation of a long-term fund for water treatment for each mine. The bill also provides that the government may not release any bonds that cover the cost of cleanup until any discharge of water from the mine has ceased for at least five years or the mine operator has met all discharge limits and water quality standards for at least five years. These standards should be strengthened with requirements that no permit shall be issued until companies can establish that their operations will not result in perpetual water treatment or harm to National Parks or Monuments.

An end to mining’s tax break: In addition to being able to mine royalty-free, mining companies can claim a tax break on up to 22 percent of the income that they make off hardrock minerals mined on federal public lands. Though this issue is outside the committee’s jurisdiction, committee members should join with other members of Congress to close this loophole.

Mining provides materials essential to our economy, but it must be conducted in a way that strikes a balance with other values. We look forward to working with the committee to ensure that mining on our public

Support for Climate Bill Could Fray

Jim Snyder , The Hill — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:00:00 -0400

Jim Snyder at The Hill

July 13th, 2009

An environmental group is mounting a fresh assault on the climate change legislation that squeaked through the House and faces an uncertain future in the Senate, raising the prospect that the delicate coalition of support around it could fray. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report Monday that is sharply critical of a provision that would allow polluters to pay farmers and ranchers to use conservation practices aimed at reducing carbon dioxide. The structure of the carbon offset program represents a significant loophole that will delay meaningful emissions reductions, the group said. The House bill, passed last month, seeks to cut greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Electric utilities and other emitters of greenhouse gases that can’t meet their emissions reduction targets at the smokestack can instead invest in projects that would absorb carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, such as planting trees. To read more, click: http://thehill.com/business--lobby/support-for-climate-bill-could-fray-2009-07-13.html