| Resist With Words In this table you'll find copies of a number of letters and other documents written to further the aims of HRISE. In particular, please note the recent letter written to selected Virginia senators and delegates regarding the HRISE legislative agenda for 2019 and beyond. The letter needs some formatting work but the important essence of it is clear. |
|---|
HRISE Letter to Delegate Mark Keam (4-17-2020)April 17, 2020 Dear Delegate Keam, Our group -- Herndon Reston Indivisible Science and Environment Group (HRISE) -- is thankful for how the General Assembly was able to implement substantive environment and climate change legislation for the first time in 20 years. And we recognize that you were instrumental in this progress. Thank you for your leadership in the passage of the Solar Freedom bill (Distributed Renewable Energy) – that is a major win for Virginia! We also appreciate the other environment bills that you introduced and passed. Now, COVID is sucking the life out of our world as we know it – and has Virginia in its grips socially and economically. Even with this major public health crisis going on, we must not forget the imminent dangers of climate change. We must not lose progressive traction started by the 2020 Legislature. We are glad to have you on this side of the issues. Thank you again for your environmental and climate leadership; we look forward to the 2021 session. Sincerely, HIRISE Steering Committee Sue Beffel, Gary Timm, Diana Smith P.S., We also appreciate your vote against the redistricting amendment. The last thing we need is a new set of maps drawn by the GOP appointed Supreme Court (look at what happened in Wisconsin). Hopefully thoughtful citizens will reject in November. |
HRISE Letter to Congressman Gerry Connolly (2-13-2020)February 13, 2020 The Honorable Gerry Connolly U.S. House of Representatives 2238 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Connolly We at the Herndon-Reston Indivisible Science & Environment Group have long been concerned about the attacks of the Trump Administration on science integrity and science-based decision making. We have followed the slow progress of HR 1709 and S 775, and we discussed our concerns over the issue with Jamie Smith at a meeting on August 28, 2019. We also sent you a letter on August 21, 2019 discussing our thoughts on the issue; a copy of this letter can be found online at http://herndonrestonindivisible.org/resist-with-words/. Therefore, we are especially gratified that you, along with Congresswoman Matsui and Congressman Tonko issued in June 2019 a joint statement with Congresswoman Pingree requesting that the USDA’s Inspector General Fong investigate the suppression of climate research conducted by the Agriculture Research Service. We see that Inspector General Fong launched in October 2019 an investigation of the USDA’s handling of climate science and communication. We hope that this investigation produces useful results and actions that address the impact of climate change on agriculture and our food supply. We also hope that you will continue to monitor the progress of the investigation and keep your constituents informed. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf. Sincerely, Sue Beffel Gary Timm Diana Smith Herndon-Reston Indivisible Science & Environment Group Steering Committee |
HRISE Letter to Representative Gerry Connolly (8/21/2019)August 21, 2019 The Honorable Gerry Connolly House of Representatives 2238 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Connolly: We represent the Science & Environment Issue Group of Herndon Reston Indivisible. We contacted you early this year about a number of concerns that we had and to offer what assistance we could to you in your important oversight work. Looking back over the past few months, we find that the situations for science and for the environment are worse than before. We have been actively following what has been happening on the political scene and we are most concerned with the Administration’s efforts to reduce and even eliminate the role of science-based decision making in government policy. This effort has affected the operations at many Federal agencies, including those of EPA and the departments of the Interior and Agriculture. The President’s Executive Order 13875, dated June 14, 2019, requires each agency to eliminate, across the board, at least one-third of its current advisory committees, ignoring the damage that might result. We also are concerned that former Koch Industries official David Dunlap, an expert on limiting regulatory restrictions and liability for cleanups, is in the critical position of deciding how to protect people from industrial and military pollution. Today our particular concern is that the USDA plans to move the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture from the East Coast to Kansas City in a clear attempt to curtail the important work of these organizations. For example, the USDA has lost the leader of a long-term study that shows how rice loses nutrients due to rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This finding, of course, does not support the Administration’s climate-change denial. Please see the attached notes from one of our colleagues on this issue. The impact on USDA scientific work is especially egregious because of the way it was imposed on the staff, requiring decisions about moving within 32 days of the announcement, with all of the disruptions of the daily lives of the staff. It is true that the USDA and the staff union now have reached an agreement about easing the impact of the move, but this only extends the time of decision and offers some financial incentives. We also are quite concerned about how OMB Director Mick Mulvaney implied that the move supported the President’s plan “to drain the swamp.” We are asking three things of you as a member of the Oversight Committee: 1. In general, we would like you to increase the oversight of Federal agency operations and determine the impacts of reducing the role of science-advisory committees on those operations. 2. In particular, we would like you to review the OIG report on the matter of the USDA relocations and hold hearings on this abuse of science and Federal employees. 3. We would like you to use your influence to get GOP members of the House to support the Science Integrity Act (H.R. 1709) and move it through and beyond the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. We want to meet with you and hear exactly what the Oversight Committee thinks of the attacks on scientific integrity and science-based decision making, particularly the situation with the USDA relocations. We would like to see that this never happens again with another agency. Thank you for your attention in these important matters. Sincerely, Sue Beffel Gary Timm Diana Smith Herndon Reston Indivisible Science & Environment Group Steering Committee |
HRISE Letter to Selected Virginia Senators and Delegates Regarding HRISE Legislative PrioritiesDecember 11, 2018 Dear Senators Howell, Favola, and Petersen and Delegates Murphy, Kean, Plum, Bulova, Delaney and Boysko; We are writing on behalf of the Herndon Reston Indivisible (HRI) Science and Environment group. Each one of you represent one or more of our members. Our group is committed to resisting the impacts of the current Federal Government’s hostility to science and the environment. Every day there are Federal level attacks against our natural resources, environmental protections and science. The only protective recourse that citizens now have is their State Government. It is time to move an environmentally responsible agenda forward in Virginia. The political atmosphere is on the side of those who take climate change and our environment seriously. Democrats are just shy of being in the majority of the legislature. The legislative agenda that is promoted by the Democrats in the 2019 session, whether successful or not, will be what uniquely identifies the Democrats in the 2019 election and what will separate them from the Republicans. We strongly advocate that at the top of your list of 2019 legislative initiatives, you include the following (each described below): 1. Safe and Responsible Closure of Coal Ash Ponds 2. Climate Change Legislation (Carbon Reduction, Renewables, Energy Plan) 3. Breaking Down Barriers to Small-Scale Solar Power 4. Environmental Justice 5. Curbing Plastic Pollution We will support your advancement of these policies in all ways possible. We will advocate for these policies in all ways possible. Our goal is for a progressive Virginia that understands the peril of climate change, environmental degradation, and impacts of injustice on marginalized communities. Thank you for your past efforts to protect the environment and for your 2019 efforts. Sincerely, Gary Timm, Sue Beffel, Diana Smith (Steering Committee, on behalf of the HRI Science and Environment Group) Our Legislative Priorities Safe and Responsible Closure of Coal Ash Ponds We oppose “cap-in-place” plans for coal ash ponds. Instead we strongly support legislation mandating recycling as a first choice for cleaning up the coal ash ponds. Thanks to a mandate from the Virginia Legislature, Dominion Energy has received bids from concrete recyclers on the cost and feasibility of recycling and disposing of 27 million tons of coal ash at Dominion’s four coal ash dump sites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The concept of recycling, as environmental groups have long maintained, is now proven to be feasible and will result in the safe and permanent disposal of toxic coal ash. Preventing future pollution by recycling and removing ash will provide significant environmental, public health and economic benefits to the Commonwealth, and should be a legislative priority for the General Assembly in the 2019 legislative session. Climate Change Legislation (Carbon Reduction, Renewables, Energy Plan): The U.S. 4th National Climate Assessment states that: climate change is here, deadly, and expensive; claimate change will cause more harm to the US economy by 2100 than even the Great Recession did; and there is time to avoid the worst consequences if steps to aggressively curb greenhouse gas emissions are taken. Tools and technology exist. It is time for the political will to get us there! We strongly support and advocate for the following two bills: • HB1635 - Fossil fuel projects moratorium; clean energy mandates (Patron: Rasoul). The October International Panel on Climate Change warns that we have 12 years to make unprecedented and urgent steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill provides concrete actions, quantifiable milestones in the transition to clean renewable sources of energy. Equally important, it puts a moratorium on new fossil fuel infrastructure and power plants. • HB 1686 Electric utilities; limitations on fossil fuel facilities (Patrons: Reid and Boysko). This bill places a moratorium, on or after July 2019, for constructing new fossil fuel capacity until renewable energy generation facilities with 5,500 megawatts capacity are in operation in Virginia (determined to be in the public interest last session.) Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is cost-competitive with more traditional forms of generation and Virginia has outstanding conditions for off-shore wind farms. In the near future, renewables will be cheaper than fossil fuels. Any investment in fossil fuels infrastructure or power plants will become stranded assets, the cost of which is borne by Dominion Power customers. We believe that the ACP and MVP pipelines severely impact natural resources and communities today and will have increasing impacts on our carbon footprint in the future. Pipelines are not in the best interest of Virginia, and we call for a bill that will place a hold on their development. Time and money need to be spent on strengthening the current infrastructure against severe weather events. Breaking Down Barriers to Small-Scale Solar Power We support legislation to reduce barriers to distributed solar power and thereby 1) reduction in the need to build new generating capacity, 2) decarbonization of the grid, and 3) increasing grid resilience. • Eliminate or reduce barriers on residential customers, businesses and local governments as follows: a. Remove the limit on the total amount of net metered solar (20 kw for residences and 500kw for businesses), b. Eliminate the prohibition on using electricity produced at one local government site to serve buildings on another, c. Eliminate standby charges on residences, d. Remove limits on 3rd party financing, e. Eliminate the requirement that residential solar arrays can’t be larger than required to meet the previous year’s demand, f. Allow building owners to sell power to tenants, g. Allow a solar facility to serve more than one meter • Increase the incentives for development of solar energy through tax credits, rebates, and a mandatory renewable energy standard Environmental Justice The General Assembly should permanently acknowledge the importance of environmental justice as an important part of Virginia policy by codifying the Advisory Council on Environmental Justice, as recommended by the bi-partisan network of conservation organizations (VCN). The council should also be funded in the biennial budget. To ensure that all voices count equally in environmental decisions, we believe that Democratic Legislators should take the pledge to not accept contributions from any public utilities (ActivateVirginia.Org). Curbing Plastic Pollution According to the Ocean Conservancy, 8 of the top 10 contributors to aquatic trash are single-use plastics, including bags, bottles, cups and lids, straws, and plates. When businesses reduce the number of disposables given to customers, they help reduce waste, beautify local beaches, and protect the wildlife that support tourism. And they can do this while saving money and helping their businesses thrive. In furtherance of these goals, we advocate for the following two bills: • SB193: Plastic shopping bags, disposable; local option to distribute to consumers (Patrons: Locke and Lucas; Delegates: Carr, Price, and Rodman). This bill would permit any locality to prohibit by ordinance the distribution, sale, and offer for sale of disposable plastic shopping bags to consumers. • HB1669: Disposable paper and plastic bags; local taxation per bag when provided to consumers (Patron: Carr). This bill would permit any locality to impose a tax in the amount of five cents ($0.05) for each disposable paper bag or disposable plastic bag provided, whether-or-not free of charge, to consumers by retailers in grocery stores, convenience stores, or drug stores. The revenue would be distributed to the respective locality imposing the tax. In addition to the passage of these bills, we specifically support: • Legislation to ban plastic straws, stirrers, and cutlery and their replacement with available non-plastic, compostable alternatives. For example, California became the first state to restrict plastic straws at restaurants in September 2018. • Legislation to ban the sale of drinking water in single-serve, plastic containers of 1-liter or less. Such bans have already been enacted by ordinance in the jurisdictions of Sudbury, Lincoln, and Great Barrington, Massachusetts. |
HRISE Letter to Representative Gerry Connolly (1/15/2019)January 15, 2019 The Honorable Gerry Connolly House of Representatives 2238 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Connolly: We represent the Science & Environment Issue Group of Herndon Reston Indivisible. You are familiar with Herndon Reston Indivisible – we had the honor of your addressing one of our monthly meetings last year. Our Group is dedicated to protecting the environment and using science-based decisions to do so. As you can guess, we typically find ourselves resisting the agenda of President Trump and his administration. One of our major concerns is the increasing effects of climate change and the Administration’s willful ignorance of scientists’ warnings about future impacts. The Administration’s intention to exit from the 2015 Paris Agreement is a serious international misstep. We want our actions as a nation to align with the spirit and intent of the Paris Agreement, even though we may not officially be a party to it. We need serious consideration of the impending world-wide dangers that climate change will incur. You are uniquely positioned to have influence and power in this struggle, due to your position with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We look forward to attention being paid to the excesses, corruptions, and serious failures of Federal agencies whose mission is to protect our environment. We ask for investigations into the following: • At the Department of the Interior we ask for investigations into: o The opening up and sales of public lands for the purpose of exploiting fossil-fuel and mineral resources. These lands include massive reductions in the size of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and Bears Ears National Monument. These lands are worthy of preservation and should not be subject to the negative environmental impacts they will experience during fossil-fuel and mining development. We ask that the House stop this from going forward. o The leasing of offshore tracts for fossil-fuel drilling. We ask, for example: Why was Florida exempted while other East Coast states have had to move on the issue on their own, such as the recent lawsuit by eight states to block seismic testing, a precursor to offshore drilling? • At the Environmental Protection Agency we ask for investigations into: o The loss of scientific expertise. The work environment and lack of support for science at the Agency have negatively affected fulfillment of the Agency’s mission. For example, the Agency has dissolved science-advisory committees such as CASAC and initiated a policy to eliminate scientists who held EPA research grants from serving on committees. As a result the committees are now packed with industry-supported scientists. All decisions made to protect our environment should be science-based. We ask that you investigate the validity of this policy with the hope that they can be reversed. o Regarding our intention to leave the Paris Agreement: We ask if there is anything that the House can do to intervene in this action. If not, it would be helpful to at least have a motion objecting to this action, in order to send a message to the world about our position. We are heartened that you are one of the forty members of Congress to back a Select Committee for the "Green New Deal." Climate change seriously imperils the health and security of all Americans. We too support the Green New Deal policies and are concerned that the new Select Committee on Climate Change may not have the authority and powers needed to meet this challenge. We ask for you to be as actively involved with climate-change work within the Congress as possible and to continue to support the Green New Deal. We appreciate this opportunity to express our views to you and offer our support to your efforts through actions you might deem to be useful, such as letters to editors, social media, and other ways of communicating our views. We will be back in touch in the near future about other issues that we are concerned about, and look forward to additional communication with you on these important topics. Thank you for your attention in these important matters. Sincerely, Sue Beffel Gary Timm Diana Smith Herndon Reston Indivisible Science & Environment Group Steering Committee |
Personal Letter to Secretary Ryan Zinke (12/7/2018)December 7, 2018 The Honorable Ryan Zinke Secretary of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Secretary: I am greatly troubled by your proposals to allow exploitation of our natural resources when that exploitation may lead to significant negative impacts on treasured national parks, monuments, shorelines, and our environment in general. These proposals range from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge through mining near and in former areas of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness to drilling offshore of recreational shorelines along all coasts. These proposals are reminiscent of the robber barons of the 1800’s. I thought we had learned our lessons from that time. My grandfather, Irving Root, was Superintendent of National Capital Parks from 1941 to 1950, a time when our national parks and monuments were revered and honored with funding and protection from the types of exploitation you propose. Irving visited many of them during his tenure, and loved them all. One stressful job he had was to predict when the cherry trees around the Tidal Basin would bloom. Ironically, he also had to deal with senseless damage to some of those same trees caused soon after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He appropriately termed that damage vandalism. He would have used the same term to describe what will occur to our environment if your proposals are implemented. And have you ever considered your own legacy? When the current GOP administration is gone, you readily will be replaced and we can begin to try and repair the vandalism caused if your proposals go into effect. Have you thought about how you will explain this legacy of vandalism to the generations that are following? Sincerely, Robert W. Root, Jr. |
Testimony of Gary E. Timm on the Trump Adminstration's Proposed Transparency in Science PolicyBefore U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 17, 2018 Testimony of Gary E. Timm Good morning. My name is Gary Timm. I worked at EPA for 38 years and retired in 2011. I was chief of the Chemical Testing Branch in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics for 10 of those years. The Chemical Testing Branch is responsible for implementing the testing provisions of Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Today my remarks will focus on the effects of the proposed transparency policy in three areas: • On studies traditionally used to support regulation, • Its interaction with TSCA Section 4, and • Its interaction with our obligations to accept studies conducted in accordance with OECD test guidelines. Effect on studies traditionally used to support regulation Let us be clear. If EPA had adopted this data transparency limitation in past risk assessments, EPA would not have been able to take many of its historic actions to protect children, families, and the environment. No reduction or elimination of the exposure of children to lead in paint, gasoline and drinking water. No air quality standards for particulate matter and other air pollutants. And the list goes on. The proposed policy would affect assessments that will soon be carried out under TSCA Section 6. TSCA gives EPA the authority to regulate the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use and disposal of chemicals. The problem formulation documents which set forth EPA’s approach for assessing the first 10 chemicals under the amended TSCA are open for public comment now. How these chemicals are assessed will be the model for future assessments. The proposed policy would in fact make it impossible for EPA to consider the full array of well conducted and peer reviewed scientific studies of the health and environmental effects of pollution. It would bias the body of information in favor of industry-supplied studies since they would have the means to provide the underlying data. Assessment of ALL relevant scientific information is essential in making sound judgments about protecting public health and the environment. And it is a legal requirement in all major environmental legislation. Interaction with TSCA Section 4 TSCA also contains provisions to require chemical manufacturers to test the chemicals that they manufacture or process. To require industry to test chemicals under Section 4, EPA must make a set of legal findings. It is the data inadequacy finding that we are interested in today for it is the nexus between TSCA Section 4 and the proposed transparency policy. To make this finding, EPA conducts a thorough literature search and usually issues a rule to require studies that have not been published to be submitted to the Agency. Typically, the bulk of the information considered, however, is studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Despite being accepted by the scientific community, these studies do not meet the transparency requirements of the proposed rule, since it requires that all raw underlying data and the models used to analyze data supporting the study are available for public review. Thus, if the transparency rule were in effect, EPA would have to judge studies from peer reviewed journals as inadequate under Section 4. Ignoring this large category of information would cost industry hundreds of millions of dollars to repeat perfectly good, scientifically acceptable studies, which the public would ultimately pay for through higher prices. And it would significantly delay or, in some cases, preclude assessment and regulation of risks to human health and the environment. Interaction with our obligations to accept studies conducted in accordance with OECD test guidelines Another aspect not addressed by the proposed transparency policy is the obligation of the US to accept data generated in accordance with the Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD) Treaty. The US and other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries realized that differences in testing requirements among countries meant that companies would in some cases have to retest a chemical in order to market it in other areas. This was needlessly costly and resulted in a delay in obtaining information needed for regulatory assessment. As a result, the OECD member nations agreed to accept for regulatory purposes data generated in accordance with the OECD test guidelines. Submission of underlying data is not a requirement of MAD. Therefore, the proposed policy which requires underlying data to be made available to be used for risk assessments would run counter to our obligations under the Mutual Acceptance of Data Treaty. In short. The proposed policy is a Trojan Horse. I can only conclude that this proposal constitutes fraud--as it is deceptive, waste--for rejecting perfectly valid studies, and abuse for it is arbitrary and capricious. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide comments this morning. |
HRISE Letter to Attorney General Herring Regarding Science-Based Rule Making at EPAMay 12, 2018 Dear Attorney General Herring, Please join with the coalition of other state Attorneys General (1) in condemning the swift and sweeping new proposal to limit the use of scientific evidence in protecting health and environment. The coalition expresses deep concern about the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule, proposed on April 30, 2018, calls on the EPA to first consult with the National Academy of Science and other independent scientists and science organizations before moving forward with proposed changes to how EPA uses science in its decision making. As stated by The American Association for the Advancement of Science, “this proposal appears to be an attempt to remove valid and relevant scientific evidence from the rule-making process.” Virginia environmental quality is the very foundation of our health, security and welfare. We need to be governed by the principles of legitimate science when it comes to the protection of air, water, and natural resources. The Herndon-Reston Indivisible Science and Environment group request Virginia join with this coalition and ask Administrator Pruitt to withdraw this ill-advised rule, and if not, then to provide a much longer period for public review. Thank you for your consideration, Sue Beffel, Gary Timm, Diana Smith Steering Committee - HRISE (1) Attorneys General of New York, California, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia |
Response to the Report on EPA Accomplishments for 2017 (4/6/18)See the whole report at: Report on EPA Accomplishments for 2017 |
HRISE Letter to the EPA Regarding Recent Removal of Sites from the NPL (3/13/2018)
|
Personal Letter to the Virginia House Committee on Commerce and Labor on Coal Ash Disposal (2/4/2018)As residents of Fairfax County, we are very concerned about the plan presented for the closure of coal combustion residuals (CCR) surface impoundments at the Virginia Electric and Power Company's Possum Point Generating Station. The plan proposes closing several small impoundments on the site, consolidating the removed CCR in a larger impoundment on the site, and closing the impoundment using capping in place. Our concern stems from the past history in the US of erosion and breaching of impoundments and contamination of surface-water resources, and storage of CCR at a site like Possum Point, on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, is just asking for serious trouble in the future as sea and groundwater levels rise and the potential for erosion and breaching exists. In addition, such impoundments, closed or not, represent past, current, and future potential sources of contamination of underlying groundwater and migration of the contamination in groundwater to nearby surface-water bodies. |
Mid- and South Atlantic Offshore Drilling (1/18/18)The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) released the following statement after the Trump Administration announced its draft five-year offshore drilling plan, proposing to open the Mid- and South Atlantic to risky drilling. See the whole letter at: SELC Paper on Offshore Drilling |
Coal Ash Disposal by Dominion Energy (1/2/18)The Herndon Reston Indivisible Science and Environment issue group is concerned about coal-ash management in Virginia and the potential risks to water quality. Dominion presented the State with a plan for disposing of coal ash but the group has a number of questions about the proposed plan. The group sent a letter to various DEQ and legislative individuals asking for clarification. See the whole letter at: DEQ Letter on Coal Ash Permitting |
HRISE Letter to Delegate Ken Plum Regarding Coal Ash (12/11/17)Good afternoon Delegate Plum, The Herndon-Reston Indivisible Science and Environment issue group (HRISE) is concerned about coal ash management in Virginia and the potential risks to water quality. As required by State Law 1398, Dominion presented the State with a plan for disposing of their coal ash on December 1st. We read their published plan and understand they propose to cap-in-place the coal ash as a permanent solution. We also read the Southern Environment Law Center/RiverKeepers report (report). Their study suggests that recycling coal ash is the best option. Since there are conflicting conclusions, and the economic research boundaries were limited in each study, and we have read a number of articles that report on the actual import of coal ash into the United States using Virginia Ports (e.g., APNEWS-Coal Ash Imports, Import) we believe that the Dominion Plan needs more study and more community input. What we don't know and need to understand is the process going forward: • Is a review period part of the process? • Who is empowered to approve of Dominion's Plan? • What is the permitting schedule? Thank you for any information you have and/or for pointing us to the right person to ask about the process. Thank you for your help, Diana Smith, for HRISE |
