SEPTEMBER 2018

A Monthly Update from the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee

The Chairman’s CornerSenator Scott E. Hutchinson

The JLCC Newsletter

@PA_JLCC PA Joint Legislative Conservation Committee pa_jlcc Joint Legislative Conservation Committee

Pennsylvania is home to the second largest number of dairy farms in the U.S., ranked only behind Wisconsin. In terms of milk

production, the Commonwealth ranks 6th nationwide, boasting approximately 530,000 cows that produce over 10.8 billion pounds of milk each year.

Despite being the largest segment of Pennsylvania’s agricultural industry, generating $14.7 billion each year for Pennsylvania’s economy and creating more than 52,000 local jobs, the dairy industry has faced – and continues to face – its share of challenges.

Over the past three years, Pennsylvania has witnessed a decline in whole milk prices with projections for future gains remaining uncertain. According to data from the USDA, the average national milk price reached its peak in September 2014, with the price of milk at $25.70 per hundredweight, then falling to a low of $18.10 as of November 2017.

Unfortunately, many of the state’s local dairy farmers have already experienced the detrimental impact this predicament has placed on their family-owned businesses, leaving some to consider selling their herds. According to the Center for Dairy Excellence, 830 dairy

farms in Pennsylvania have gone out of business since 2010.

There are a number of specific factors that have been attributed to Pennsylvania’s dairy crisis, including:

• A decrease in general milk consumption. The USDA reported that thirty years ago, citizens on average consumed 247 pounds of milk in a year, but by 2016, this amount dropped to 154 pounds per capita;

• An oversupply of milk and a decrease in demand. This imbalance leads to substantially reduced prices of milk;

• Increased costs of production;

• Competition among producers as companies are forced to terminate

contracts with several dairy farms due to the decrease in demand and consumption; and

• Overseas competition from countries such a New Zealand, which face similar challenges such as demand.

Despite these challenging circumstances, some remain optimistic that Pennsylvania can promote its dairy industry through

Continued on page 8

In ThIs IssueThe Chairman’s Corner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Notes from the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Research Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3• Could Fertilizer be Harming Crops’ Natural Immunity?• Wildfires Releasing Particles that Damage Heart Health• Plastic Pollution also Polluting the Air• Replacing Dams with Windmills to Save Salmon

Upcoming Committee Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recap of Committee Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

September 2018Volume 19, Number 9

2 T h e J l c c N e w s l e T T e r

Recent studies have documented the occurrence of plastic debris from products such as single-use plastic bags and bottles in the nation’s water bodies. More recently, micro beads from beauty products and plastic straws have received wide range media attention as the next “plastic villains.” So what other products fall into this category of microplastic pollution sources? Disposable soft contact lenses.

Generations of people with poor eyesight have embraced contact lenses as a way of correcting and improving their vision. Many people opt to wear contact lenses versus traditional eyeglassess for aesthetics, comfort or simply personal preference. However, unlike glasses, a pair of soft plastic contacts cannot be worn long-term and need to be replaced either daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly depending on the lenses.

Disposable contact lenses were first introduced in the late 1980s. According to estimates, nearly 45 million people in the United States wear contact lenses. Since contacts need to be changed regularly, what happens once people are done using them? These small pieces of plastic add up quickly when you take into account the large number of contact wearers in the U.S. alone, so it is important to take notice of the harmful impact that incorrectly disposing

contact lenses has on the environment – particularly waterways.

To further delve into this issue, a team of researchers with the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University recently conducted a survey suggesting that disposable soft lenses could be a major contributor of microplastic pollution in waterways. According to an online survey of more than 400 participants, 20 percent of contact lens wearers responded that they flushed their contacts down the sink or toilet. That equates to approximately 9 million people putting 3.36 billion plastic lenses (or up to 23 metric tons) down drains every year. This figure does not even account for several other important factors including the additional plastic paraphernalia that goes hand-in-hand with the use of contact lenses such as the bottles of contact solution, lens cases and individual blister packs.

The researchers were prompted to conduct this type of survey after finding that no other studies had previously looked into contact lens disposal from the angle of its environmental impact on pollution. They even went a step further, examining what happens to the contact lenses once they go down the drain and into wastewater treatment plants.

Because contact lenses are transparent, they are difficult to observe in a wastewater treatment plant. In order to tackle this obstacle, the researchers exposed five polymers that are found in many manufacturers’ contact lenses to anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms present at wastewater treatment facilities. Using varying times of exposure, the work revealed noticeable changes in the bonds of the contact lenses after long-term treatment with the plant’s microbes.

This finding indicated that microbes in treatment facilities in fact altered the surface of the contact lenses, weakening

the bonds in the plastic polymers. As a result of this alteration, the lenses are broken down into extremely small pieces of plastic debris which are able to evade the filtration systems at wastewater treatment plants and directly discharge into waterways.

In turn, the discharge of these microplastics into waterways harms marine species because they are easily confused with natural food that is found in water-based ecosystems. Thus begins a vicious cycle where these particles are passed down the food chain to animals that feed on smaller species and, finally, to human beings.

Following their research, the Biodesign Institute research team suggested a number of potentially effective solutions to this problem including proper labeling on packaging that educates contact lens wearers about the correct way of disposing lenses (i.e. by placing them in the trash with other solid waste materials) and an improved process design, particularly with regards to biodegradability. The researchers also note that a more desirable long-term outcome would be for manufacturers to develop contact lenses made from polymers that are inert during use, but degradable when escaping into the environment.

Based on the finding that microplastics from soft contact lenses are able to bypass wastewater filtration mechanisms and enter into waterways, it is clear that the proper disposal of lenses has the ability to curtail pollution. Unfortunately, manufacturers at this time have not provided any information to consumers about environmentally-safe practices and measures to dispose of contact lenses after each use. With today’s enormous amount of innovation and advancements in eye care, it is hopeful that soft contact lenses can become more eco-friendly in the near future.

Notes from the Director Tony Guerrieri, Executive Director

s e p T e m b e r 2 0 1 8 3

Research Briefs

Fertilizer and Plant ImmunityColeen Engvall, Research AnalystIf you’ve ever been on a course of antibiotics, you’re probably familiar with the concept of beneficial bacteria. Human bodies are teeming with living organisms, many of which help us perform critical functions. Unhealthy microbe populations can impact your digestive processes, immune system and even your mood. Plants also form symbiotic relationships in order to reap similar benefits that they can’t get alone.

Researchers from the University of California at Berkley released a study, Nutrient and Dose Dependent Microbiome Mediated Protection Against a Plant Pathogen, to further explore these relationships. The study appeared in the journal Current Biology last month.

Their study focuses on a plant’s phyllosphere which encompasses the communities on the leaves, stems and other above-ground structures. Plant microbiomes are not yet well understood as a whole, but the phyllosphere is even less so. Research has tended to focus on the rhizosphere, which exists around a plant’s roots.

The rhizosphere, like a human’s gut microbiome, has been shown to be immensely beneficial to the associated plant, fixing nitrogen and helping with the uptake of nutrients, amongst other functions. More recent research, including the Berkley study, is beginning to show scientists and farmers alike that the phyllosphere can be just as critical.

Organic farmers have responded with enthusiasm to the new knowledge surrounding plant relationships with microbes as these communities could be a natural way to increase crop yield and profits without the addition of pesticides and fertilizers. Authors Maureen Berg and Britt Koskella set out to test how the phyllosphere protected plants from disease and how this knowledge could help humans harness it.

Just like the beneficial bacteria in people, living microbes can help plants absorb nutrients, resist

disease and improve their overall health. However, there is a

surprising threat to plant microbiomes: fertilizer.

To test this, they sprayed tomato plants with microbes from healthy plants, varying the dose that the groups of tomatoes received. In addition, they altered the nutrient environments of the plants, fertilizing some while leaving the others untouched. The tomatoes were then subjected to a culture of a specific pathogen and the plant’s response to this threat was measured.

The researchers found two surprising results. First, and perhaps most striking, was the impact of the fertilizer. By supplying additional nutrients to the tomato plants, the phyllosphere was altered drastically, effectively nullifying the benefits of the microbes. This was

seen in the form of the disease becoming solidly established on the tomato plant compared to their unfertilized counterparts. The plant’s immunity seemed to be significantly reliant on the stability of the phyllosphere.

Prior research on the rhizosphere, the sub-surface biome, may help explain why this happened. Past studies observed a remarkable reaction of tomato plants to impending infections. When threatened, the tomato’s roots would secrete a substance to attract beneficial microbes, which would, in turn, help defend the plant against the pathogen.

While the UC Berkley study was unable to determine the exact mechanism for the weakened response seen in the phyllosphere, the higher rate of infection for fertilized plants was statistically significant - implying a similar relationship.

Their other discovery related to the dose of microbes that the plant was treated with. They recorded an inverse relationship of dose to disease resistance. While any amount of the dose appeared to improve the plant’s defenses compared

Each month, the Committee’s staff researches and prepares a number of “briefs” on several topics relevant to the Committee’s mission. Very often these briefs include references to reports and further research on the topics so that readers may pursue issues on their own. Please note that the information and opinions expressed in the Research Brief articles do not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, nor those of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

4 T h e J l c c N e w s l e T T e r

to those left untreated, the smallest dose saw the greatest amount of improvement.

This shows that the relationship between the plant and their micro communities is complex. Those planning on simply spraying their plants with bacteria will not likely get the benefits they are hoping for.

However, the researchers expressed hope that further research and understanding would allow this natural process to be utilized to help farmers increase produce yields and save costs in the future.

To read the full study, go to: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30753-X?_=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.r.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS096098221830753X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue.

California Wildfires Linked to Heart ProblemsTony Guerrieri, Executive DirectorLately, it seems like every year in California brings a megafire, which is defined by the National Interagency Fire Center as a wildfire that consumes more than 100,000 acres. These massive fires have become an all too common threat to the state’s land, people and economy. The most immediate threat are the actual fire zones, but beyond these, millions of people are being exposed to a secondary, more insidious threat: air polluted with toxic particulate matter. Wildfires can

create unhealthy air as far as 70 miles away from the fire zones.

It has been well documented that longer, drier and hotter fire seasons caused by rising temperatures already are a public health problem. While wildfire smoke is bad for your lungs, a new study out of UC San Francisco asserts that it may be just as bad for your heart. As rising temperatures spark more and more intense fires, the study, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, suggests that smoke may pose an even bigger problem for cardiovascular health in California – especially among its senior citizens.

The report comes as Californians are coping with some of the deadliest and destructive wildfire seasons in the state’s history and it has the potential to change how doctors think about wildfire smoke and heart health.

New research from the University of California at San Francisco shows that

the wildfires ravaging the West Coast emit fine

particulate matter that is harmful to heart health.

According to the study, people exposed to wildfire smoke are placed at higher short-term risk for conditions like heart failure, ischemic heart disease and stroke – in contrast with most respiratory issues that can be remedied quickly with medical attention. The denser the smoke, the higher the risk. This effect is seen across all adults, but is most dramatic among those age 65 and older.

The study examined how many people checked into emergency rooms with heart complaints over the 2015 fire season. The researchers found, that in 2015 more than 800,000 acres of northern and central California went up in flames and sent plumes of smoke billowing over the state. The researchers

connected the dots between when and where the fires took place, how dense the smoke was each day and how many people wound up in the emergency room with heart conditions afterwards.

The data showed that people made the most trips to the emergency room following days with the densest smoke, both for respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Fewer checked in for either complaint on medium smoke days, and fewer than that on light smoke days. On days of dense smoke, the rate at which older adults visited the emergency room for heart attacks went up 42 percent.

There are a number of competing theories as to how smoke exposure might contribute to heart disease. Smoke from wildfires is a mixture of gases and fine particles from burning trees and other plant materials. Smoke is the smallest particle pollutant known as PM 2.5, which is about 1/30th the diameter of a human hair or smaller.

Wildfire smoke contains bits of particulate matter, and the more there are, the denser the smoke. The key problem is fine particulate matter is drawn deep into the lungs, precipitating a series of changes that increase the chance of blood clots, constriction of arteries, inflammation and other factors that contribute to cardiac and vascular stress.

This knowledge could help inform not only doctors, but emergency responders charged with evacuations and rescue. Alerting at-risk demographics to the dangers of wildfire smoke could save lives.

s e p T e m b e r 2 0 1 8 5

The study, Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Emergency Department Visits Associated With Wildfire Smoke Exposure in California in 2015 is available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6015400/.

Gases Released from Plastics in Ambient ConditionsColeen Engvall, Research AnalystPlastic has come under heavy fire in the past few months from both scientists and consumers, resulting in some companies like Kroger and Starbucks to announce measures focusing on plastic waste.

Our newsletter has reflected this trend, with a number of our articles highlighting some of these concerns. With the mass generation and disposal of plastic in recent decades, studies have shown that it can harm wildlife, human health and infrastructure. For the most part, plastics do this by breaking down at a microscopic level, with small, nearly invisible, particles and fibers leaching into our diets and the environment.

However, due to plastic’s impeccable durability, relatively low weight and low cost, companies and consumers find them difficult to replace or forgo. Many products and technologies, including medical supplies and other vital instruments, have been made much more inexpensive and accessible by plastics.

Plastic is an umbrella term for a number of manmade polymeric materials, traditionally synthesized from petrochemicals. This covers many forms with nearly innumerable applications. Some familiar types include polyethylene, polystyrene (i.e. Styrofoam), polyester and polyvinyl – just to name a few.

Plastics are famous for how long they can persist in the environment, but they are not indestructible. While you can still find commemorative yogurt cups from the 1976 Olympics floating in the Atlantic, the plastic will have begun to

break down, perhaps sporting cracks, discoloration or brittleness. Mechanical damage can also result in microplastics.

Plastics can also be broken into their component molecular parts by means of intense heat or exposure to various reactants like acids or even certain oils, depending on the plastic. Until recently, scientists noted these methods, as well as hundreds of years of natural decay, to be the only way to break down plastics.

Plastics are known for their longevity and

durability. However, according to new research

from the University of Manoa, simple exposure

to sunlight can break down common plastics,

resulting in the release of greenhouse gases.

Researchers from the University of Hawaii at Manoa came across evidence that a common type of plastic, polyethylene, was releasing gases when exposed to the everyday ambient conditions. After this discovery, the researchers compiled the article Production of Methane and Ethylene from Plastic in the Environment, publishing it in PLoS ONE in August.

To determine the overall impact, the researchers first determined the relative output of several types of common plastics, how their form affected their degradation and how various wavelengths of radiation factored in. In addition, they tested plastic that had been exposed to seawater first to see if marine plastics were behaving differently.

As their initial measurements showed, the plastic was indeed releasing methane and ethylene after being exposed to normal environmental conditions. After analyzing the various wavelengths of radiation used, they determined that sunlight is nearly perfect for decomposition of plastic.

Additionally, once exposed to sunlight, the plastic continued to degrade, even when removed from exposure. They noted that the amount of gas byproduct increased with plastic age, but they concluded that this was probably due to the increase of cracks and pores in the surfaces.

The type of plastic that emitted the most gas was low density polyethylene. This is troubling as LDPE is a common form of plastic, making up plastic bags, soap dispensers, packaging material and many other widely used products. More dense forms of plastic with tighter branching structures released less in sunlight.

Compared to other sources of hydrocarbon emissions across the globe, the amount being released by plastic is very small. However, with the scale of plastic production and pollution continuing to increase, these are important interactions to be aware of. Further findings could inform the disposal and collection of plastic waste to minimize exposure to sunlight.

The full study is available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200574&type=printable.

6 T h e J l c c N e w s l e T T e r

Wind, Solar Power Could Be Key to Salmon Survival in the NorthwestTony Guerrieri, Executive DirectorThe Snake River originates in Wyoming and arcs through southern Idaho before turning north along the Idaho-Oregon border. The river then enters Washington and flows west before meeting the Columbia River. It is the Columbia’s largest tributary and is an important source of irrigation water for potatoes, sugar beets and many other crops in the region.

The Snake River basin was once the birthplace of about half of all spring chinook salmon returning to the Columbia basin rivers. At that time, more than two million wild salmon and steelhead returned to spawn in the Snake and its tributaries each year.

Today, these species are either extinct or face extinction. This can be attributed to the four dams blocking the lower Snake River- the most vital salmon habitat in the lower 48 states. Various mitigation measures have been taken to address this issue but have yet to accomplish their goals.

For the past three decades the focus has been on trying to revive the river’s endangered and threatened salmon run by restoring habitat without compromising the generation of electricity. In the debate over the survival of endangered Columbia River salmon and the sustainability of dams

in the Pacific Northwest, a report by the NW Energy Coalition argues that before removing the four lower Snake River dams, the carbon-free energy they provide must be replaced with cost-effective alternatives. It suggests that the four large hydroelectric dams could be removed and effectively replaced by a mix of other clean energy sources at little cost to taxpayers.

The four dams, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite, are operated by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The dams are each at least 100 feet high and the combined reservoirs stretch half-way across Washington.

The Snake River in the Western U.S. hosts four hydroelectric dams, but

it is also vital habitat for salmon to spawn. A

report by the NW Energy Coalition suggests that the

dams could be replaced without sacrificing their

generation capacity.However, physical size is an imperfect measure of energy generation potential. They produce only about 4 percent of the Pacific Northwest’s electricity. In addition to hydroelectricity, they also provide flood control and irrigation. Consequently they also restrict access to more than 5,000 miles of habitat for

spawning salmon. Today, only about 1 percent of Snake River salmon make it home to spawn.

The question has been whether the region’s power grid could still meet demand during peak times and still effectively back up solar and wind plants without the four dams. The Lower

Snake River Dams Power Replacement Study outlines ways to replace the dams and improve overall system reliability, resource adequacy and ability to meet peak load requirements.

It concludes that balanced portfolios of solar and wind energy production, combined with energy efficiency and storage, can replace the power provided to the Northwest by the four dams and at a cost of about $1.28 per month for residential customers in the year 2026.

The study also claims no new natural gas power plants are needed to meet regional energy demands. According to the study, replacing the dams with clean and renewable resources provides superior or equal results to replacing them with natural gas for cost, carbon emissions, system reliability and ability to meet peak load requirements.

However, existing gas facilities would play a role in the power portfolios. It is important to note that, while the study addressed energy produced by the dams, it did not touch on their role in shipping.

The study was commissioned by the NW Energy Coalition, an advocacy group for energy efficiency, renewable energy and low-income energy users, and conducted by Energy Strategies, a Utah-based energy consulting firm. The 99-page report, Lower Snake River Dams Power Replacement Study, is available for download at: https://nwenergy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/LSRD_Report_Full_Final.pdf.

s e p T e m b e r 2 0 1 8 7

Recap of Committee Events See what we’ve been up to around the Commonwealth

Earlier this month, the Committee traveled to Bucks County for an educational tour and program led by the Delaware River Basin Commission, held on board the A.J. Meerwald Tall Ship.

During this tour, the Committee received in-depth information about the importance of restoring and protecting the Delaware watershed. The educational program included: flow management of the Delaware River, water quality monitoring programs, water supply and permitting.

The A.J. Meerwald is operated by the Bayshore Center at Bivalve in New Jersey. Members were also given the opportunity to hear from the staff at the Bayshore Discovery Center about the ship’s colorful history and many features.

A special thanks to the DRBC and Bayshore Discovery Center for hosting the Committee!

In attendance (pictured at top, from left to right) were legislators Senator Dinniman, Senator Martin, Representative Bullock, Chairman Hutchinson, Representative Daley, Representative Warren and Representative Quinn.

The attendees were invited aboard the A.J. Meerwald, pictured at left.

Thursday, October 4Public Rountable DiscussionCoaldale Borough, Schuylkill CountyAt the request of Senator David G. Argall (R-Berks/Schuylkill), the Committee will be holding a public roundtable discussion in Schuylkill County to discuss the current status and future of anthracite coal in Pennsylvania. This roundtable will provide Committee members with the opportunity to hear firsthand from local anthracite coal industry professionals regarding coal mine reclamation efforts, the industry’s challenges with remaining globally competitive and the innovative solutions being offered to revive this once booming energy sector.

Anthracite coal played a significant role during the Industrial Revolution. Serving not only as a primary heating source for homes and factories, anthracite coal created extensive railroad and canal systems and paved the way for the development of several important industries such as manufacturing. During the peak of the mining industry, approximately 180,000 individuals were employed. Despite the industry’s downfall during the Great Depression, anthracite coal is still used today for many purposes including the production of steel products and remains an important fuel source.

@PA_JLCC PA Joint Legislative Conservation Committee pa_jlcc Joint Legislative Conservation Committee

Upcoming Committee Events Join us to learn about Pennsylvania’s natural resources

8 T h e J l c c N e w s l e T T e r

initiatives that foster education and awareness about the importance of supporting local farms, given their significant contribution to the state’s economic vitality.

This past spring, the Department of Agriculture, along with several PA dairy industry groups, launched the “Choose PA Dairy: Goodness that Matters” campaign in order to bolster the state’s dairy industry. The program is centered on educating consumers about where and how to purchase milk that is produced locally in the state, as well as its health benefits.

The campaign advises consumers to look for two specific indicators in order to identify if the milk they purchase from grocery stores, markets and restaurants across the state is 100% from Pennsylvania:

• Examine if the product contains the PA Preferred logo. The logo signifies that consumers are supporting agriculture businesses in Pennsylvania; and

• Look for a plant code on the product that starts with “42.” The number 42 denotes that the milk was processed and sourced in Pennsylvania by local dairy farms.

The Choose PA Dairy campaign also touts the benefits of drinking milk, citing it as a source of essential nutrients

including calcium, vitamin D, potassium and vitamin A. Studies have also linked the consumption of dairy products to lowered risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes in adults. Consumption of dairy products has also been associated with strong, healthy bones in adolescents.

Pennsylvania is fortunate to have hundreds of farms that are owned and operated by people who have demonstrated environmental stewardship of the land and its natural resources. This year’s state budget invests additional funds to help Pennsylvania’s agriculture industry, including $5 million to assist dairy farmers and processors in keeping up with an ever-changing market through increased research and development programs and grants.

Pennsylvania is home to over half a million dairy

cows which support a $15 billion industry - an

industry facing many challenges.

In addition, the state Senate passed several pieces of legislation aimed at supporting the state’s dairy producers through initiatives that promote agritourism activities, deter the labeling of non-dairy products as “milk,” provide comprehensive recommendations for the industry and allow farmers to share more of their input in environmental regulations.

The ongoing initiatives to assist Pennsylvania’s dairy farmers seek to preserve the products, services and contributions that Pennsylvania’s farmers provide. Both locally and abroad, these farms enhance the state’s economy and invigorate communities.

To see more information about the “Choose PA Dairy: Goodness that Matters” campaign, visit: https://choosepadairy.com/.

Joint Legislative Conservation

Committee

Contact Information

Phone : 717.787.7570

Website : jcc .legis .state .pa .us

Location:Room 408

Finance BuildingHarrisburg, PA 17120

Mailing Address:Joint Legislative

Conservation CommitteePA House of Representatives

P.O. Box 202254Harrisburg, PA 17120-2254

The Chairman’s Cornercontinued from page 1