SD House defeats bill requiring ‘forever chemical' labels on firefighting gear
PIERRE — Legislation that would have required protective firefighting equipment purchased by fire departments in South Dakota to be labeled with its 'forever chemical' status failed Wednesday in the state House of Representatives.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s and don't break down easily in the environment or in the human body. The chemicals can be found in everything from firefighting foam to thermal and water-resistant clothing to soil and water. Research indicates PFAS exposure may be linked to negative developmental and reproductive effects, and an increased risk of some cancers.
The federal government finalized phased-in limits on some types of PFAS in drinking water earlier this year. PFAS has been found in preliminary testing of Mount Rushmore drinking water and in the Big Sioux River.
'Forever chemicals' found in Big Sioux River, based on preliminary data
Senate Bill 163 would have required South Dakota fire departments' future purchases of coats, coveralls, footwear, gloves, helmets, hoods and trousers to have a permanent label from the manufacturer identifying whether the material includes PFAS.
Occupational cancer is the leading cause of line-of-duty death in the fire service, and the International Association of Firefighters attributes 66% of firefighter deaths between 2002 and 2019 to cancer.
Rep. David Kull, R-Brandon, carried the bill on the House floor, saying that the legislation would send a message to companies to develop PFAS-free gear and protect South Dakota firefighters from increased cancer risks.
The National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit organization that develops and publishes safety codes and standards, issued new standards in August 2024. The standards require manufacturer-suppliers of firefighting safety gear to test their materials for some types of PFAS.
Lawmakers who spoke against the bill largely cited opposition from local fire chiefs, saying the legislation would amount to government overreach by the state. The state Department of Public Safety and the South Dakota Joint Fire Council opposed the legislation during its committee hearing.
'We're going to make them spend more money on things that they could buy cheaper because it doesn't have a label,' said Rep. Kevin Van Diepen, R-Huron, 'and we're going to force them to do this.'
The House voted 57-13 to defeat the legislation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump wants NASA to burn a crucial satellite to cinders, killing research into climate change
By any reasonable metric, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been a spectacular success. Originally designed to support a two-year pilot project, it has been operating continuously in space for more than 10 years and could continue doing so for three decades more. The data it produces 'are of exceptionally high quality,' NASA stated in a 2023 review, when it labeled the project 'the flagship mission for space-borne measurements' of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. So perhaps it isn't surprising that the Trump administration plans to shut the program down. It gets worse: The White House has given NASA instructions to destroy the spacecraft by plunging it to a fiery demise in the atmosphere. Knowledgeable scientists and engineers say that Trump could choose to temporarily mothball the orbiting observatory, leaving a skeleton staff in place at NASA to monitor its hibernation until cooler heads prevail at the White House. Destroying the spacecraft, however, will hamstring climate research for decades. The zeroing out of climate research budgets by the Trump White House, of which the cancellation of the OCO program is a part, is taking place just as the value of space-borne climate research has been rising sharply. 'The bottom line is that the societal and scientific benefit of this research increases almost exponentially with sustained and long-lasting measurements,' says Ben Poulter, an expert in greenhouse gas measurements formerly at NASA and now a senior scientist at the nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions. 'We're starting to see the positive impact of OCO-2 at helping to detect trends in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in natural ecosystems as the Earth undergoes the impacts of climate change.' Under the most recent Republican administrations, NASA's involvement in Earth science — that is, research into global warming and other climate change — has consistently come under fire. As I reported recently, these programs were specifically targeted by Russell Vought, currently Trump's budget director and an architect of Project 2025, in a 2023 unofficial budget proposal. There, Vought groused about NASA's 'misguided Carbon Reduction System spending and Global Climate Change programs.' He called for a 50% reduction in the budget for NASA Earth science research — a cut that made it into Trump's current proposed budget. The vastly reduced Earth science budget for NASA was passed by the House earlier this year, but it isn't part of the Senate version, which hasn't been passed. What isn't understood by Vought, Trump or the current acting director of NASA, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, is that Earth science was specifically made part of NASA's portfolio in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. Among the agency's directives, the act stated, would be 'the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere.' That's where climate change occurs. The effort to zero out Earth science alarmed more than 60 Democratic House members, who wrote Duffy on July 18 to warn that 'the scale of reductions to NASA Earth science would ... severely impair the use of Earth science data and research to improve our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires, leaving the nation less prepared for the challenges of the future and impacting local communities' abilities to adapt and respond to severe weather and natural disaster events.' Trump's budgetary cheeseparing at NASA means the waste of billions of dollars already spent by taxpayers. As I reported before, the bulk of the cost of space missions is in the development of spacecraft and their launch; once that's done, the cost of maintaining a satellite in orbit is nominal. According to David Crisp, who led the OCO development team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena from the outset and is now a private consultant, the OCO program development and launch cost was about $750 million, but since the launch it costs only about $15 million a year to operate. That doesn't count the value of the lost data. Crisp reckons that Duffy and the administration 'decided that NASA should not do Earth science, and the fact that we have billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars invested in that enterprise right now and really valuable hardware in place, providing critical information to organizations across the world is irrelevant. I think what's going on here is that they've made a strategic move without taking into account tactical realities.' The average layperson — and that includes some White House officials making policy decisions about scientific endeavors — has no idea about the effort required to put a satellite into space and keep it there. The OCO project was typical. As described by Crisp, the process began in the mid-1990s as an inquiry into how carbon dioxide produced on Earth got absorbed by natural 'sinks' such as forests. The project won approval in 2001 from the George W. Bush administration. Environmental science wasn't the partisan football it later became. 'You could be a good Republican and still think this was a good thing to do,' Crisp told me. The first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was readied for launch in February 2009. 'It was a tremendous challenge, an instrument designed to make a measurement three or four times more difficult than anything ever attempted at JPL,' Crisp says. The launch was successful — for just over three minutes, at which point it failed, plunging rocket and satellite to a watery grave in the Indian Ocean. 'We'd spent eight years and $270 million and engaged more than 1,000 work-years of heroic effort,' Crisp recalls. NASA wanted to keep the project alive. For 10 months, Crisp and others beat down the doors of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and commercial enterprise to find the money to preserve it, but this was in the teeth of the Great Recession, and no one signed on. But ultimately the Obama administration appropriated $50 million in December 2009 to restart the mission. Crisp's team built a carbon copy of the original satellite, and it was launched successfully on July 2, 2014. The original vision was to operate OCO-2 for two years as a proof-of-concept, showing that carbon dioxide could be accurately measured from space. Because of the peculiarities of the launch, however, it carried enough fuel to last 40 years. The reconstruction left enough spare parts in hand to build a twin instrument dubbed OCO-3, which was launched in May 2019 and installed on the International Space Station, where it is still operating. When I asked NASA for a response to widespread criticism of its actions by the scientific community, I got the same standardized reponse that others have received. It labeled OCO-2 and -3 'two climate missions beyond their prime mission,' and added that as the proposed budget has 'not yet been enacted, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.' What NASA believes the OCO 'prime mission' is, if not studying atmospheric conditions on Earth, is a mystery. Within weeks of its own launch, OCO-2 began producing data that would revolutionize climate science. Its applications went well beyond measuring carbon dioxide. OCO-2 was able to detect 'solar-induced fluorescence' in plants, an artifact of photosynthesis, which could be used as a 'reliable early warning indicator of flash drought with enough lead time to take action,' JPL reported last year. Those measurements, Crisp says, 'have been a bigger hit with the science community than the CO2 measurements.' And they're the product not of planning, but serendipity, a crucial feature of scientific progress. At this moment, OCO-2 seems destined for oblivion. Crisp says NASA staffers have been instructed to make a plan to move the spacecraft into a 'disposal orbit' that would incinerate it in the Earth's atmosphere within a few months. But that's expensive, requiring a detailed plan to ensure that its deteriorating orbit doesn't threaten other orbiting craft. The quick and dirty alternative would be to 'point the thing down and fire the thruster, which would basically produce an instantaneous reentry.' Which option will be chosen isn't clear. A third alternative is to place the craft in a sort of suspended sleep, so it could be started up again after Trump and his minions leave office. But that would require 24-hour monitoring to adjust the OCO orbit to avoid space junk — not an infrequent occurrence. (With OCO-3 attached to the International Space Station, it will remain in place, though nonfunctional, as long as the ISS stays aloft.) The plan to destroy OCO-2 is beyond shameful. Crisp says of the OCO hardware, 'these are national assets.... They are what made this country great. Tearing things down doesn't make it great again. It just tears things down.'
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
The Race to Rescue PBS and NPR Stations
In June, on the eve of a House vote to strip $500 million in federal funding from public radio and TV stations, a group of philanthropists gathered in Philadelphia to brace for the worst. They listened as Tim Isgitt, the head of a public media consulting firm, laid out the potential for what he called a doom loop — a catastrophic situation caused by the sudden elimination of federal funding. The closure of roughly 115 local radio and TV stations, he said, could result in fewer dollars in the public media system to pay for programming. And that, in turn, could eventually cause other local stations to close. Now, some of those philanthropists are banding together in hopes of staving off that worst-case scenario by providing an emergency $26.5 million cash injection to stabilize the stations most at risk. The group is aiming to raise additional money for the fund and hopes to reach $50 million this year. 'We believe it's crucial to have a concerted, coordinated effort to make sure that the stations that most critically need these funds right now have a pathway to get them,' said Maribel Pérez Wadsworth, the president and chief executive of the Knight Foundation, which is among the major backers of the fund. The money is not aimed at PBS and NPR, well-funded national organizations that will survive without government support. Instead, the Knight Foundation and others are focused on the scores of public radio and TV stations that have historically received more than 30 percent of their support from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a taxpayer-backed company that announced it would shut down because of the funding cuts. Many of those stations are in rural areas, like remote regions of Alaska and Kansas, where residents don't have access to alternate sources of news and information. The Knight Foundation is committing $10 million to the fund, which aims to disburse the money before the end of the year. Together with Knight, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Schmidt Family Foundation, Pivotal Ventures and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have already committed nearly $27 million of additional money for the effort, called the Public Media Bridge Fund. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Texas GOP now faces clear path to redraw congressional maps in Trump-backed push
Texas Republicans now face a clear path to redraw the state's congressional maps after state House Democrats ended their 15-day walkout and returned to the Capitol on Monday. In California, meanwhile, Democrats on Monday began work on a series of proposals that would counter the GOP's Texas map with five more Democratic-leaning districts of their own. Here's a look at where things stand in the redistricting arms race playing out in the nation's two largest states: The House is set to reconvene Wednesday, and Republicans are expected to move quickly to approve a new map, which would create five more Republican-leaning seats. But it's not yet clear just how quickly Republicans will finish their redistricting effort and if it will happen this week. With Democrats still absent, the legislature ended its first special session last Friday. But that same day, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called a second special session — a move aimed at showing Democrats couldn't outlast his party's efforts. The redistricting plan needs the Senate's approval, too — but that appears to be little more than a formality. President Donald Trump continues to push for Texas Republicans to act, saying on Truth Social Monday evening, 'Please pass this Map, ASAP. THANK YOU TEXAS — MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Texas Republicans took a step toward approving the new maps Monday, when the state's House Redistricting committee approved new congressional maps in a 12-8 vote. The map, which is slightly different than the one considered during the first special session, will head to the Calendars committee before moving to consideration on the House floor. House Speaker Dustin Burrows is trying to make sure they don't. Shortly after Burrows gaveled the House into session, he ordered the doors locked and said the Democrats who'd fled the state earlier would be 'released into the custody' of a designated Department of Public Safety officer who would ensure their return Wednesday. Burrows had signed civil arrest warrants for those absent Democrats, but they were unenforceable outside of Texas. Still, Democrats had already used their only viable option to delay passage of new maps, and acknowledge they are unlikely to do so again. Democratic state Rep. Ramon Romero, who showed reporters his permission slip to leave the state Capitol, said, 'This is the way the state does business.' 'Do you think if we weren't gonna come back, we would've walked in here today? Absolutely not,' he said. 'But we're gonna become friends by the time this is over, we're gonna have some good Mexican food together. I am gonna try to get away at some point or another.' 'I'm kidding,' he added. California Democrats are on track to pass their own redistricting push by Thursday. Party leaders formally introduced their proposed constitutional amendment to redraw the state's congressional maps through 2030 on Monday, along with legislation describing the new districts and a bill calling for and funding a November special election. All three bills must pass with a two-thirds majority vote, though the constitutional amendment doesn't require the governor's signature. The bills must sit for 72 hours before members can vote on them. The Senate and Assembly's elections committees will meet at 9:30 a.m. PT/12:30 p.m. ET and 10:30 a.m. PT/1:30 p.m. ET, respectively, to consider the bills. California Democrats and Republicans held dueling press conferences Monday. State and congressional Democrats framed their redistricting push as both a response to Texas and a check on increasing authoritarianism from Trump. 'They are so scared to face real oversight and accountability that they're rigging the system to stay in power,' US Rep. Pete Aguilar said of the Trump administration. 'So, we're here today to make it clear that we're not going to sit on the sidelines and we're going to play offense.' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire dismissed complaints from California Republicans opposed to mid-cycle redistricting, saying they were speaking out of 'self interest.' 'The only reason that we are here is because of President Trump and American Republicans and their leadership,' he said. 'So, candidly, I think that is fake outrage and crocodile tears.' During their press conference, California Republican assemblymembers condemned partisan gerrymandering – or 'Gavinmandering,' – as Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher said Monday. 'We will stop, hopefully, this from moving forward,' Gallagher said. 'But I tell you what: Even if we don't, the voters are on our side. We believe at the end of the day the voters want to keep fair and independent elections.' Senate and Assembly Republicans introduced a joint resolution Monday urging Congress to put forward a constitutional amendment to require all states to use nonpartisan, independent redistricting commissions to draw congressional and legislative district lines. 'We're saying that should be the case in Texas, that should be the case here,' Gallagher said. 'But you don't abandon your principles here in California, and that's what Gavin Newsom is doing when he says fight fire with fire.' CNN's Arlette Saenz contributed to this report.
