Just before the Thanksgiving Holiday, the New York Times ran a story about EPA’s plan to limit the studies and information that would be used by the agency in evaluating public health risks when setting regulations. The original proposal called, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, was proposed in April of 2018 and would require scientists and researchers to disclose their raw data including confidential medical records before the agency would consider a study’s conclusions. The findings of researchers who did not comply with this rule would be not be considered by EPA when reviewing and setting standards.
The original proposal released during Scott Pruitt’s term as administrator at EPA, was met with huge outcry from the scientific and medical community. According to the Times article, nearly 600,000 comments were submitted, the vast majority of which opposed the proposal including some of the leading scientific organizations in the country such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
The prime opposition to the proposed requirements is that many studies linking disease outcomes with pollution and chemical exposures are based on personal health information protected by confidentiality agreements. For example, a critically important study linking mortality and premature deaths to exposure to particulates in the air of urban areas relied on personal health information provided by people who signed confidentiality agreements. The researchers would not have been able to do this study without obtaining these agreements. This research design is standard accepted procedure that has been in place in the scientific community for many years. Under the proposed rule, the results of studies involving the use of personal health information would not be considered by EPA when setting related rules and regulations unless the researchers were willing to break their confidentiality agreements.
Despite enormous opposition from some of the leading scientific and medical organizations and institutions in the country, EPA seems bent on going forward with this plan. In a scathing rebuttal to the Times article, the agency stated that it “still intends to issue a final rule in 2020.
This incredibly bad proposal is consistent with the Trump Administration’s efforts to undermine and ignore standard science that does not meet political objectives. If finalized, many legitimate scientific findings will be ignored for political advantage and that’s not only bad science, but it’s bad policy.
The EPA announced that it will roll back regulations on coal-fired power plants and the disposal of residual toxic wastewater and coal ash. The deregulation will allow facilities to store coal ash in storage ponds longer putting them at greater risk for groundwater leakage and overflow from large storms. The loosening of the 2015 regulations set in place by the Obama administration has created concern for greater water contamination for communities in close proximity to coal plants. Read More.
[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]Emma Lockridge // Photo sourced by OurFuture Emma Lockridge, an environmental justice organizer for Michigan United, began her fight against the Marathon Petroleum Corporation nearly 6 years ago. From the observation of her mother’s house, only a few blocks from the facility, Emma noticed a thick blanket of pollution covering the sky. It wasn’t hard to determine the source of the contamination that was partnered with an overwhelming odor that was so strong it was difficult to breathe. Emma had moved into her mother’s house to take care of her after her mother had fallen ill from the exposure to the nearby facility’s toxic releases. Since then, Emma has fought tirelessly to push for the relocation of her neighbors that are subjected to high levels of toxic pollutants sourced from the Marathon plant.
In 2011, researchers from the University of Michigan released a report in the Detroit Free Press establishing Detroit, Michigan zip code, 48217, as the most polluted area in the state. Today, the zip code still remains the most polluted in the state, releasing a total of 151,800 pounds of various air emissions in 2018 alone. Claiming 99.6% of those air emissions is the Marathon Petroleum Corporation.
Expanding 250 acres, the Marathon Petroleum Corporation produces an incredible 132,000 barrels of crude oil a day. Sandwiched between the Oakwood Heights and Boynton communities, the facility releases hundreds of pounds of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter into the air, increasing the human health risk for respiratory and heart disease for the surrounding communities.
In anticipation of problems concerning a $2.2 billion expansion in 2012, Marathon presented a buyout program to residents located northeast of the facility. Residents of Oakwood Heights, a neighborhood with a predominantly white population, received a $50,000 buyout from Marathon to relocate to a less contaminated area.
The nearly 7,000 residents located to the south of the facility in Boynton, a predominantly black and low income community, did not receive such an offer. Why didn’t Boynton receive a buyout? Was it because they don’t have the complexion for protection? Regardless of reason, for the last six years, Emma has worked to make sure her neighbors receive a comparable buyout offer as those in the Oakwood Heights community.
Ms. Lockridge explains her approach to activism as unique. She states that when the pollution is at its worst, that is when she takes action and gets closer to the facility. She has put her body and health on the line for years to collect data and pictures on Marathon’s pollution. Some nights the pollution and odors are so intense that Emma has gone to bed wearing a face mask to protect herself from breathing in the contaminants.
Emma explains, “When I notice the flares releasing in the night, I will drive towards the plant to take pictures. When the odors are at their worst, I go towards the plant to document what is happening. It is my word against theirs and I have the documents.”
In addition to gathering evidence against Marathon, Emma spends her time organizing her neighbors for protests against the plant for relocation. She describes the conditions in Boynton as unlivable. As part of the expansion, the Marathon Petroleum Corporation expanded their operations to include the production of Alberta tar sands oil. The production of tar sands results in increased emissions of particulate matter and pollution. Emma says that even furniture that has been left outside has to be cleaned every few days to remove the black particles that will accumulate, evidence to what residents are breathing in everyday.
When asked if there have been any observable changes since she started her work, Emma says, in some ways, yes. Marathon has not agreed to a buyout but Emma explains that there have been some changes in the neighborhoods in Boynton. Houses have been deteriorating for years and some have even been abandoned, but the city of Detroit is on the upswing. With a new wave of gentrification, houses that were thought to have been abandoned in Boynton are now being occupied as people are being pushed to the outskirts of the city. The demographics in the neighborhoods are beginning to look more diverse as various low-income residents move closer to the pollution.
Instead of relocation, Emma has observed an increase in residency. A trend that is only bringing more people in proximity problem. No dramatic change has occurred to date on the status of relocation for the residents of Boynton. However, Emma Lockridge and her neighbors refuse to give up the fight.
“I will continue to fight until I die,” says Emma. “I have already been diagnosed with kidney failure, cancer and asthma. The fight has already given me a death sentence, so I’ll continue to fight until I’m dead.”[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
The EPA has announced a $10 million grant that will go towards replacing older models of school buses that emit more pollution compared to newer models. By replacing older model school buses, the EPA has informed that the change will result in a 90% pollution reduction from buses that are heavy emitters of particulate matter and nitrogen oxide, two pollutants that can increase conditions of respiratory disease and asthma for riders. As Children’s Health Month starts, the EPA is working to ensure that all aspects of the school environment maintain a healthy space for students to learn and develop, including the ride to and from school. Read More.
If you live in a state with any type of oil, gas, pipeline, PAY ATTENTION! In fact, if we start seeing bills like the one before the Ohio legislature it doesn’t even have to be an oil/gas producing state. The Ohio bill lists 73 different “Critical Infrastructures”. Below you will see a letter to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine from citizens of Ohio asking for him to veto SB 33 if it comes to his desk. The letter will help you understand what is going on in many states. To Ohio Governor Mike DeWine: The undersigned environmental justice, racial justice, civil justice, criminal justice, and other civil society groups and individuals urge you to veto Ohio Senate Bill 33 (SB 33). The bill would undermine and silence already marginalized voices. SB 33 is an unnecessary proposal that creates new draconian penalties for conduct already covered by existing criminal statutes and could have dire unintended consequences. SB 33 is part of a national trend of so-called “critical infrastructure” legislation promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) that is intended to neutralize citizen activism around oil and gas infrastructures. We urge you to oppose SB 33.
Critical infrastructure bills disproportionately affect some of the most underrepresented communities, criminalizing their right to protest. These bills target many already marginalized voices, in reaction to some of the most high-profile protests in recent history. Communities of color, low-wealth communities and our Native American population are most affected by unchecked environmental pollution; family farms have the most to lose by unfair land-grabs for large infrastructure projects. These communities have a right to peacefully resist environmentally unsafe and unjust policies and unchecked corporate abuse.
SB 33 is purportedly designed to protect critical infrastructure, but the definition of “critical infrastructure” is overly broad and would cover large swaths of the state in urban, suburban, and rural areas, creating the unintended consequence of ensnaring many in Ohio’s already overburdened criminal justice system.
Additionally, the bill does not distinguish between criminal damages of one dollar or a million dollars. At a time when many people, including lawmakers, have recognized the deleterious effects that mass incarceration has had on society and have attempted to rectify laws that have criminalized certain conduct or imposed unreasonable penalties, SB 33 is a giant step backwards. By creating a whole new class of nonviolent offenders who could serve serious prison time, it is antithetical to criminal justice reform.
Environmental advocacy, including civil disobedience, does not threaten physical infrastructure or safety. It threatens profits. Critical infrastructure bills are based on model legislation crafted by corporate interests to establish special protections for some private industries engaged in controversial practices that attract opposition and protest. These bills, including SB 33, are rooted in governments hostile attitudes toward environmental justice advocacy because it threatens the profits of these corporations. Whenever states enact legislation based on these hostile attitudes towards particular political speech, it has a chilling effect that will be felt widely.
We urge you to veto SB 33 if and when it comes across your desk. From a criminal justice reform perspective, this bill is damaging, as it creates new steep penalties for conduct that is already covered under existing criminal law. These new steep penalties and special protections for so-called critical infrastructure are rooted in animus towards anti-pipeline protesters. It is inappropriate for states to seek to legislate in order to penalize individuals for their First Amendment-protected points of view.
