Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Author: CHEJ Intern

Categories
Backyard Talk

What is “Fridays for Future,” and why are youth protesting outside their parliaments across the world? By Maddelene Karlsson

Since August 2018 a climate change movement known as “Fridays for Future” has grown significantly fast. It all started with the now 16-year old Swedish Greta Thunberg, who learned about the devastating effects of climate change in school. She felt so taken by what she had learned and thought that interventions on a global level need to happen sooner rather then later. Greta started to protest outside of the Swedish parliament every Friday during normal school hours arguing “why study for a future which may not be there.” The goal of her protests was to demand political leaders improve current climate policies for a sustainable future. Greta also argues “why spend a lot of effort to become educated, when our governments are not listening to the educated?”. Like the snowball effect, Greta’s protesting went from her protesting alone to large school “strikes” together with thousands of people across the world every Friday.
Fridays for future Greta Thunberg
 

(Photo: Michael Campanella/The Guardian)

In mid-March 2019, the largest strike so far took place in more than 125 countries with at least 1.6 million participants, all demanding action against climate change. Recently, on May 24, another large school strike was organized with similar participation rates, as featured in The Washington Post. The group Youth Climate Strike US, is the lead youth climate action organization in the U.S. They are advocating for the New Green Deal, a stop to new construction of fossil fuel infrastructure, evidence-based policymaking in the government, a declaration of national emergency on climate change, comprehensive climate change education in primary schools, improved preservation of public lands and wildlife habitats and clean water actions.
Fridays for future protest

(Photo: Justin Lane/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

The main goal of the school strikes is to urge political leaders globally to comply with the recommendations of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It’s stated in their latest report that in order to prevent and reverse the predicted devastating impacts of climate change on planet earth and human health, global CO2 emissions need to be cut by 45% by 2030. While political leaders are responsible for implementing sustainable policies, such as fulfilling the pledges they made in the Paris agreement for 2030, all people can do their part with small lifestyle changes as well. If we don’t act now, we put ourselves and all wildlife at risk for a mass extinction.
The devastating effects of climate change is not limited to melting icecaps and rising sea levels. Climate change has also caused an increased number and intensity of extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes, tornados and rainfall in the U.S. In the 2009 CHEJ publication “In the Eye of the Storm,” the impact of extreme weathers near or at Superfund sites is explored. Superfund sites are already toxic and put human health at risk. With the increased number of storms and flooding, toxins migrate in soil and water and pose a greater risk than originally, making the cleanup processes more difficult and costly too.
 
Sources:
https://www.fridaysforfuture.org/
https://www.youthclimatestrikeus.org/platform
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/greta-thunberg-schoolgirl-climate-change-warrior-some-people-can-let-things-go-i-cant
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-48392551
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/05/24/students-around-world-skip-school-protest-demand-action-climate-change/?utm_term=.70f4b6758731

Categories
Backyard Talk

Where Is Piketon Ohio? & Why Is The US Department of Energy Making Them Accept A Radio Active Waste Dump? By Sharon Franklin

 
In Piketon, Ohio, David and Pam Mills who have grown tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, and okra on their property for about 18 years, now say they can’t trust their soil anymore.  Why? Because less than a 5-minute walk from their property a short metal fence marking where the Mills property ends, there is a sign that reads, “U.S. PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING,” in big, bold letters with red, white, and blue borders, where the US government is constructing a 100-acre landfill for radioactive waste. Piketon, Ohio is a rural, low income, and largely white county and home to more than 28,000 people across a number of small towns and cities.  When you drive through neighborhoods behind Piketon’s main highway, lawn signs covered in red stating “NO RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMP in Pike County” can be seen everywhere.
blog 1
 
The US Department of Energy (DOE) owns the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and now, the agency is trying to clean it up.  When construction is finished, it will be one of the largest nuclear waste dumps east of the Mississippi, and waste could begin entering it as soon as the Fall of 2019.
The clean-up and construction of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant spurred the 2,000 strong Village of Pike community members, to pass a resolution in August 2017 opposing the landfill.  The Mills say “It’s gonna contaminate everything,” “It’s just a matter of time.”
blog2
 
However, the problem for Piketon residents, is there is nothing technically illegal about the landfill. The US DOE, though the polluter, is taking the lead on cleaning up the facility, and the Ohio EPA supports its plan. Whether their decision is morally right given local opposition is another matter. But this is what often happens when a corporation or governmental entity needs to dispose of toxic waste: It gets dumped in an overlooked town, like Piketon, Ohio, that doesn’t deserve it.
When contacted by the reporter, the Trump Administration’s US Department of Energy (DOE) wouldn’t comment on why it chose this site despite the nearby streams nor would it say how that impacts environmental risk.
 
As reported by Yessenia Funes, May 16, 2019 
 
 
 

Categories
Backyard Talk

Urban Heat Island Effect

By: Lauren Maranto
Have you ever noticed that when you leave the city, the air feels more fresh and cool? It’s  no surprise these days that the air is filled with pollution; We see cars and trucks everywhere, releasing greenhouse gasses and toxic fumes into the atmosphere, while fuel is burned in factories and residential areas. That being said, what many people don’t think of when they imagine air pollution is a phenomenon called the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Urban Heat Islands (UHI) are urban areas that have higher average temperatures than their surrounding rural areas due to the reduction of greenspaces and higher prevalence of impermeable and dark surfaces such as pavement. These dark spaces, along with heat absorbent building materials, absorb solar radiation and trap more heat surrounding the urban area, increasing the average temperature. Additionally, heat from industrial processes and human activities (driving a car, heating your home, etc.) is constantly released into the city, further contributing to UHI. Nighttime temperatures remain higher as the trapped heat is slowly released from buildings.
So, why does this matter? UHI not only creates an uncomfortable heat blanket over the city, it also contributes to air pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to human health issues and climate change. The high temperatures during the summer cause people to increase their air conditioning use, which burns more fuels and releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It also encourages more people to drive to work to avoid the heat, which increases emissions from cars. The best way to reduce UHI is by promoting green spaces in cities and decreasing our energy use. By decreasing the burning of fuels, we can simultaneously reduce the heat emitted in the process while also decreasing air pollution and the negative health and environmental implications that come along with it. By increasing green space, the plants will help regulate air temperatures while also cleaning up the air by absorbing CO2.
 
 

Categories
Backyard Talk

A student’s reflection on the EPA, Superfund and CHEJ

Maddelene Karlsson. As a Community Health student, I had the opportunity to go as an intern with Center for Health Environment and Justice to the EPA headquarters for a meeting regarding the Superfund program on March 5. This meeting, although very emotional, was also intellectually rewarding and confirming in many ways. It is one thing to read and learn about public health, community health and the topics under those umbrellas in class, but a whole other thing to see it and experience it in reality.
At the meeting, there were six EPA representatives all with different roles, CHEJ founder, staff and interns, community members and a few organizational environmental health advocacy individuals, each one with expertise on specific topics. The goal was to raise the concerns in the communities affected by superfund sites, general superfund issues and to put pressure on the EPA to act faster and more responsible. The community members shared their personal stories and experiences to give everyone an insight of what it is like to live near or on a superfund site, to see their own and their loved ones’ health spiraling downwards without the capacity to do anything about it. One community member expressed the she “doesn’t care about her own health concerns any longer, she’ll deal with it and all that matters is that her children and next generations at least get the chance to grow up healthy.” Another community member said that he “was the only one of his nine siblings still alive, and that after reaching the age of 60, which no one else of his entire family ever did, he is now worried about what health issues he might face” after growing up and living in a highly polluted town all his life. These stories were heartbreaking to me, and what might have been even more heartbreaking was the straight, expressionless faces of some of the EPA representatives. They were even caught off guard by another community member stating that no one of them would ever accept living in any of those conditions or be treated that way by top level leaders and officials, so why do they let other people go through that? Ironically, the EPA clearly states on their website that their core mission is the “protection of human health and the environment” and that they “are committed to providing clean air, water and land for all Americans.” To me it sounds like a mission that is too hard for them to live up to, or maybe it is only for a very few selected, as I observed faces expressed with frustration and distrust, and gloomy eyes filled with hopelessness.
In school, I have learned about the importance of the building blocks of public health for the establishment and management of healthy communities: assessment, policy development and assurance. It sounds like a pretty straight forward model, but in reality, it’s not. Especially when it comes to environmental health, it seems like it sometimes becomes a question of whether it is a human right or privilege to be part of healthy communities. Should it really be this way? In my opinion, no. I have come to the realization that we, the general population are sometimes naïve, we like to think that certain agencies and parts of the social system is there for us to keep us safe, represent us and to provide us with the tools needed for optimal health. Yesterday in that meeting, the EPA showed to me that this is not the way they work, and that the system is in fact very weak. The system is weak because it is full of loopholes and like serpents, they use these loopholes to bolt and dodge their responsibilities. Individuals at grassroots level on the other hand, have power. Lots of power. They are all one essential link each of an unbreakable chain, and what makes them stand out is their support and empowerment of one another and their commitment for battling the problems they face along the way together.
 

Categories
Backyard Talk

Necessary Prevention: Toxic Pollution and Natural Disasters

By: Maia Lemman
Starting as thunderstorms that travel west across Sub Saharan Africa, these weather systems grow in size and magnitude as they move across the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean. As the moisture evaporates it rises creating twisting air flows that develop into hurricanes. One such storm developed in the summer of 2017. Harvey was first labeled as a slow-moving tropical storm on August 17th as it made its way towards North America from the Gulf of Mexico. Two days later Harvey was downgraded, only to steadily regain strength until making landfall in Texas as a Category 4 hurricane on August 25th.
As Harvey approached, many Texas counties declared mandatory evacuations, while other towns sandbagged their houses in preparation for the influx of water. Hospitals set up diesel generators to keep them powered during the storm and extra staff members were brought in to manage the expected increase of individuals requiring medical attention. Despite these preparations people caught in the storm’s path were in severe danger. Texas was battered by a deluge of rain that dumped 27 trillion gallons of water in the span of 6 days. Catastrophic flooding, and wind speeds of 130 miles per hour destroyed homes, flooded roads, and claimed 88 lives. In total, NOAA estimates that Harvey incurred $125 billion in damages.
While the rescuers and city officials worked diligently to care for the citizens, chemical plants, oil refineries, and toxic waste sites had not sufficiently prepared for Harvey. Battered by the hurricane, numerous sites poured uncontrolled pollution into the air and water. Oil refineries with damaged equipment could no longer manage their emissions, flaring an estimated one million pounds of pollutants into the air.4 The level of toxic chemicals such as benzene and sulfur dioxide far exceeded the levels permitted by the EPA. When other toxic chemicals were taken into account, the Center for Biological Diversity estimates that close to 5 million pounds of chemical pollutants were poured into the environment. In Houston the level of volatile organic compounds was registered at 15,000 parts per billion. This is ten times higher than deemed safe by health officials.
The environmental damage was not limited to pollution from chemical plants and oil refineries. Texas is home to 53 superfund sites. These are sites which the federal government has deemed toxic and pays to cleanup. The EPA reported that 13 Superfund sites were flooded during Hurricane Harvey. To the dismay of those living near these sites, the EPA failed to assess the potential spread of the toxic pollutants from these sites in the days following the flooding.
The chemical plant that received the most attention was the Arkema plant in Crosby Texas. This chemical plant houses 19.5 tons of volatile chemicals that depend upon refrigeration to remain stable and prevent combustion. However, as Harvey knocked out electricity, and then Arkema’s backup generators, the plant lost power and burst into flames releasing a plume of toxic chemicals. While the EPA maintained the stance that there were no threats from the toxicity, local officials suggested a 1.5-mile evacuation radius around the plant. Two hundred people living within the radius to the plant were evacuated, and twenty-one individuals required medical attention.
In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, attention has been focused on the operations of these polluting industries. Dozens of civil suits were filed against Arkema, and additionally in August of 2018 the attorney general brought criminal charges against the chemical manufacturer and two of the leaders of Arkema.8 Besides the fight to determine who should be held responsible for these pollutants there has been a push to ensure that toxic industries take preventive measures against potential damage from future natural disasters. With hurricanes are occurring at larger magnitudes and battering the southeast U.S. where many of these polluting industries are located, it seems logical that they should develop comprehensive contingency plans, insure their machinery is operational and assess whether their site is within a flood plain. Furthermore, the EPA should be assisting in assessing damagers and enforcing emission controls after a storm. While people struggle to recover from the storm, they should not also be assaulted by plumes of toxic air pollution that will damage their health.

Categories
Homepage Water News

TRUE: ‘More than a million Californians’ don’t have clean drinking water … It could be higher

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has made confronting California’s contaminated drinking water a top priority early in his term in office.
Read More.

Categories
Homepage

Irish High Court delivers killer blow to US Fracked Gas Imports by ‘New Fortress Energy’

The challenge by Irish environmentalists has proved that the ‘New Fortress Energy’ Shannon LNG consent process will take years and may now never come to fruition.
Read More.

Categories
Homepage Water News

WHEELER’S NATIONWIDE PFAS ACTION PLAN FAILS COMMUNITIES

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled its delayed Nationwide Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan.
Read More.

Categories
Homepage Superfund News

Superfund adviser kept in touch with bank after ban

Senior Superfund advisor Albert Kelly was banned from the banking industry but continued to correspond with them while he was overseeing the Superfund program.
Read more.

Categories
Backyard Talk

What is PFAS, where is it, and what is government doing about it in 2019?

By: Daisy Clennon

PFAS is short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. It is an umbrella term for manmade chemicals that have a carbon and fluorine atom backbone. PFAS encompasses PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) as well as hundreds of other compounds. PFAS are used in industrial processes and consumer products such as non-stick cookware, grease resistant paper, fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, stain-resistant carpets and fabrics, cleaning products, and more. PFAS frequently get into groundwater though industrial factories, military bases, and also because they are used in firefighting foams. PFAS contaminates soil and water and can contaminate food grown in contaminated circumstances.

PFAS take a very long time to break down, so they build up in organs and tissues. Scientists are still learning about the health risks from PFAS, but the chemicals have been linked to affecting growth, learning, and behavior of children, lowering a woman’s chance of pregnancy, interfering with the body’s natural hormones, increasing cholesterol, affecting the immune system, and increasing risk of cancer. Lab animals exposed to PFAS have shown problems with liver, thyroid, and pancreatic functions. PFAS has been widely used since the 1950s and has recently come to national attention through crises in Hoosick Falls, NY, Plainfield Township, MI, Parkersburg, W. VA, and Parchment, MI.

So far, PFAS have been found in dozens of states, including Vermont, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Colorado, New York, North Carolina, West Virginia, Washington, Kansas, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Alabama, Minnesota, California. Many impacted communities are near military bases, airports, and industrial sites, where PFAS are used. Most people in the United States have some level of PFAS in their body. A sample done by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the average blood levels of PFAS in Americans are as follows: PFOA  is 2.1 parts per billion, the average level of PFOS is 6.3 parts per billion, and the average level of PFHxS is 1.3 parts per billion.

So what is being done in 2019 about this contaminant?

State level bills about PFAS are working their way through at least 13 states, including Michigan, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Connecticut. Many bills center around making sure PFAS can’t be used in firefighting foam or in food packaging. States are also struggling to set PFAS contaminant levels. A Michigan state bill would limit PFOA and PFOS to 5 parts per trillion, considerably lower than the EPA advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion. After a PFOA crisis in Bennington, Vermont state legislators set the limit to 20 parts per trillion for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFNA combined.

On the federal level, a bipartisan bill has been introduced that would add PFAS to the list of chemicals covered by CERCLA (Superfund) legislation. This would allow the EPA to work towards cleaning up PFAS sites. Furthermore, on January 23rd, Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania initiated a bipartisan task force with at least 18 other Congress members. The task force will hold informational events to educate other members of Congress about PFAS, craft legislation to address PFAS contamination, meet with committee chairs to ensure PFAS is addressed, and fight for funding through federal appropriations to clean up PFAS contamination.

The EPA has not yet released its decision on adding PFAS to Superfund legislation. Reports say they will not be regulating PFAS through the Safe Drinking Water Act. This has not been confirmed, but lawmakers have slammed the apparent decision. Michigan legislators have said that they will act if the EPA refuses to. Rep. Kildee said that “while the Trump administration has claimed it wants to address PFAS, they have been all talk and no action,” and the other leader of the bipartisan task force, Rep. Fitzpatrick, said “If the EPA refuses to do its job, Congress must intercede.”

You can track policy details for state PFAS legislation here, and keep up to date with PFAS news here.

You can also sign this petition, to tell Congress to enact a total ban on the production and use of PFAS by 2020. CHEJ is planning a training call/webinar with Nationwide PFAS Coalition that will provide a general overview of the PFAS situation nationally, and include a discussion of what groups are working on now at the state and federal level.

UPDATE: EPA released their action plan on Thursday, February 14th. The plan lists PFOA and PFOS as pollutants or contaminants under CERCLA (Superfund), but not as a hazardous substance. EPA has “initiated the regulatory development process to designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA “hazardous substances”, which would extend CERCLA order and cost recovery authorities.” It also states that EPA plans to take the “first step” to regulate PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act by the end of the year. It does not say when regulations will be put into place.