Why? Recent national studies show that flood buyout monies benefit whiter communities. Other reports reveal that federal disaster recovery dollars benefit higher-income people and how, after a disaster, income inequality is exacerbated and the gaps between the haves and the have-nots grows wider. Read more.
Tag: pollution
Pollution, much like wealth, is not distributed equally in the United States. Read more
A massive fire at a fuels storage company along the Houston Ship Channel may burn for two more days, an official said on Monday as the blaze spread a plume of black smoke across the city, shutting schools in two nearby communities. Read more
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.
In a victory for environmental justice, a California appeals court on February 15 dismissed the California Independent Petroleum Associations’s lawsuit against youth organizations from South Los Angeles and Wilmington, the Center for Biological Diversity and the city of Los Angeles. Read more.
State and federal officials have known about the shipments from the Netherlands to Fayetteville for at least a year but never told the public. Read more here
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled its delayed Nationwide Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan.
Read More.
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.
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.
If a serious storm occurs in Butte or Anaconda the consequences could be dire for the Superfund cleanup.
Read More.