Dedicated to promoting the welfare of our neighborhood, our community, and our environment.
This article originally appeared in Inside EPA Weekly Report on February 22, 2013. It is reprinted here with permission of the publisher, Inside Washington Publishers. Copyright 2013. No further distribution is permitted.
Click here to view article (pdf format): EPA Rights Complaint Process Changes Fail To Ease Petitioner Concerns
This letter, signed by 35 environmental activists in 16 states and territories, was sent to Senators Tester, Reid, and Boxer:
Excerpt:
Dear Senator:
It has come to our attention that S. 3525, the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 – scheduled for a U.S. Senate floor vote immediately after Thanksgiving 2012, contains language that appears to exempt certain munitions constituents, such as lead and propellants, from the Toxic Substances Control Act. [See Section 121 (a).] We are concerned because the releases of such substances, including lead, perchlorate, RDX, DNT, etc., have been widely released into the environment, posing serious risks to both human health and the natural environment.
To view the full letter, click here Sportsmen’s Act S3525 Communities Letter
In 1988, the Ho-Chunk Nation, a federally recognized Indian Tribe indigenous of Wisconsin, filed a claim for excess property at the Badger Army Ammunition Plant, an area within their aboriginal territory. The Ho-Chunk Nation’s plans for the land, which are strongly supported by the surrounding community, include historic and cultural resource protection, natural resource enhancement, education, employment and economic development. But last year, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs refused to transfer the land from the U.S. Army to the Ho-Chunk, claiming it could not afford to conduct an environmental assessment.
Rosemere Neighborhood Association, along with over 50 community, environmental and citizens’ groups signed a letter in support of the Ho-Chunk Nation’s claim for this land containing significant historical, cultural and sacred resources to the Ho-Chunk people.
To view the letter: Ho-Chunk Letter of Support BIA 2012
OPB has published the results of their environmental news segment, EarthFix, water pollution survey.From OPB:
A new poll by Earthfix suggests growing awareness in the Northwest of some of the problems associated with nonpoint source pollution- the diffuse chemicals, bacteria, and sediment carried by rainfall and snowmelt moving downstream through a watershed.
Urban stormwater runoff beat out a number of other water pollution sources as a top concern in a poll commissioned by EarthFix and conducted by Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall (DHM Research).
The poll listed a number of sources of water pollution: industrial waste, agricultural chemicals, and sewage, among others.
When asked what the most significant source of water pollution was in their state, 25 percent of people in the Northwest chose the polluted runoff from roads and paved surfaces.
Survey results can be viewed or downloaded here: EarthFix CWA Survey 2012 PDF
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 26, 2012
Contacts:
Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice
Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association
Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper
Mark Riskedahl, Northwest Environmental Defense Center
Tacoma, WA – In a major decision with statewide impacts in Washington State, a court of appeals ruled Clark County’s weak development rules that allow too much polluted runoff violate state and federal laws to protect clean water. The ruling, announced late Tuesday, signals an end to the county’s on-going failure to protect rivers, streams and salmon threatened with extinction.
“We applaud the court of appeals for recognizing that Clark County’s refusal to comply with clean water laws is unfair to other cities and counties in our state, not to mention industries, that continue to work hard to clean up our polluted waterways,” said Dvija Michael Bertish of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association. “As residents of Clark County who enjoy fishing and swimming in our local rivers, we’re fed up with our elected officials’ attempts to compromise our health and safety—especially when the law requires otherwise.”
Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, represented by Earthjustice, challenged Clark County’s adoption of development standards that were too weak to prevent significant harm to the county’s already-stressed rivers and streams. “The Court of Appeals ruling comes down to this—clean water is our future and everyone needs to do their share to keep our water clean,” said Jan Hasselman from Earthjustice, who is representing the groups.
Polluted runoff, or stormwater, is a toxic stew of metals, oil, grease, pesticide, herbicides, bacteria and nutrients. When it rains, the toxic runoff drains off roofs and streets in amounts that seriously degrade water quality and kill marine life. The county and an association of developers appealed a January 2011 ruling of the state Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) that the county is out of compliance with federal clean water laws and shifted the burden of protecting clean water from developers to local taxpayers.
Specifically, the PCHB found Clark County’s stormwater program:
The Court of Appeals concurred. “Not only has Clark County violated the law, it is ignoring the very real economic and quality of life costs associated with dirty stormwater pollution,” said Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “The County’s rogue approach to dealing with stormwater pollution ignores the very real costs of increased flooding, polluted drinking water, and toxics in fish. It’s time stop using outdated thinking and transition to much greater reliance on low impact development and better land use planning. The stakes are too high for delay.”
The county has 30 days to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court if it chooses. Additionally, a federal court has stayed an enforcement action against the county until the appeals court rules, and is likely to open the case now that the appeal is resolved.
A copy of the Court of Appeals ruling can be downloaded here: WA COURT OF APPEALS D2 41833-9-II PUBLISHED OPINION
A copy is available online here: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=418339MAJ
Other news links:
Clark County loses stormwater ruling
Washington court rules against Clark County in polluted runoff case
Clark County loses polluted runoff case
#
Vapor Intrusion: image source epa
On July 26, 2012, a letter was sent to EPA’s Richard Kapuscinski from environmental organizations and citizens groups from all over the country – including Rosemere Neighborhood Association – concerned about EPA’s pending Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance.
The letter begins:
We, the undersigned are concerned that pressure from polluters, chemical producers, and property owners may weaken elements of EPA’s pending Vapor Intrusion Guidance, and we urge EPA to adopt an investigatory approach that is truly protective of Americans exposed to highly toxic vapors in their homes, schools, workplaces, and other buildings.
On July 6, 2012, Inside EPA, reported:
Industry is criticizing EPA’s approach to calculating the potential for subsurface contamination to migrate to indoor air, raising concerns over a technical document expected to be a component of the agency’s final vapor intrusion guidance and over a Region III proposal to offer government-funded mitigation for vapor intrusion at homes near a Superfund site in Pennsylvania.
Industry argues the so-called attenuation factors in the EPA documents are unnecessarily conservative and flawed because of incorrect assumptions of the rate at which contamination flows into residences.The determination whether vapor intrusion poses a health threat at any existing building should not be based solely upon models and predictions. Models cannot account for changes in operating conditions, occupancy, building modifications, or structural changes such as adding utility lines that penetrate floors or settling that cracks slabs. One test is worth 1000 expert opinions. Decisions should be based upon multiple lines of evidence, including indoor air testing, subslab soil-gas sampling, and outdoor air monitoring.
To read the entire letter: Communities’ Letter on EPA’s Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance
This article originally appeared in Inside EPA Weekly Report on July 20, 2012. It is reprinted here with permission of the publisher, Inside Washington Publishers. Copyright 2012. No further distribution is permitted.
Click here to view article (pdf format): EPA_Roundly_Criticized_Over_Draft_Supplement_To_Civil_Rights_Plan_IEPA_07-12
*******
To view Rosemere Neighborhood Association comment letter on Title VI Supplement please go here: RNA Comments on EPA Draft Title VI Supplement
On July 17, 2012, Rosemere Neighborhood Association submitted a public comments letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on EPA’s Draft Supplement: Advancing Environmental Justice Through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
The public comments letter in part includes:
Despite Rosemere’s lawsuit and the subsequent national debate of the failures of the OCR, and despite your continued promises for EPA to increase efficiency in that office to make Environmental Justice a national priority, the OCR continues to fail in its intake and investigation guidelines in regard to Title VI complaints. To date, the EPA has ignored Rosemere’s various requests to meet with you and to voice our concerns and share our experiences in order to offer suggestions to improve OCR’s operations. And to date, only one case has ever attained a ruling of discrimination in support of Title VI claims [Angelita C. v. California Department of Pesticide Regulations] and it took more than ten years to achieve that result. Most cases are dismissed outright, claiming jurisdictional issues or other bureaucratic problems. Many groups across the country wonder why the OCR functions under such a dismal record, and this points succinctly to how OCR is disconnected from the disparate impacts that can be suffered by Environmental Justice populations nationwide.
Environmental Justice Enforcement is a very important tool that should be used to address discrimination that can cause adverse health impacts and environmental harm to neighborhoods where low income and minorities live and work. Whereas we appreciate the Title VI Supplement’s attempt to begin to fine tune the various agency failures, we feel that the timelines are vague and deficient and that they need to be more detailed to ensure future compliance success. We offer the general comment that EPA’s enforcement model under the supplement attempts only gentle compliance — collaboration, and conciliation rather than the promise of clearly defined relief. For example, in the Angelita case, the state of California did not experience the withholding of federal funds as required under Title VI guidelines when a real first-time case discrimination was established. We acknowledge that the state of California is currently experiencing a serious budgetary crisis, and that a freeze of federal funds as mandated under Title VI could be very serious, but without consistent penalties for discriminatory behavior there can be no success in altering the on-the-ground conditions that contributed the disparate impacts.
***
It is reasonable for the community to request EPA to be more open, to collaborate with the complainants as well as the agencies that are the target of complaints. Please don’t let this process degrade further into a debate limited to state’s rights of self government v. federal regulation. That argument is easily used to dismiss valid claims of discrimination and only points out how civil rights violations continue unabated in our nation.
To view the letter in its entirety (pdf format): Rosemere Neighborhood Association Comments on EPA Draft Title VI Supplement
CONTACTS:
Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 1025 (Available July 2)
Janette Brimmer, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 1029
Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, (360) 281-4747
Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper, (503) 348-2436
WHAT: Hearing before Washington State Court of Appeals in Tacoma
WHEN: July 2, 2012, 9 a.m.
WHERE: Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 950 Broadway, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402 (Allow time to go through courthouse security.)
WHY: Clark County deserves strong, uniform laws that protect clean water, sensitive aquatic environments and endangered species– the same requirements that over 100 other cities and counties in Washington have been complying with since 2008. Stronger stormwater controls are needed now. According to a recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study on stormwater, Vancouver, WA showed a wide suite of contaminants, including some of the highest levels of pesticides, suspended solids, and trace elements including mercury. A copy of the USGS stormwater study is attached.
BACKGROUND:
Federal law required Clark County and nearly 100 other cities and counties in Western Washington to adopt new rules governing runoff from development by August of 2008. In 2009, Clark County decided that it would not comply with the terms of a stormwater permit required by the Clean Water Act. The Department of Ecology confronted Clark County for its permit violation but later backed down and agreed to allow Clark County to retain inadequate stormwater standards for new developments in exchange for a promise to implement taxpayer-funded mitigation projects that were much less protective. This didn’t protect streams polluted by development runoff and shifted the burden of protecting clean water to local taxpayers instead of developers. In 2010, community and clean water groups represented by Earthjustice, challenged Clark County’s weak stormwater runoff rules to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board. In January 2011, the pollution board ruled in the community and clean water groups’ favor. The pollution board found Clark County’s weaker program to be illegal in several respects:
• It is not based on any science and fails to protect water quality and salmon.
• It unlawfully exempts development projects that “vested” (applied for a permit) prior to April of 2010.
• It unlawfully allows Clark County to shift resources from its existing retrofit program to mitigate for new
development.
• It unlawfully fails to require “low impact development” at new development and mitigation sites.
Clark County’s Commissioners appealed the Pollution Board’s ruling to the state Court of Appeals. The Builders’ Association joined in the appeal seeking weaker water pollution standards and the appeal will be heard July 2. Last December in a related matter, a federal judge issued a preliminary ruling that Clark County’s controversial development standards appear to violate federal laws to protect clean water. The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton means Clark County must comply with federal clean water laws while the state court challenge is pending. The community and clean water groups include Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center. They are represented by attorneys Jan Hasselman and Janette Brimmer of the non-profit public interest law firm Earthjustice.
#
To view or print a pdf version of this Media Advisory please click here.
Train unloading coal at Millennium terminal in June 2011
On June 19, 2012, Rosemere Neighborhood Association submitted a letter to Vancouver Mayor, City Council and City Managers asking the City of Vancouver to join in the efforts by Governor Kitzhaber and Senator Patty Murray to call for a regional Environmental Impact Statement regarding the doubling of international coal exports through the Pacific Northwest. Seven mega coal terminals are proposed to ship 157 million tons of coal annually to China. The coal trains will flow daily through Vancouver, spewing toxic residue with each train.
Excerpted from the letter, which was presented at Vancouver City Council meeting, Monday, June 25, 2012:
Facing the slowing of U.S. coal fired power plants, coal companies like Massey and Arch Coal are looking to harvest and ship an additional 157 million tons of coal per year, sending 30 – 60 trains per day through the Columbia River Gorge via Portland and Vancouver, where it is intended to be shipped to Asia. Each and every car from a coal train can unleash 500 pounds of coal dust. The coal trains proposed to run through Portland and Vancouver will be 75 miles long, each day making the Pacific Northwest the largest coal chute in the nation, originating in Montana’s Powder Ridge Basin. There are various international coal export terminals proposed for Oregon and Washington, and should they proceed unabated, the health and environmental impacts to our region and our way life will be substantial.
To view the letter in its entirety: Coal to City Council
