Dedicated to promoting the welfare of our neighborhood, our community, and our environment.
This article originally appeared in Inside EPA Weekly Report on April 9, 2010. It is reprinted here with permission of the publisher, Inside Washington Publishers. Copyright 2010. No further distribution is permitted.
Click here to view article (pdf format):
Rosemere New EPA Data IEPA 04-10
Click here to view the EPA Spreadsheet (pdf format):
This article originally appeared in Inside EPA Weekly Report on March 26, 2010. It is reprinted here with permission of the publisher, Inside Washington Publishers. Copyright 2010. No further distribution is permitted.
Click here to view article (pdf format):
PRESS RELEASE****PRESS RELEASE****PRESS RELEASE
ROSEMERE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SETTLES LANDMARK ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CASE AGAINST EPA’S OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Contact: Ralph Bloemers, Crag Law Center Tel. (503) 525-2727
Contact: Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Tel. (360) 281-4747
www.crag.org , www.rosemerena.org
(March 22, 2010) Judge Benjamin H. Settle, US District Court of Washington, entered a Stipulated Judgment in favor of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association on March 19, 2010. Rosemere is a non-profit community organization based in Clark County, Washington dedicated to environmental protection and improving the status of environmental justice communities. In entering the judgment, Judge Settle approved the final Settlement Agreement between Rosemere and EPA that concludes a seven year stretch of administrative Title VI complaints and litigation.
In February 2003, Rosemere first filed a Title VI administrative complaint with EPA’s Office of Civil Rights (”OCR”) alleging that the City of Vancouver, WA had discriminated in the provision of municipal services in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rosemere alleged that Vancouver failed to use EPA funds to address fairly long-standing problems in low-income and minority neighborhoods in West Vancouver.
Soon after, the city of Vancouver began an investigation into the internal operations of Rosemere and then revoked Rosemere’s status as a “recognized” neighborhood association. The city also stripped the neighborhood of its historical name, actions later deemed “suspicious” by EPA in an investigative report. Rosemere filed a second Title VI complaint with the EPA in December 2003 alleging retaliation by the city of Vancouver. Rosemere filed suit against EPA on two separate occasions citing EPA’s failure to accept, investigate, and issue findings on Rosemere’s complaints. Each time, EPA responded to Rosemere only after the litigation was filed and EPA sought to dismiss the cases as “moot.”
In September 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling to dismiss Rosemere, citing EPA’s “consistent pattern of delay.” The appellate court substantiated the claim that Rosemere is in “realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the agency’s [EPA's'] disregard of its own regulations.” Chris Winter, an attorney with the Crag Law Center, a Portland-based public interest law firm, represented Rosemere in all three cases against the EPA. “For years, EPA’s Office of Civil Rights ignored civil rights complaints from all across the country. This case sheds light on a long-standing national struggle for justice.”
Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere’s Director of Environment and Conservation, said “We will continue to push the Office of Civil Rights to do the job it was supposed to do years ago, and insist that EPA clean up its act.” In the Settlement Agreement, EPA’s Office of Civil Rights admits that its actions were unlawful when it failed to process Rosemere’s complaint of retaliation against the City of Vancouver. The Stipulated Judgment and Settlement Agreement require the EPA to take action on any additional Title VI complaints submitted by Rosemere over the next five years in accordance with regulatory timelines. The Stipulated Judgment and Settlement Agreement also require EPA to report quarterly to the Rosemere Neighborhood Association for the next five years and specifically track the status of all Title VI administrative complaints submitted to and investigated by EPA.
To view documents, click on these links:
Stipulated Judgment Rosemere v EPA
Signed Settlement Agmt Rosemere v EPA
Ninth Circuit Court Decision Rosemere v EPA
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10 Office has announced the results of its Preliminary Assessment of Camp Bonneville, the former US Military installation in Clark County, Washington.
In a letter dated March 1, 2010, EPA informed Camp Bonneville cleanup contractors and the Washington State Department of Ecology that based on the information gathered in the Preliminary Assessment Report, “additional investigation is warranted” of the Camp Bonneville Site under CERCLA [Superfund*].
According to the EPA’s report,
“the objectives of a Preliminary Assessment are:
- To determine whether the site is releasing or has the potential to release hazardous constituents into the environment;
- Identify potential public health and/or environmental threats posed by the site;
- Assess the need for additional investigation and/or response action at the site; and
- Determine the potential for placement of the site on the National Priorities List (NPL).”
The report states the Preliminary Assessment was conducted in response to a formal Preliminary Assessment Petition dated February 3, 2009, submitted by the Rosemere Neighborhood Association and Columbia Riverkeeper under Section 105(d) of CERCLA.
EPA is directing its own contractor, Ecology and Environment, Inc., of Seattle, Washington, to arrange the followup investigations, also known as Site Inspection:
From the EPA website:
“The Site Inspection program identifies potential cleanup sites that have a high probability of qualifying for the National Priorities List (Superfund), and provides the data needed for Hazard Ranking System scoring and documentation. Site Inspection investigators typically collect samples to determine what hazardous substances are present at a site, and whether they are being released into the environment.”
EPA Preliminary Assessment Report of Camp Bonneville finds
“the sources that appear most likely to contribute current or future contamination at the site are the firing target area, the Central Impact Target Area, the OB/OD area and Landfill4.”
The firing target area is of concern because of “previous detections of heavy metals in the soil and because UXO [unexploded ordinance] has historically been present in these areas….there is still the possibility that people may wander outside of the cleared areas and encounter UXO.” There is “confirmed presence of lead and RDX contaminated soil” in the Central Impact Target Area and “it is possible that contamination may migrate from this source through ground water or surface water runoff to Lacamas Creek….The OBD/OD area is of concern due to the presence of historic RDX and arsenic contaminated soil. Landfill 4 is of concern due to the continued presence of perchlorate in the ground water.” Ground water sampling has found “a perchlorate ground water plume is present at the site in the area surrounding Landfill4/Demolition Area 1.”
The report recommends more “robust” modeling and testing of groundwater flow and transport to determine the impact on the Troutdale Sole Source Aquifer.
You can view EPA’s Preliminary Assessment report by clicking on the following links (pdf format):
EPA Preliminary Assessment Report – Camp Bonneville
Tables & Maps for EPA Preliminary Assessment Report
You can view Rosemere Neighborhood Association’s Preliminary Assessment Petition from February 3, 2009, by clicking on the following links (pdf format):
Preliminary Assessment Petition – Camp Bonneville
Tables & Maps for Preliminary Assessment Petition – Camp Bonneville
Here is a snapshot of the Summary and Conclusions, Section 4, (which can be found on Pages 79 & 80) from EPA Preliminary Assessment Report:
*CERCLA is The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, (SARA), commonly known as Superfund. For more information on CERCLA and Superfund designations go to the EPA website at http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm.
This article originally appeared in Inside EPA Weekly Report on February 19, 2010. It is reprinted here with permission of the publisher, Inside Washington Publishers. Copyright 2010. No further distribution is permitted.
Click here to view article (pdf format):
Personnel Disputes Roil EPA’s Rights Office Undermining Equity Agenda
Stormwater Outfalls
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 18, 2010
Contact: Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340 ext. 25
Clark County Challenged for Weak Stormwater Controls
Clean water advocates put county on notice illegal loopholes must be closed
Vancouver, WA–Clean water advocates, represented by Earthjustice, today formally put Clark County on notice it could be sued under the federal Clean Water Act for on-going failure to protect fish, drinking water supplies, and rivers, and comply with laws limiting stormwater pollution.
The 60-day notice letter says Clark County’s inadequate pollution standards will generate illegal stormwater pollution that will harm salmon, streams, groundwater and other natural resources. Damage to rivers and streams from the new development will force taxpayers, rather than the developers, to pay for the impacts of urban stormwater runoff, including flooding, property damage caused by erosion, and threats to the county’s drinking water supply.
Stormwater is a toxic mix of grease, metals, pesticides, herbicides, bacteria and nutrients. When dirty stormwater runs off parking lots, buildings, and other urban development, it carries with it toxic metals, particularly copper and zinc, which harm salmon and other aquatic life. Large unnatural flushes of runoff during storm events also cause damaging erosion in streams that destroys salmon habitat and that gets worse with each additional storm.
The National Research Council, an independent institute created by Congress which produces peer-reviewed studies, recently issued an exhaustive report on the impacts stormwater runoff and warned of its long-term, costly impacts. According to the National Research Council, “[s]tormwater runoff from the built environment remains one of the great challenges of water pollution control, as this source of contamination is a principal contributor to water quality impairment of waterbodies nationwide.” Urban Stormwater Management in the United States, National Research Council (Oct. 15, 2008)
“There needs to be a level playing field for all cities and counties,” said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who is representing the groups. “Every other jurisdiction in Western Washington is required to meet updated standards for reducing stormwater impacts, but Clark County got a special deal that hurts taxpayers and clean water.”
The letter emphasizes the advocate’s interest in finding solutions that don’t require litigation. “We’re asking Clark County to come to the table to discuss what can be done to reduce stormwater pollution and comply with the law,” said Brett VandenHuevel, the Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper.
Earthjustice attorneys Jan Hasselman and Janette Brimmer are representing Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center in the notice. Earlier this month, Earthjustice filed an appeal on behalf of these groups asking the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings board to throw out a lopsided agreement between Clark County and the Washington Department of Ecology that allowed Clark County to maintain its inadequate stormwater standards.
Federal law required Clark County to adopt new rules governing runoff from development by August of 2008. Rather than comply with Clean Water Act requirements, the county knowingly adopted a significantly weaker flow control standard for new development. While Ecology initially sought to bring an enforcement action against the county for failing to adequately manage stormwater pollution, it later agreed to let Clark County retain the insufficient standards that don’t meet the requirements of clean water laws.
For a pdf version of the 60- Day Notice, click here.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 1, 2010
Contacts:
Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, 206-343-7340 ext. 25
Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, 360-281-4747
Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper, 503-348-2436
Mark Riskedahl, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 503-768-6673
Clean Water Advocates Fight For Stronger Stormwater Controls in Clark County
Lawsuit filed to protect salmon and close illegal loopholes
Lacey, WA.–Local residents and clean water advocates today filed a challenge to Clark County’s on-going failure to protect rivers, streams and comply with laws limiting stormwater pollution.
The public interest law firm Earthjustice filed an appeal on behalf of three local conservation organizations asking the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board to throw out a recent agreement between Clark County and the Washington Department of Ecology. Local residents and clean water advocates argue the state authorized inadequate development standards that will generate illegal stormwater pollution.
“Clark County’s refusal to comply with state stormwater requirements is unfair to other cities and counties that are working hard to clean up our polluted waterways,” said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who is representing the groups. “When it comes to clean water, everyone needs to do their share.”
Stormwater contains toxic metals, oil, grease, pesticides, herbicides, bacteria and nutrients. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency released a startling report on toxics in the Columbia Basin, which identified stormwater as a leading cause of toxic pollution in the Basin. When stormwater runs off parking lots, buildings, and other urban development, it carries with it toxic metals, particularly copper and zinc, which harm salmon and other aquatic life.
Under a lopsided deal reached in early January, Ecology agreed to allow Clark County to retain inadequate stormwater standards for new development in exchange for a promise to implement county-funded stormwater mitigation projects.
However, Clark County is already required to implement these projects under federal law. Additionally, the agreement allows Clark County to mitigate new development anywhere in the county, up to three years after the development occurs.
“Clark County’s approach to stormwater is a bad deal for clean water and species like salmon because developers will continue to use outdated and inadequate building standards,” said Dvija Michael Bertish of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association, one of the appellant groups. “It’s also a bad deal for taxpayers because it transfers the burden of mitigating stormwater from developers to the public.”
“From subsistence to recreational fishing, so many people in our area rely on fish from local streams and rivers,” explained Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “Given the direct harm of stormwater toxics on salmon, we need our state and Clark County to comply with the law to protect the salmon and the people who rely on them.”
Federal law required Clark County to adopt new rules governing runoff from development by August of 2008. Rather than comply with Clean Water Act requirements, the County knowingly adopted a significantly weak flow control standard for new development. While Ecology initially sought to bring an enforcement action against the county, it later agreed to let Clark County retain the insufficient standards.
“Clark County is allowing development that does not change the rate of stormwater flow even though this flow continues to damage creeks and rivers,” said Dennis Dykes, an expert hydrogeologist who has reviewed the Clark County’s proposal. “The stormwater ordinance and the proposed flow control program are not protective of water quality and endangered species like salmon. There is simply no scientific basis for allowing continued degradation of one watershed in exchange for a plan to do something beneficial somewhere else.”
The appealing groups include Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center. They are represented by attorneys Jan Hasselman and Janette Brimmer of Earthjustice. A copy of the appeal is available by contacting Jan Hasselman, 206-343-7340 ext. 25.
A copy of the EPA’s toxics report for the Columbia is available here at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/ecocomm.nsf/Columbia/SoRR/
About the Pollution Control Hearings Board
The Pollution Control Hearings Board acts like a court for appeals of state environmental regulations. The three board members hear appeals from orders and decisions made by the Department of Ecology and other agencies as provided by law. The Board’s function is to provide litigants a full and complete administrative hearing, as promptly as possible, followed by a fair and impartial written decision based on the facts and law. The Board is not affiliated with the Department of Ecology or any other state agency. The Board consists of three members, who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the State Senate for staggered six-year terms.
*******
For a pdf version of this Press Release, click here.
To view the Notice of Appeal to Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board, click here.
From The Oregonian, read article here.
From The Columbian, read article here.
From the Lake Stevens Journal, read article here.
This article originally appeared in Inside EPA Weekly Report on December 4, 2009. It is reprinted here with permission of the publisher, Inside Washington Publishers. Copyright 2009. No further distribution is permitted.
Click here to view article (pdf format):
Jackson Shuffling Of Key EPA Civil Rights Office Staff Sparks Criticism
This article originally appeared in Inside EPA Weekly Report on October 23, 2009. It is reprinted here with permission of the publisher, Inside Washington Publishers. Copyright 2009. No further distribution is permitted.
Click here to view article (pdf format):
EPA Civil Rights ‘Best Practice’ Guidance Plan Fails To Quell Criticism
In August, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a public comment period regarding the potential health impacts from exposure to perchlorate through drinking water.
EPA is re-evaluating the need to collect data on the level of health concern, the frequency of occurrence of perchlorate in drinking water, and the opportunity for health risk reduction through a national primary drinking water standard.
A key focus is the impact of perchlorate exposure to infants and developing children, in addition to pregnant women and their developing fetuses.
Organizations including Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger, Clean Water Action, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Children’s Environmental Health Network, and many others across the United States submitted public comment letters expressing:
“the belief that the potential health impacts from exposure to perchlorate through drinking water are significant and that they warrant prompt regulation to protect public health and safety. Setting a drinking water standard will provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a “meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.” Consequently, EPA should move as quickly as possible to establish a more protective reference dose for perchlorate and then to promulgate a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for perchlorate that is no higher than one part per billion (ppb).”
Read full public comment letters here:
Children’s Environmental Health Network Perchlorate Comments
For more information on the EPA and perchlorate click here
