October, 13 2010, 12:12pm EDT
How Toxic are Oil Dispersants? Groups Press EPA to Find Out Before Next Spill
Shrimpers, community groups petition agency for info, clear rules before OK’ing future use
WASHINGTON
Gulf coast shrimpers and affected community groups from Alaska to
Louisiana to Florida pressed the federal government today to better
regulate dispersants -- the chemicals that oil companies routinely use
to break up oil slicks on water - before these chemicals are used in
future spill cleanups.
The non-profit environmental law firm Earthjustice filed a petition
(PDF) on behalf of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, Florida Wildlife
Federation, Gulf Restoration Network, the Alaska-based Cook Inletkeeper,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Waterkeeper and Sierra Club asking
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to write rules that would
set out exactly how and when dispersants could be used in the future.
The move comes just one day after the Obama administration announced it was lifting a moratorium on Gulf Coast oil drilling.
"Unprecedented use of toxic dispersants during the BP Deepwater Horizon
Disaster without prior scientific study and evaluation on the effect to
Gulf of Mexico marine ecosystems and human health was a horrific mistake
that should never have been allowed to happen," said Clint Guidry of
the Louisiana Shrimp Association. "Potential ecosystem collapse caused
by toxic dispersant use during this disaster will have immediate and
long term effects on the Gulf's traditional fishing communities'
ability to sustain our culture and heritage."
The groups are also calling on the EPA to require dispersant makers both
to disclose the ingredients of their products and to better test and
report the toxicity of those products.
"Industry executives would like us to think that dispersants are some
kind of fairy dust that magically removes oil from water," said
Earthjustice attorney Marianne Engelman Lado. "The fact is we have very
little idea how toxic dispersants are, what quantities are safe to use
or their long term effects on everything from people who work with the
chemicals to coral in the water. We have little information about their
long-term impact on life in the Gulf, or even whether the mix of oil and
dispersants is more harmful than oil alone."
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson herself has raised concerns about this
lack of information, calling for more data and better testing of
dispersants so that officials don't have to make "judgment calls on the
spot."
"We need to make sure that we understand the full effects of dispersants
on the environment and human health," said Florida Wildlife Federation
President Manley Fuller. "And when dispersants are used, we need to be
sure they are as safe as possible."
The groups' petition comes on the heels of a draft report issued last
week by the federal Oil Spill Commission that acknowledged that federal
agencies were unprepared for the tough decisions they faced over whether
to allow some 1.84 million gallons of chemical dispersants to be dumped
in the Gulf of Mexico during the record-breaking BP Deepwater Horizon
spill. The requested rules would ensure the agency never again be forced
to make such decisions without sufficient information and guidelines.
"Never again should the oil industry be allowed to dump hundreds of
thousands of gallons of dispersant into the sea as their preferred
method of response to an oil spill," said Cynthia Sarthou, of the Gulf
Restoration Network. "Because so little is currently known by EPA -- or
anyone else for that matter -- about the long-term impact to fish and
wildlife, the use of dispersants is a dangerous and potentially
devastating experiment."
The summer's catastrophe in the Gulf is not the first time the use of
chemical dispersants has come under fire. Workers involved in the
cleanup of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska reported health problems --
including blood in their urine and kidney and liver disorders --
believed to have been linked to dispersant exposure.
"In Alaska, we have witnessed the long-term adverse health consequences
of the use of dispersants on the health of cleanup workers," said Pamela
Miller, Executive Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. "The
indiscriminate use of toxic dispersants also threatens the health of
subsistence and commercial fisheries that are essential to the culture
and economy of Alaska."
"Oil corporations in Alaska now reach for dispersants as one of their
first tools for oil spill response," said Cook Inletkeeper Bob
Shavelson. "Countless Alaskans rely on our wild, healthy fisheries, and
we have a right to know about the toxic dispersants used in our
waters."
The group also filed a 60-day-notice of intent to file a lawsuit (PDF)
prodding the agency to provide information long required by the Clean
Water Act identifying exactly where dispersants may be used and how much
is safe.
"The largely unregulated use of dispersants is another example in the
all-too-long list of ways that oil, coal and gas industries act with an
open distain for environmental and human health," stated Scott Edwards,
Director of Advocacy for Waterkeeper Alliance. "Coal companies dumping
mine waste in our streams, gas extractors injecting harmful chemicals in
our drinking water and the oil industry poisoning our coastal
communities first with oil and now with untested dispersants all point
to one thing - it's time to end our irresponsible addiction to harmful
fossil fuels and move onto cleaner, renewable energy sources."
The Clean Water Act requirements have been in place for decades, but
administration after administration has failed to comply with the law,
and there was scant data available to EPA officials when they were
confronted with the devastating Gulf Coast spill this summer.
"The BP oil disaster painfully showed just how little is known about
these chemicals. We should not be gambling with the health of our
coastal waters or the people who make their life from them. If
dispersants are going to be part of the toolbox for responding to future
emergencies, we need to be certain they're not doing more harm than
good. We call on EPA to pledge that never again will oil spill response
turn into an uncontrolled experiment in our nation's waters," said
Sierra Club Louisiana Representative Jill Mastrototaro.
###
Background Material:
To see the petition filed pressing EPA to establish new rules requiring
dispersant manufacturers to reveal the toxicity and ingredients of their
projects see: https://www.earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/dispersant-petition
To see the 60-day notice of intent to sue over long required Clean Water Act requirements, please visit: https://www.earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/dispersant-notice
To view the federal Oil Spill Commission report, please visit: https://www.oilspillcommission.gov/document/use-surface-and-subsea-dispersants-during-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill---
CONTACT:
Marianne Engelman Lado, Earthjustice, (212) 791-1881, ext. 228, (917)
Clint Guidry, Louisiana Shrimp Association, (504) 952-4368
Cynthia Sarthou, Gulf Restoration Network, (504) 525-1528 ext 202, cyn@healthygulf.org
Manley Fuller, Florida Wildlife Federation, wildfed@gmail.com
Bob Shavelson, Cook Inletkeeper, (907) 235-4068, ext. 22, 907.299.3277 (cell) bob@inletkeeper.org
Pamela K. Miller, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, pkmiller@akaction.net
Scott Edwards, Waterkeeper, (914) 674-0622, ext. 13, sedwards@waterkeeper.org
Kristina Johnson, Sierra Club (415) 977-5619 kristina.johnson@sierraclub.org
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
To Push for Bold Treaty, Greenpeace Unveils Biden's Plastic Legacy Monument
"He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control."
Mar 28, 2024
Inspired by Atlas, who in Greek mythology carried the heavens on his shoulders, Greenpeace installed a 15-foot monument outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday to pressure the Biden administration to support an ambitious global plastics treaty.
President Joe Biden "has the chance to cement a lasting legacy: He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control," Greenpeace oceans director John Hocevar said in a statement. "We're calling on him to stand up to plastic polluters like Exxon and Dow and put us on a greener and healthier path."
The third round of treaty talks ended in Kenya late last year with little progress—largely thanks to fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists along with allied governments. The next round of negotiations is set to be held in Canada next month.
The "Biden's Plastic Legacy" monument features the president kneeling and holding up an Earth full of plastic. The base has a written message: "Biden, the world's in your hands. Is this your plastic legacy?"
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis."
The statue's unveiling ceremony included remarks from Dr. Leo Trasande, a world-renowned environmental health researcher at New York University, and Jo Banner, who lives in Louisiana's Cancer Alley and co-directs the Descendants Project, an environmental justice group.
"The communities of color that live among the plastic manufacturers are first in line for the toxic mix of pollution they produce," said Banner. "Our health, bodies, and communities matter. We refuse to be treated as a mere checkmark on a list of concerns, and we cannot continue to be sacrificial zones."
"We need President Biden to truly listen to our needs and help create a strong global plastics treaty that protects communities like ours," she added. "We must ensure that Cancer Alley is confined to the past, not a part of the future we gift our children."
Trasande noted that in addition to the public health argument for cleaning up the plastic industry, there's an economic one.
"The chemicals found in plastics cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars because of increases in disease and disability," the doctor said. "The easiest way to stop these diseases is to address plastic production, and a strong global treaty is essential, for people here in the U.S. and around the world."
Research has repeatedly shown the pervasiveness of plastic pollution. A January study found that there are 240,000 plastic particles in the average liter of bottled water. Last September, researchers discovered microplastics in clouds, potentially "contaminating nearly everything we eat and drink via 'plastic rainfall.'"
A 2022 Greenpeace report revealed that U.S. households "generated an estimated 51 million tons of plastic waste" the previous year, and the vast majority ended up in landfills or as pollution.
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis," Greenpeace campaigner Kate Melges said Thursday.
"The global plastics treaty is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a cleaner, safer planet," Melges argued. "President Biden must rise to this moment by supporting a strong plastics treaty that prioritizes human health, cuts production, and ensures a just transition for workers and communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Justice Is Delayed' as Judges OK Rigged South Carolina Map for Elections
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice and nobody seems to care," said one Democratic congressional candidate from the affected district.
Mar 28, 2024
Voting rights defenders on Thursday decried a federal panel's
decision to let South Carolina use a congressional map the three judges found to be racially gerrymandered in this year's primary and general elections due to the U.S. Supreme Court's delayed resolution of the case.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Columbia ruled last August that "race was the predominant motivating factor" in the Republican-controlled state Legislature's design of the 1st Congressional District "and that traditional districting principles subordinated to race."
Their ruling, which ordered the redrawing of the map, noted that "Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district."
"Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election."
In their new decision, the judges acknowledged the awkward predicament of ordering the use of an unconstitutional map.
"But with the primary election procedures rapidly approaching, the appeal before the Supreme Court still pending, and no remedial plan in place, the ideal must bend to the practical," they asserted.
Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said: "Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election. We will not stand idly by as the rights of thousands of South Carolinians continue to be overlooked."
"The court's ruling today, further delaying these proceedings, continues to tip the scale of justice during a crucial moment in our democracy in an undemocratic attempt to sway the outcome of the upcoming election," Murphy added. "We must strive for a system where every voice is heard and every vote counts, free from the stain of discrimination."
Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, which was filed in 2021 by the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and voter Taiwan Scott. They are represented by the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the ACLU of South Carolina, Boroughs Bryant LLC, Arnold & Porter, and the General Counsel's Office of the NAACP.
As Democracy Docket noted Thursday: "The parties asked the Supreme Court for a decision by January 1, 2024. Nearly three months later, the court still hasn't ruled on the case, creating a dire situation for congressional candidates as the candidate filing period started on March 16 and will end on Monday."
Joshua Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law, said on social media that "someone should write an article about the number of times jurisdictions have been allowed to use an illegal map because there's 'not enough time' to create a fair, legal one."
Douglas noted states where this has occurred, including Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, North Carolina, "and now South Carolina."
South Carolina primary voters will head to the polls on June 11.
The 1st Congressional District is represented by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, a Republican. On Thursday, she toldThe Post and Courier that the judges' ruling "makes sense."
"It's only fair candidates know what the lines are," Mace said. "For us, I just want to know what constituents I'm serving."
Michael B. Moore, a Democrat running for the seat, called the decision "regrettable."
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice," he said, "and nobody seems to care."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Weak Biden Endangered Species Rules a 'Massive Missed Opportunity'
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures, since extinction is forever," one expert warned.
Mar 28, 2024
While welcoming efforts by President Joe Biden's administration to undo Trump-era damage to endangered species protections, conservationists warned Thursday that three new federal rules are inadequate, given the world's worsening biodiversity crisis.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, which proposed the rules last June, said that they will "restore important protections for species and their habitats; strengthen the processes for listing species, designating of critical habitat, and consultation with other federal agencies; and ensure a science-based approach that will improve both agencies' ability to fulfill their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)."
The Center for Biological Diversity—which had blasted the Trump administration for taking a "wrecking ball" to the decades-old law—praised the agencies for removing barriers to designating unoccupied areas as critical habitat as well as for restoring the "blanket rule" for threatened species and the ban on considering economic impacts of listing decisions.
However, the center also pointed out that "of the 31 harmful changes made in 2019 to the act's regulations, only seven are fully addressed and corrected in today's final rules," despite years of work on the new rules and nearly half a million public comments.
"We're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
"This was a massive missed opportunity to address the worsening extinction crisis," said Stephanie Kurose, a senior policy specialist at the center. "We needed bold solutions to guide conservation as the climate crisis drives more and more animals and plants to extinction. Instead we're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, similarly said that "while the regulations restore some essential wildlife protections, we were hopeful for far more than the marginal win the Biden administration delivered today."
"Our nation's threatened and endangered species are under constant attack and the Endangered Species Act is the only thing standing between them and extinction," she stressed. "We appreciate the administration's work on this matter, but at the end of the day much work remains to be done to ensure the Endangered Species Act can fulfill its critical lifesaving mission."
Experts at the environmental law organization Earthjustice also expressed disappointment that—as Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans put it—the Biden administration didn't fully seize "the opportunity to fully reverse the damage inflicted upon the Endangered Species Act and the imperiled species it protects."
Writing about former Republican President Donald Trump's gutting of the ESA—which Biden helped pass shortly after joining the U.S. Senate in 1973—Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen explained at The Progressive on Wednesday:
The dismantling of the ESA could not have come at a worse time. Scientists around the world are telling us that we are on track to lose a million or more species in this century. We have already witnessed a staggering drop of more than two-thirds of all plant and animal life on Earth since 1970. In the United States, nearly half of our ecosystems are now at risk of collapse. It is a staggering pace of loss that climate change is only accelerating.
It would have been far worse without the ESA. The law has saved 99% of listed species from extinction, including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and the gray wolf, one of my first "clients" when I began my career as an environmental lawyer more than two decades ago.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles declared Thursday that "we are in the midst of an extinction crisis; it is time for bold action."
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures," she noted, "since extinction is forever."
The new rules—expected to provoke lawsuits from farmers, ranchers, and right-wing groups—come as Biden and Trump prepare for a rematch in November.
"One of the lingering legacies of Donald Trump is his attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act, one of the most successful and popular conservation laws in the history of the United States," Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said Thursday. "At this moment, we should be listening to scientists and acting urgently to save biodiversity, not letting Donald Trump's gutting of environmental safeguards and sellouts to Big Business stand."
"President Biden has made generational investments in climate action with the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but we need him to do more to protect imperiled wildlife," he added. "The Biden administration needs to protect more habitat, not less. We need the administration to increase protections for biodiversity, not abandon them. The president has the power, and we need him to use it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular