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
Defeating 'MAGA Dark Money,' Summer Lee Wins Primary in Landslide
"This is a huge testament to our collective strength and resilience as a progressive movement," said the executive director of Justice Democrats.
Apr 24, 2024
U.S. Rep. Summer Lee, a member of the progressive "Squad," won the Democratic primary for Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District on Tuesday, fending off an opponent whose campaign was backed by a billionaire Republican megadonor and ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Lee, a vocal critic of the Netanyahu government and leading supporter of a cease-fire in Gaza, handily defeated Bhavini Patel, a borough councilmember in Edgewood, Pennsylvania whose effort to unseat the progressive incumbent was bankrolled by Jeffrey Yass, the state's richest man. Patel actively courted Republican and pro-Israel voters, characterizing Lee as "fringe."
With more than 95% of the vote counted, Lee is ahead of Patel by more than 20 percentage points.
"I am so humbled and proud to win my first primary reelection to be the congresswoman for this incredible district I've spent my life fighting for," Lee said after the race was called in her favor. "Our campaign was built on a record of delivering for our democracy, defending our most fundamental rights, and expanding our vision for what is politically possible for our region's most marginalized communities."
"Our victory is a rejection of right-wing interests and Republican billionaires using corporate super PACs to target Black and brown Democrats in our primaries—be it AIPAC or Moderate PAC or any other MAGA billionaire in Democratic clothing," Lee added. "Western PA is the blueprint for the future all of America deserves."
Opposing genocide is good politics and good policy. #CeasefireNOW https://t.co/A7pnJNskWS
— Summer Lee (@SummerForPA) April 24, 2024
Through the misleadingly named Moderate PAC, Yass—a prolific tax dodger who has been floated as a possible treasury secretary pick if former President Donald Trump wins another term—spent hundreds of thousands of dollars boosting Patel and attacking Lee.
Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn Political Action, said that by ushering Lee to victory, residents of Pennsylvania's 12th District "soundly rejected MAGA dark money."
"MoveOn members are ready to defeat this dangerous flood of dark-money spending against progressive champions and ensure that we continue to elect working-class people to Congress," said Epting.
"Now that it's clear Summer won her primary, AIPAC's super PAC has already officially failed at their one goal for this cycle: taking out the entire Squad."
During her 2022 campaign, Lee faced and overcame huge spending by the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC via its super PAC, the United Democracy Project. But the organization opted to stay on the sidelines this time around, even as it plans to spend $100 million to defeat progressives in this year's cycle amid growing public opposition to Israel's war on Gaza.
"They had every intention of spending in this race—but they didn't, because they realized they would likely lose," Justice Democrats executive director Alexandra Rojas wrote in an email late Tuesday. "And that is because all of us had Summer's back and supported her campaign to out-organize AIPAC in every way."
"This is a huge testament to our collective strength and resilience as a progressive movement," said Rojas. "Now that it's clear Summer won her primary, AIPAC's super PAC has already officially failed at their one goal for this cycle: taking out the entire Squad."
While AIPAC ultimately sat out the Pennsylvania race, it is devoting considerable resources to ousting other progressive lawmakers, including Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.).
The pro-Israel lobbying group has endorsed Bush challenger Wesley Bell, calling him a "strong advocate for the U.S.-Israel relationship." As The Guardianreported last week, Bell has "raised more than $650,000 in earmarked contributions through the group Democracy Engine Inc. PAC—a donation platform that allows unpopular PACs to obscure their donations and lists AIPAC as a client on its LinkedIn page."
AIPAC is the largest donor to Bowman challenger George Latimer, who has supported Israel's war on Gaza and denied that Israel is committing genocide. The Democratic primary for New York's 16th Congressional District is on June 25.
We must be clear-eyed about what's next. @JamaalBowmanNY & @CoriBush are facing an existential threat from AIPAC, their GOP megadonors, and the politicians willing to compromise on core Democratic values to try to take a school principal & nurse out of Congress. #ProtectTheSquad
— Justice Democrats (@justicedems) April 24, 2024
Michele Weindling, political director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, said Tuesday that following Lee's victory, "we're ramping up to take on AIPAC in Jamaal Bowman's race."
"With a candidate like George Latimer willing to sell their lies to the district, we are going to prove once again that a politician's commitment to their community beats dark money every time," said Weindling. "Whether it's in Pittsburgh or New York, Minneapolis or St. Louis, our generation is going to send billionaires packing and reelect the squad."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular