September, 12 2008, 03:46pm EDT
Citizens' Groups Fight "Free Pass" for Air Polluters
Air Pollution Loophole In Federal Court Today
WASHINGTON
A panel of federal judges will hear arguments today in a lawsuit
by environmental groups seeking to close a gaping loophole in federal
air pollution regulations.
The groups, represented by the public interest law firm
Earthjustice, are challenging a regulation adopted by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) allowing refineries, chemical plants, and other
industrial facilities to ignore pollution limits whenever equipment
malfunctions, and whenever they start up or shut down operations.
During these periods, toxic emissions can skyrocket, severely degrading
air quality. Some facilities evade clean air protections by claiming
that they are in startup, shutdown, or malfunction mode during much of
their operating time.
Residents in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Wilmington, a Southern
California oil-refining hub, report seeing the tell-tale signs of
refinery malfunctions -- gas flares and billowing smoke - at the area's
four refineries on a nearly weekly basis.
Marie Malahi lives in the shadow of one such refinery and now
schools her asthmatic young son at home so she can protect him from the
unpredictable spikes in bad air quality.
"When you see the flames jump from the refinery stacks, you know
it's about to get really bad," Malahi said. "There's days when we can
barely function. We can't breathe, we can't work or play outside. We
have to sit inside, close the windows and keep the doors shut."
Earthjustice is representing Environmental Integrity Project along
with Sierra Club, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Coalition for
a Safe Environment, and Friends of Hudson -- groups in affected
communities in the Gulf Coast, southern California, and upstate New
York.
"This loophole allows major polluters to violate emission standards
with impunity," said Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew. "We're fighting to
close this enormous loophole so communities can breathe easier."
Excess emissions occur routinely at industrial facilities throughout
the country, according to a comprehensive report by the Environmental
Integrity Project titled "Gaming the System: How the Off-the-Books
Industrial Upset Emissions Cheat the Public Out of Clear Air." (report
available at: https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub238.cfm)
"Malfunctions at large petrochemical plants are routine, and
sometimes release more air pollution than so-called 'normal'
operations," said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of Environmental
Integrity Project and former director of EPA's Office of Regulatory
Enforcement. "EPA and the industry want to keep these emissions out of
sight, out of mind, and off the books, by hiding the procedures that
industry is supposed to follow to prevent these mishaps. That's not
fair to the neighbors who live next to these plants, and have to suffer
the consequences when accidents poison their air with toxic pollutants."
With more than 250 industrial sites, Texas is home to the nation's
largest number of refineries, chemical and petrochemical plants in the
nation. The state is also one of a few that tracks pollutants released
during startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods: according to state
records, thirty facilities emitted more than forty-five million pounds
of toxins in just one year during these off-the-books periods. A chart
documenting recent major malfunctions at refineries in Texas is below.
"Fence line neighborhoods in Texas have been bombarded for decades
with massive plumes of thick, black, toxic smoke during emissions
flaring at refineries and chemical plants in periods of startups,
shutdowns and even malfunctions," said Neil Carman, clean air director
for the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter and a former Texas state
refinery inspector.
In nearby Louisiana, the problems are much the same.
"Equipment malfunctions, start up or shutdown operations are
responsible for much of the 20 million pounds of air toxics emitted
annually in our area," said Marylee Orr, executive director of
Louisiana Environmental Action Network. "When the big flares at one of
the local facilities go off it can cause significant problems in the
surrounding communities."
Also being challenged in court today is a provision eliminating
existing requirements that polluters have contingency plans in place to
minimize toxic emissions when startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
occur. This means when major malfunctions result in massive releases of
toxic material, polluters are off the hook for ensuring that it doesn't
happen again.
The importance of these backup plans was on full display in
September 2005, when a power outage caused pollution and safety
controls to fail at three major southern California oil refineries. For
more than eight hours, the refineries belched black and yellow smoke.
Last October, power to the refineries failed again, once more
blanketing the Wilmington neighborhood of Los Angeles in pollution.
"These incidents could have been easily avoided had the refineries
been required to prepare a contingency plan that included a backup
power source during a blackout," said Jesse Marquez, Executive Director
of the Wilmington-based Coalition for a Safe Environment. "Instead,
EPA's rules encourage a reckless lack of planning, subjecting
communities like ours to repeat performances of major air pollution
events year after year."
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. A copy of briefs filed by Earthjustice is
available at: https://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/112_enviro_proof-opening-brief.pdf
The Environmental Integrity Project report, "Gaming the System: How
the Off-the-Books Industrial Upset Emissions Cheat the Public Out of
Clear Air" is available at: https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub238.cfm)
Emissions Reported During Recent Malfunctions At Select Refineries in Texas
Refinery | Location | Date of Release | Pollutant | Amount Released (lbs) | Point of Release |
Atofina Total Petrochemicals | Port Arthur | 7/22/06 to 7/23/06 | Sulfur Dioxide | 200,958 | North, South Flare, Tail Gas Thermal Oxidizer |
Atofina Total Petrochemicals | Port Arthur | 8/30/06 to 11/27/06 | Volatile Organic Compounds | 568,883 | FPM Cooling Tower |
Motiva | Port Arthur | 7/13/06 to 10/28/06 | Volatile Organic Compounds | 972,988 | FCCU Cooling Tower |
Valero | Port Arthur | 11/26/06 to 12/05/06 | Sulfur Dioxide | 243,343 | Multiple Units & Flares |
Exxon Mobil | Beaumont | 5/23/08 to 7/19/08 | Sulfur Dioxide | 313,953 | FCCU Flare |
Source: Emissions data reported by facilities to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. All emission reports online at: https://www11.tceq.state.tx.us/oce/eer/index.cfm
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
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
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular