Donate

Posts Written By: mariapowell@mejo.us

Communities Press EPA to Regulate Vapor Intrusion

Communities Press EPA to Regulate Vapor Intrusion

MEJO joined dozens of organizations and activists including Erin Brokovich in co-signing a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt this week, urging him to allow rulemaking on vapor intrusion to move forward. Vapor intrusion is the migration of toxic vapors from the subsurface into the indoor air of overlying buildings.

“Subsurface intrusion is occurring at thousands of sites across the country. Hazardous volatile substances—substances known to cause cancer, birth defects, and other serious health problems—are migrating into our homes, workplaces, schools and daycare centers, recreational facilities, and places of worship,” the May 18 letter says.

Currently sites with a serious potential for vapor intrusion but no other completed pathways do not qualify for the federal “Superfund” National Priorities List (NPL). So over the past several years EPA developed, with public input, a rule that would modify the scoring system used to qualify sites for the NPL.

Implementation of the rule, promulgated in the latter days of the Obama Administration, has been deferred as part of the new administration’s anti-regulatory fervor.

 

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

What ever became of the DOJ lawsuit against Kipp?

What ever became of the DOJ lawsuit against Kipp?

In September 2012, the Wisconsin DOJ filed a lawsuit against Madison Kipp Corporation. It is still unresolved. Why? Because it was always intended as a tool to protect Kipp from having to pay the true costs of polluting the neighborhood—and people’s bodies—with toxic chemicals. Given this, why would Kipp want to resolve it?

Here’s an abridged timeline:

July 25, 2011: The “intent to sue” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was filed by Chicago attorneys on behalf of seven Kipp neighbors, with 90 days to file the lawsuit. Kipp called each of these neighbors and tried to convene a meeting to convince them to drop the lawsuit, but failed to do so.

August, 2011: With the lawsuit going forward despite Kipp’s attempts to stop it, a different strategy was pursued—to attempt deflecting it by having the State of Wisconsin sue Kipp. A team including Kipp management and attorneys, DNR and DHS representatives started working on a document called the “Scope of Work” (SOW). According DNR’s Michael Schmoller (in September 2011), the DNR’s intent was to include the SOW in a consent order between DNR and Kipp and to complete it before the RCRA lawsuit was filed.[1]

October 13, 2011: After the State of Wisconsin tried to bring a suit against Kipp in federal court to render the citizens’ class action suit moot, a judge ruled that the state was not statutorily authorized to bring a suit in federal court. In Schmoller’s 2012 legal depositions (see here and here) it was revealed that Kipp officials had visited Governor Walker’s office and asked that the State of Wisconsin sue the company in federal court. After this attempt failed, the DOJ decided to file the lawsuit in state court.

October 15, 2011: Citizens asked for a public meeting, which was then rushed because Kipp’s attorney David Crass (Michael Best & Friedrich) demanded that government agencies hold the meeting before the 90 day intent to sue period ended. At the Oct. 15 meeting, DNR’s Air and Waste Program Manager Eileen Pierce announced to citizens that the state had referred the Kipp case to the Department of Justice that week.

Citizens suspected, correctly, that this was another attempt to deflect the RCRA lawsuit or to “cut a sweetheart deal” for Kipp. They were disingenuously promised input into the SOW mentioned at the meeting—but of course they were never allowed any real input because it was part of lawsuit negotiations.

October 20, 2011: Class action RCRA lawsuit was filed.

For the next several months, behind closed doors, the SOW team, with strong direction from Kipp’s attorney David Crass, negotiated what would and would not be done regarding vapor intrusion and soil/groundwater contamination caused by Kipp. DNR and Kipp’s attorneys discussed (apparently for the first time since 1994 when the VOCs were discovered at Kipp) how Kipp could satisfy regulations relevant to the situation (NR700).

March, 2012: PCBs were “discovered” at Kipp at levels so high that EPA involvement was required. But fortunately for Kipp, though DNR had to coordinate with EPA on the PCB situation, the State of Wisconsin is in the lead in addressing the situation, according to the DNR-EPA’s “One Cleanup Program Memorandum of Agreement” or MOA.

The nature and extent of the PCB cleanup were then incorporated into the SOW negotiations. As with VOCs, Kipp’s attorneys, DNR and DOJ began to negotiate how Kipp could fulfill PCB regulations they had violated for decades.

August-September, 2012: DOJ attorney Steve Tinker and David Crass together drafted the DOJ “stipulation and order.” One of the terms they came up with was “Compliance with the terms of this Stipulation and Order shall constitute full satisfaction and release of the defendant Madison-Kipp Corporation, including its officials and employees, from all civil and/or criminal liability for any and all Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) violations that might arise from the facts alleged in the complaint.” The initial draft proposed a “total penalty inclusive of all forfeitures and surcharges of $500,000” that would be reduced to $200,000 “should Madison-Kipp fully comply with the various DNR approved plans, within the agreed upon time limits and pays the DNR its cost recovery.”

September 28, 2012: With the above stipulation agreed upon by Kipp and DOJ, the DOJ lawsuit against Kipp was filed.

July 15 2013: Class action RCRA lawsuit settlement was proposed.

October 28, 2013: RCRA lawsuit was settled; Kipp paid $7.2 million to neighbors.

DOJ lawsuit negotiations, including the SOW, continued behind closed doors, unbeknownst to the public.

August 27, 2014: Kipp met with EPA to discuss how they will clean up the high levels of PCBs in soils and groundwater under the factory.

August 3, 2016: EPA wrote to DNR and Kipp.“While EPA presumes the parties continue to negotiate in good faith in this matter, EPA suggests that the time has come for the parties to promptly finalize the proposed agreement that addresses the PCB contamination at the MKC site.”  Notably, someone from EPA Superfund program was copied on this letter.

August 12, 2016: Kipp’s attorney David Crass at Michael Best responded to EPA, admitting that “these settlement negotiations reach back some time” but “that is not to say that the matter has been dormant since the parties’ meeting in August 2014” and “MKC has accomplished much by way of further investigation and remediation at the site generally and specifically with respect to polychlorinated biphenyls.” He proposed to meet on in September after a Sept. 7 meeting scheduled for MKC and State representatives.

November-December 2016 (specific date unknown) Kipp/DNR/DOJ/EPA met. Meeting notes included part of settlement communication (dated September 29 2016) among Kipp, DNR, and DOJ. In this settlement excerpt, it says “PCBs have been present in the soils beneath the Madison Kipp facility for nearly 50 years” (it has likely been much longer than this) and “The State and Madison-Kipp are discussing an iterative process to monitor and, if necessary, remediate soil beneath the facility if it is confirmed that PCBs have dissolved into and impacted groundwater,” and described various options for dealing with this.

Also, it said, the “State of Wisconsin and Madison-Kipp” have discussed a “financial assurance mechanism” whereby Kipp assures the state it will establish a fund of $1.2 million to clean up PCBs. (This is not remotely enough to clean up the PCBs there—and is a drop in the bucket for Kipp).

October-December 2016: PCBs over the RCLs were found in the raingarden, which was already “closed” by DNR in July 2016.

February 14, 2017: Kipp’s consultants submitted a report asserting that “the detections of dissolved PCBs in three monitoring wells…beneath the MKC facility footprint are suspected to have been caused by the installation of the wells and not an indication of PCBs migrating in groundwater at the site.” Consultants argued that “Numerous references conclude that PCBs are not known to migrate readily to groundwater due to the tendency for PCBs to strongly adsorb to soil particles and to their low water solubility. PCBs do not migrate significantly to groundwater except under extreme conditions and, for the same reasons, they do not significantly migrate if in groundwater.” They cited three outdated government documents, none of which are scientific studies. They concluded that “The groundwater data collected to date at the MKC site, suggest that there is neither widespread, nor migrating PCB contamination in groundwater.”

(Shallow groundwater under the highly PCB contaminated ditch and raingarden has never been tested for PCBs despite citizens repeatedly asking that it be done, especially since the water table there is often just a few feet down.)

December 2016-March 2017: Further testing following up from the PCB findings in the raingarden found PCBs at levels up to 120 ppm in storm drains that travel under the factory and discharge at the raingarden and in city storm drains. A report summarizing the Oct 2016 through March 2017 results was shared with a small group of interested citizens.

April 13, 2017: Tony Koblinski told Steve Verburg at the Wisconsin State Journal that the PCBs found recently in the raingarden and drainage system “have set back efforts to resolve a state Department of Justice lawsuit that was filed in 2012,” but that he “expects soon to have a plan for cleaning the drainage system and the bike path area.” Koblinski says he had expected the lawsuit to be settled later last year, but the discovery of additional PCBs near the bike path and in the drain pipe have created delays.” Further, Koblinski said, “the company has complied with DNR instructions on soil cleanup since the mid-1990…”

Could the recent PCB findings actually help Kipp???

Kipp may very well have “complied with DNR instructions” since the 1990s, as Koblinski told the Wisconsin State Journal, but the DNR didn’t actually ask Kipp to follow relevant regulations on VOCs and PCBs until after the RCRA lawsuit was filed—and until after the SOW process/DOJ lawsuit negotiations allowed them to be off the hook for any regulatory violations. How fabulous for Kipp! And no worries about the recent findings of high levels of PCBs in the storm drainage system under Kipp—the company will be protected by the DOJ lawsuit, which will now drag on even longer. Also, as long as the lawsuit is still open, many records that would otherwise be public—about Kipp’s pollution and how it is being addressed—are not available to citizens because of “attorney-client privilege.”

While this lawsuit drags on and on, PCBs are repeatedly dug up next to a public bike path where people, including many children, walk and play every day.

Is our regulatory system working to protect public and environmental health? Clearly, NO. Is it protecting polluters? Clearly, YES.

[1] The SOW team included DNR staff (Schmoller, Hanefeld, Geisfeldt, Pierce), DHS (Nehls-Lowe, Jessica Maloney),  Kipp’s human resource manager (Mark Meunier) and two attorneys from Kipp’s law firm Michael Best and Friedrich (David Crass, Leah Ziemba).

 

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

THE TRUE COST of Burning Military Munitions

THE TRUE COST of Burning Military Munitions

By Laura Olah, Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger, Cease Fire Campaign

Toxic pollutants are released when munitions are open burned, open detonated or incinerated. These toxic emissions endanger public health by contaminating air, groundwater and soils near open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) operations. Military personnel are often the most exposed to these toxic pollutants, along with nearby communities. Across the country, hundreds of communities and thousands of military personnel have felt the adverse effects of these toxic pollutants.

To learn more, watch this short video.

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

DNR becoming “Chamber of Commerce” instead of regulator?

DNR becoming “Chamber of Commerce” instead of regulator?

Photo: Cathy Stepp, head of WI DNR (aka Chamber of Commerce?)

When Scott Walker appointed Cathy Stepp in 2011 to head the Wisconsin DNR, he said he wanted someone with “a-chamber-of-commerce mentality” to run the agency, according to Steve Verburg’s April 9, 2017 article, “DNR points to informal deals as pollution penalties drop” in the Wisconsin State Journal. Read the article to learn about how Cathy Stepp’s appointment has shaped the way the agency addresses pollution and polluters.

 

 

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

Kipp Raingarden Update, Part 1: MEJO tests show that city land next to Kipp raingarden still contaminated with PCBs

Kipp Raingarden Update, Part 1:  MEJO tests show that city land next to Kipp raingarden still contaminated with PCBs

Photo: Kids walk along bikepath next to Kipp raingarden in February 2017.

Sadly, the seemingly never-ending Kipp raingarden saga continues. (See the long history of the Kipp Raingarden PCB Saga here, here, and here...and more).

In February 2017, MEJO gathered shallow soil samples next to the city bike path adjacent to the Madison-Kipp raingarden and had them tested for PCBs.  One sample had total PCB levels twelve times higher than the residential direct contact “residual contaminant levels” (RCL) appropriate for this area. Another had levels about five times higher than the residential RCL.[1][2]

MEJO’s samples were from surface soils (top 1-2 inches) right next to the bike path, where people walk and jog, children play, parents push strollers, and pets frolic. City and state officials have told us repeatedly that nobody could be exposed to PCBs along the bike path because surface soils there were not likely to be contaminated.

Also, this city-owned area was deemed “closed” by DNR in July 2016 with the understanding that PCBs remaining there over the RCLs had been excavated—or capped with clean, PCB-free soils to prevent exposures to people walking or playing there.

However, the MEJO samples with PCB over the RCLs were from areas that were never actually tested for PCBs because Madison Gas & Electric would not allow excavations near their utility poles and underground lines. (See this map of what areas were excavated and what areas were not because they were MGE “utility buffers.”) One of the samples was from a grassy area upstream of the raingarden where stormwater flows into the raingarden every time it rains—likely re-contaminating the raingarden. Another sample was downstream of the raingarden. Neither area was ever excavated or capped.

In one area inches from the bike path that was “capped” in October 2015 with a thin layer of purportedly “clean” soils, to cover remaining areas with PCBs over the RCLs, we found PCB levels over half the residential RCL. There really shouldn’t be any PCBs above detection limits in this cap soil. The July 16, 2016 DNR letter to Mayor Soglin about the DNR’s approval of final closure for the area states “[t]he soil and asphalt caps over the contaminated soil serve as a barrier to prevent direct human contact with residual soil contamination that might otherwise pose a threat to human health. Based on the current use of the property, the barrier should function as intended unless disturbed.”

The soil cap has been repeatedly disturbed since it was placed there (see here and here).  The snow fence placed around the original cap came down almost immediately and was never put back up.[3] The city driveway and parking lot caps, over highly contaminated soils, have also been repeatedly disturbed. The DNR closure agreement includes maintenance requirements to prevent disturbances of caps meant to protect people from exposures—but apparently nobody is taking these requirements seriously, despite the area’s heavy public use and location next to a community center.

The bottom line? The public area along the bike path next to Kipp is still contaminated with PCBs over the levels city and state officials agreed could remain there without being capped. The capped area is not PCB-free, and is highly disturbed. Adults, children, and pets walk, jog and play all over these areas.

Why are PCBs on this highly used city land not being fully investigated or remediated? Who is responsible? It is not clear. But it is very clear that public health is not being protected.

Where did these PCBs come from? See Part 2, coming soon…

[1] “Residual contaminant levels” are the contaminant levels that can remain in place without capping according to DNR policy. Responsible government officials typically decide whether to use lower, more protective “residential” or higher, less protective “industrial” RCLs based on the zoning of the land and how the land is used. According to DNR guidance, heavily publicly used land such as this area, next to residences and a community center, should use residential RCLs. Both MEJO samples over the residential RCLs were also over the industrial RCLs.

The city’s lease to Kipp for the raingarden, signed in Jun 2015, says: “The City shall, in consultation with the Lessee, conduct periodic sampling of the Biobasin for new environmental contamination. If the annual environmental sampling indicates new PCB contamination to the Biobasin, the Lessee shall remediate the contamination according to local, State, and federal standards. The Lessee shall also determine the source of the contamination and take action to ensure that further contamination does not occur. New contamination shall be defined as shallow soil sample results above the DNR residential direct contact standard (RCL) for PCBs.” (highlighting added).

However, the Kipp consultant report says industrial standards would be used for cleanup decisions. Whose decision was this? On what basis was it made?

[2] These levels are 108 to 265 times higher than the RCL for the “soil to groundwater pathway.” The highest level of PCBs found along the bike path to date (1020 ppm), is over 108,000 times the soil to groundwater RCL. Yet, groundwater under the raingarden and bike path area has never been tested for PCBs.

[3] Our ongoing emails to city and state officials since 2015 with photos of this disturbed area were apparently ignored.

 

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

Chief Environmental Justice Official at EPA Resigns

Chief Environmental Justice Official at EPA Resigns

Mustafa Ali, former head of EPA’s environmental justice program (photo from Wilson Center, Environmental Change and Security program/flickr)

By Phil McKenna, Inside Climate News

The head of the environmental justice program at the Environmental Protection Agency has stepped down, departing the government with a lengthy letter to Scott Pruitt, the EPA’s new administrator, urging him not to kill the agency’s programs.

Mustafa Ali, a senior adviser and assistant associate administrator at the agency, worked to alleviate the impact of air, water and industrial pollution on poverty-stricken towns and neighborhoods during nearly a quarter century with the EPA. He helped found the environmental justice office, then the environmental equity office, in 1992, during the presidency of President George H.W. Bush.

Ali leaves the EPA as Pruitt, who took office Feb. 17, prepares to implement deep cuts in the agency’s budget and staff. A Trump administration proposal would cut the EPA’s $8 billion budget by $2 billion and reduce its roster of 15,000 employees by 20 percent. An internal memo obtained by multiple news outlets on March 1 called for a complete dismantling of the office of environmental justice and elimination of a number of grant programs that address low-income and minority communities. A story in the Oregonian reported that funding for the office would decrease 78 percent, from $6.7 million to $1.5 million.

Read more here

 

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

It Is Time to Reform Landscape Ordinances – Part 4

It Is Time to Reform Landscape Ordinances – Part 4

Photo: One of many pollinator-friendly yards in the City of Madison, as depicted by the city’s Pollinator Protection Task Force Report. Photo by Ledell Zellers.

By Janette Rosenbaum

During the time that this series was being published, Madison did in fact reform its landscape ordinances. For the first time since 1978, Madison updated its regulations pertaining to “natural lawns”.

Natural lawns – now referred to as “natural landscapes” – are defined by the city as residential yards in which grasses exceed eight inches in height. This category includes yards that are entirely landscaped with prairie plantings, yards that have a single ornamental clump of tall grass, and everything in between.

Previously, all yards in this category were required to obtain a permit. Without a permit, grass in excess of eight inches was a violation of the ordinances. As noted in previous articles in this series, many people in Madison have tall grass in their yard, while few have ever obtained – or even attempted to obtain – a permit.

As described in Part 2 of this series, Madison knew at the time the permit requirement was created that tall grass does not attract rats, hurt property values, or cause any of the other negative impacts commonly attributed to it. Still, the 1976 effort to completely eliminate a ban on tall grass failed due to the concerns of those who continued to believe in tall grass’s bad rap.

Today, Madison recognizes that banning tall grass – and thus virtually requiring fossil-fuel-powered mowing, fertilizers, pesticides, and all the other maintenance practices associated with lawns – interferes with the city’s goal of being more sustainable and more environmentally friendly. Specifically, making it difficult for property owners to establish prairie plantings, by requiring them to go through an onerous permitting process, presents an obstacle to the goal of protecting pollinators, which the city declared to be an urgent priority in the fall of 2015.

Still, the workgroup charged with taking action to protect pollinators failed to fully legalize tall grass. Instead, on January 3, 2017, the City of Madison adopted a limited revision to the natural landscapes ordinances that says the following:

  1. Grass in residential yards may not exceed eight inches in height.
  2. Grass in residential yards may exceed eight inches in height, if the property owner obtains a permit.
  3. Grass in residential yards may exceed eight inches in height without a permit, if the area containing the tall grass only occupies a certain limited percentage of the yard, and if this area is a certain distance from the property lines, and if the tall grass is a species found on a brief list included in the ordinance.

Supporters of the revised ordinance say that this change will make it easier for property owners to legally have natural yards. Others who were hoping for a more progressive update, however, have several concerns about the new rules.

First, the exemption to the permit requirement only helps property owners who have – or who would like to have – small natural plantings. Almost no one in this category currently has a permit, and almost none of them have been prosecuted for not having a permit. Eliminating the permit requirement for small natural plantings helps almost no one, while still leaving property owners with full natural yards vulnerable to prosecution.

Second, enforcement of the new ordinance would require Building Inspection employees to calculate what percentage of a yard is occupied by a natural planting. Although Building Inspection Director George Hank stated, at a city meeting where the proposed revision was being discussed, that his employees were good at math, those employees have stated to the author of this article that they often rely on eyeballing rather than measuring when determining the size and location of plants. If inspectors take that approach to the new ordinance, property owners could be forced to go to court to argue that their planting is in fact smaller than the percentage limit.

In addition, the aspect of the ordinance that allows only certain grass species to bypass the permit requirement depends on inspectors being able to accurately identify grass species. In previous cases, Building Inspection employees have been unfamiliar with native species, and have described natural yards as containing a “significant number of plants [they] couldn’t identify.” Again, a property owner could be falsely accused of not meeting the requirements for the permit exemption, and would then be forced to convince a judge that their grass belongs to the exempted species.

Third, given Building Inspection’s history of enforcing ordinances arbitrarily – as described in previous articles – it is not hard to see how the new ordinance could be misconstrued to mean that even with a permit, a property owner cannot have grass species other than those listed as allowable without a permit. The new section of the ordinance also requires tall grasses to be set back at least five feet from property lines – a requirement that could be inappropriately applied to those who have permits, who currently must provide a setback of only three feet, or none at all with the permission of the adjoining neighbor.

Clearly it is not the intention of the new ordinance to be more restrictive than the old one, but the confusing wording, along with the structure of exemptions to exemptions, could again force property owners to go to court to sort out which requirements apply to the type of yard that they have. The simple solution: stop imposing onerous regulations on grass, and allow property owners to landscape their yards with the most harmless and regionally-appropriate of plants.

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

The Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) funds Midwest Environmental Justice Organization project

The Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) funds Midwest Environmental Justice Organization project

The Midwest Environmental Justice Organization (MEJO) has received a grant from the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, the grassroots organization founded in 1981 by Lois Gibbs after her historic and successful efforts to fight toxic pollution at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York.

“The Center for Health, Environment, and Justice is honored to be able to provide this grant to the Midwest Environment Justice Organization,” Gibbs said after the funding was awarded. “The program was very competitive, and their proposal reached the top because of the incredible work the group is doing. Grassroots groups across the country are underfunded given the level of impact they have on their communities and larger social change policies. CHEJ is privileged to be able to provide resources to all of these powerful groups, thanks to a small number of generous donors.”

MEJO works to educate community members about the effects of toxic pollution and to engage them in actions to stop it. “Unfortunately, even in a relatively privileged and progressive city such as Madison, many people from a variety of backgrounds are exposed to toxic pollution—and lower income people and minorities are more likely to be exposed than more privileged people,” MEJO President Maria Powell added.

“The CHEJ project,” Powell said, “will focus on outreach to people affected by industrial pollution to engage them in decisions on what to do about it—especially how to prevent toxic chemical exposures among the most vulnerable people. This is the core of environmental justice work.”

Since its founding in 2006, MEJO has worked to address environmental justice issues such as the race and class-based disparities in the consumption of contaminated fish, over-use of toxic pesticides on public land, and air and water pollution from urban brownfields and industries.

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

Everyone deserves a safe & healthy home

Everyone deserves a safe & healthy home

Photo: The view from the site where the City of Madison has approved a low income housing development, with substantial city funding.

Click here for a brief taste of what people at this housing will see and hear from their apartments.

Waste trucks visit the Madison-Kipp Fair Oaks factory almost daily to suck up thousands of gallons of toxic wastes from aluminum melting and die casting processes and haul them away. Many of the same toxic chemicals, their combusted byproducts, metals and small particulates are emitted—unfiltered—from the factory stacks and open bay doors.

Would you want to see this out your living room window every day? To hear this noise every day? To smell and breathe the air emitted from these stacks, vents and trucks every day? Would you want your children to breathe this air?

We doubt that many Madison alders, public health officials, and other city decision makers could honestly answer YES to these questions. So why do they think it’s OK for low income and homeless Madisonians to live there?

The Madison Common Council has already approved $1.3 million in city funding for this housing project. On Tuesday, Feb. 28, alders will vote on whether to further support the project with $343,000 of Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) funds. See our comments–along with many Kipp neighborhood residents as co-signers–to the Madison Common Council here.

Please email Madison alders (allalders@cityofmadison.com) and Mayor Paul Soglin (PSoglin@cityofmadison.com) and ask them not to approve TIF funding for this project. Ask them where they live. Ask them to consider, honestly, if they would live in these apartments. As them to consider whether they assume different quality of life standards for less privileged people than for themselves.

Everyone deserves a safe and healthy home.

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest

Scientists find PCBs 10,000 meters below the ocean’s surface

Scientists find PCBs 10,000 meters below the ocean’s surface

Much of our work in Madison, Wisconsin in recent years has focused on preventing toxic contaminants such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) from being released into the environment and entering waterways–and eventually ending up in fish people eat.

Government agencies have told us repeatedly when we’ve raised concerns about PCBs moving into waterways from industrial sources that they will not move because they are not very water soluble and tend to stick to soils. While it is true that PCBs aren’t highly water soluble, and tend to attach to soils and other organic matter–it is well known that soils and other materials with PCBs attached to them can and do move into waterways. Also, it is well-established by scientific studies that PCBs are semi-volatile and can travel through air for long distances.

Now, further refuting the argument that PCBs do not move, a Washington Post article by Chelsea Harvey reports that scientists in the UK have discovered PCBs and related compounds PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers)  “in some of the ocean’s deepest trenches, previously thought to be nearly untouched by human influence” at levels that rival some of the most polluted waterways on the planet.”

If PCBs do not move far from their source, as Madison’s government officials keep telling us, how did they get to this remote place? Clearly, PCBs can move.

Why does it matter? PCBs and PBDEs, according to the article, “may cause a variety of adverse health effects, including neurological, immune and reproductive issues and even cancer (in humans).” Further, both PCBs and and PBDEs “have the potential to remain intact for long periods of time” and tend to “bioaccumulate,” meaning they can build up in organisms over time. The article cited a study showing that certain organic pollutants, including PCBs and PBDEs “are widespread in fish throughout the world.”

Read the whole Washington Post article here

Digg thisShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on TumblrTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest