pdxair

FullThought: To Tom, Asmund, Slow Moose, Wageble...and all our One People Friends

2010-09-12T21:53:00.000-07:00

FullThought: To Tom, Asmund, Slow Moose, Wageble...and all our One People Friends

Good Neighbor Agreement

2010-08-03T14:01:00.000-07:00

Many of you were in the room last May, at the public hearing on the statewide air toxics benchmarks, when Vice-Chair Williamson, of the state's Environmental Quality Commission, advised citizens that the most effective means of fighting a large local source of pollution was a "Good Neighbor Agreement."

My husband remarked that Williamson was just being honest, offering the kind of advice that your friendly college advisor might to help you deal with a particularly onerous prof threatening to fail you.

But Williamson isn't just a wizened observer. He is vice-chair of the state's rule-making body for the Department of Environmental Quality. He can, and in fact should, see that if the state environmental regulations are ineffective in protecting public health, he and the others serving on the EQC have a mandate to change that.

And, his advice falls flat for another reason, despite his statement GNA's are neighbor's "best" option, there are few, if any, success stories in Oregon. So how is it that the state tells us our best recourse is one that has yet to prove itself attainable?

We are well on our way to a GNA with ESCO, I believe. Without a formal legal contract between neighbors and the company (which is rare with GNA's in any case), many of the tenants of a GNA are being met: meetings which bring neighbor representatives concerns into the internal discussion regarding pollution mitigation and increased transparency in discussing options and sharing information. With the first draft of ESCO's alternatives analysis on the table, the community is getting its best shot in years to consider what might be possible in the effort to reduce emissions.

The problem is that ESCO is just one of the 19 Title V permitted facilities in the city, one of hundreds of industrial air polluters, including 7 other steel processing facilities and 8 petroleum companies. According to a study published by USA Today, nearly all of our neighborhoods are affected by large sources of toxic air pollution, ranking 233 of Portland's 250 school in the bottom third of the nation due to exposure to dangerous industrial air toxics. There has to be a better way. Sustaining the citizen involvement necessary for these efforts takes tremendous amount of resources to balance the scale of the financial means of those who will fight any type of pollution reduction effort at every turn.

I stumbled across an interesting third way, that is something other than direct citizen negotiation and dreaming for the time when stringent environmental regulations are enacted and enforced. In July 2008, the then outgoing mayor of Houston TX, sick of decades of inadequate environmental regulation that failed to stem the poisonous tide of air pollution in his city, took matters into his own hands.

In an essay written for the Texas Law Review, Ryan Hackney argues that Houston Mayor Bill White effectively substantiates his authority when he enacted an ordinance that gave the City of Houston broad powers to register and inspect polluting facilities within the City. Hackney says: "local government may be the level of government that can address air pollution problems most effectively. When a state agency fails to take sufficient action to protect local populations from air pollution, the local government may be the only entity that can take effective action."

I am not advocating yet that our city take over the regulatory authority of large industrial polluters, or do what Houston's Mayor did in enacting a parallel matrix of permits, but I think there is a tremendous amount of room for the city to take a more active role in direct discussions with industry and their representatives to move pollution mitigation efforts beyond the current regulatory framework. The city can exert influence in building permits, zoning, transportation infrastructure decisions, to ensure that equitable pollution reduction efforts are realized across the city. In the interest of ensuring equitable livability standards for all residents, the city, could ask that air pollution sources be required to do environmental health impact analysis and monitoring so that citizen' right to know is protected, and everyone can understand what the local impact might be from the regulated sources of air pollution in our city. Finally, the city can be part of enforcing nuisance ordinances and emergency response preparation, two areas where specifically the state fails to adequately provide timely and effective responses to upsets involving air polluters.

Air pollution problems are inherently local, the worst of them manifesting in "Toxic Hot Spots." Yet this is specifically the area where the Clean Air Act and the state regulatory framework has failed to protect citizens. Ozone and smog are primarily the problems of cities, where sufficient concentrations of vehicles and industry can emit enough oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to create hazardous conditions. Likewise, toxic emissions are primarily an urban problem where industrial operations and residential populations exist in close proximity. Health experts are devoting increasing attention to the issue of toxic hot spots - highly localized areas of acute or prolonged toxic exposure. A January 2007 study by the University of Texas Health Science Center found a 56% elevated risk of acute lymphocytic leukemia among children living within two miles of the Houston Ship Channel.

Thanks to the hard work of citizen action groups like Environmental Working Group, Center for Health, Environmental and Justice, and Earth Justice, I am heartened to see new vigor brought to the federal debate around toxics and better enforcement of the the Clean Air Act after eight stagnant years under Bush. It seems that this should be accompanied with an honest discussion of preempting some of the state's authority, where it is so failing its mandate to protect public health, and transferring it into the hands of those closer to the problems. If direct citizen negotiation is still considered the most effective means of addressing local toxic hot spots, citizens need stronger public advocates to work on their behalf. Portland should look to the spirit of what the Houston Mayor did, which was to say, the city is the best entity to look out for the equitable protection of all its citizens and should be creative in its ideas of how to engage on the issue.

False Choices

2010-07-01T14:46:00.000-07:00

The first responders to The Oregonian coverage of Neighbors for Clean Air delivering air toxics petition to DEQ downtown yesterday, gave the usual doomsday speech of pollution reduction equals job destruction.

This age old argument to protect the status quo just doesn't stack up. In "free market" America, companies shed jobs and move to other countries because of the economy, not environmental protection demands. According to a September 2009 article in The Oregonian The Ash Grove Cement Kiln in Durkee, Oregon reduced production not because of long overdue threats to limit the toxic mercury emissions from one of the largest sources in the nation, but because global demand for asphalt has dropped significantly during the course of the great recession.

But in Europe, they seem to be able to choose both the environment and jobs. In a fascinating March 2010 essay published in Harper's Magazine on Germany's labor structure, Thomas Geoghegan notes: "a strange fact: since 2003, it’s not China but Germany, that colossus of European socialism, that has either led the world in export sales or at least been tied for first. Even as we in the United States fall more deeply into the clutches of our foreign creditors—China foremost among them—Germany has somehow managed to create a high-wage, unionized economy without shipping all its jobs abroad or creating a massive trade deficit, or any trade deficit at all." Or, BP-scale environmental destruction. Maybe America is Europe's China--companies come over here to get away with what they can't on their own soil.

It is universally recognized that Germany, and the European Environmental Council, in adopting the Precautionary Principle nearly a decade ago, also get environmental regulation right: Polluters need to prove they do no harm before they are allowed to impose their toxic outputs into our lives. We have the opportunity to de-incentify cheap environmentally destructive business models. We can enact things like "polluter pays" regulations being supported by our own Earl Blumenauer. We can enact what I would like to say is the "Common Sense" principle. We know things like heavy metals are dangerous to our health, and devastating to our children's development, and they will most likely cause irreparable damage that may not be seen for decades, and we know the sources of these emissions. Let's stop it.

In response to our demands, Andy Ginsburg has said the state will begin to look at addressing short-term benchmarks for air toxics. The work won't even begin until mid-2011. It has taken the state 10 years to drag itself to this point. This does not have to be this way. The Clean Air Act already affords the state the discretion it needs to safeguard public health by more stringent emissions controls and pollution reduction policy. It can write rules today about known heavy metal toxins they measured years ago from identified sources. The state agency can put public health above the needs of the regulated community.

Let's do it. Today.

EPA report confirms: Portland's air is Toxic

2010-06-28T11:50:00.000-07:00

The Sunday New York Times reported that EPA's inspector general said the agency is ten years behind schedule in setting guidelines for a host of air toxic benchmarks. Even more damning, the "agency had not met targets outlined in a 1999 planning document, the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, including tracking urban dwellers' risk of developing health problems from exposure to pollutants.

Frank O'Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch, an environmental watchdog group based in Washington, said the inspector general's report made clear that 'the issue of breathing cancer-causing chemicals in city air is something of an orphan issue.' For example, the agency's last assessment of the risk of toxic air pollutants is based on emissions data from 2002. That analysis found that 1 in 28,000 people, or 36 in 1 million, could develop cancer from lifetime exposure to air toxics from outdoor sources. That number is an average, however, and people living in densely populated cities may face a higher risk."

The people most exposed, Mr. O'Donnell said, 'are probably not out in the wheat farms - they're going to be people living near where the bus depots are.'"

As Paul Koberstein has noted, Mr. O'Donnell is referring to communities like ours, situated in Portland's toxic hot spots. In fact, Koberstein notes that in Portland we are at 1 excess cancer in 12,000 people or 79 in a million, so we are just more than double the national average.

This just underscores how on track we are to be pressuring the DEQ to address the health risks of air toxics, specifically our children and other vulnerable populations who live, work, play and go to school in Portland's toxic hot spots.

Many of us have experienced the frustration in addressing our concerns to DEQ about the health effects of the toxic emissions from regulated polluters. Over 500 people have signed the petition online and on paper, because every meeting has been the same: complaints of odors, confusing data, and inaction from the agency. That is why our group has elected to take our concerns downtown and deliver the petition in person, to remind DEQ that citizen's expect our health to be put above the needs of polluters. I hope you will join us Wednesday to deliver the message:

What's in our air? Rally

DEQ Headquarters -- 811 SW 6th Avenue, 1 block south of Pioneer Courthouse Square

We will meet for a photo in front of the building @ 4:30.
Then a group (whoever would like) can proceed inside DEQ before the 5pm deadline for public comment closes on the current air toxics benchmark rulemaking.

For more information about our Wednesday event and to RSVP please visit the

Neighbors for Clean Air on Facebook

Doing my homework

2010-06-02T10:43:00.000-07:00

At the end of the last Portland Air Toxics Solution (PATS) Advisory Committee meeting, a woman who had waited patiently in the visitors gallery through the 6 –hr meeting, stood up to address the room. The public is allowed to attend the meetings, but speaking and asking questions for anyone other than committee members is restricted. She must have felt strongly about what she wanted to say.

She introduced herself as Kate McCutcheon, the environmental manager at Blue Heron Paper. The Oregon City company has a mixed record of environmental compliance, incurring fines in the last 10-15 years for air and water infractions.

While Ms. McCutcheon was addressing the room, I did get the strange feeling she was directing her comments at me. Making eye contact, she said, “any one who questions the air toxic benchmarks hasn’t done their homework.”

The air toxic benchmarks or ABC’s (ambient benchmark concentrations) are the metrics introduced by DEQ as the framework that PATS will be utilizing to measure air toxic reductions. Since most if not all of the air toxics being discussed exceed the benchmarks, it is reasonable to assume that getting them below those benchmark levels will mean a reduction of toxic air pollution in the metro air shed.

But it does not necessarily mean that the air quality will be safe, or vulnerable populations within the metro air shed, like our children, will be safeguarded from adverse health effects due to exposure to toxic air pollution. This is because the ABCs are annualized average concentrations of air toxics that do not reflect the risk of exposure to spikes and toxic hot spots, like those people who live near large industrial sources of toxic emissions or in low income housing along freeway corridors. And as individual concentrations they do not address the synergistic effect of these toxics are when mixed together.

Unfortunately, Ms. McCutcheon, I have done my homework. And this leads me to realize that the benchmarks will not address what I, and hundreds of parents have come to realize about the dangers lurking in the Portland air: industrial pollution contaminates the airshed of every school in the Portland area, every one –except one- of which ranks in the nation’s worst 30% of schools at risk. In fact, 65 schools rank among the worst 10% in the nation due to proximity to large sources of toxic air pollution. The worst of these schools, including seven in Northwest Portland and three campuses in North Portland, list manganese as the air toxic of most concern. Yet we are told that the Portland area and the polluters that emit this neurotoxin are already in attainment of the newer stricter manganese benchmark.

And I am not the only one to have done the homework assignment. Over 40 concerned citizens who recently attended the Air Toxics Benchmark Hearing on May 18^th came to address the same concerns: do these benchmarks adequately safeguard public health from the hazards of air toxics, especially spikes in emissions that at times have been recorded in fenceline monitoring to exceed the benchmark by 300x, yet would not be reflected in an annualized average.

At the same hearing, Commissioner Williamson said what most have come to suspect: “when it comes to large sources of industrial pollution, the best remedy has been direct negotiation between neighbors and the company through a good neighbor agreement.” In other words, the state won’t help you, you are on your own to address the issue of spikes and toxic hot spots. He unfortunately offered no insight as to how a community gets leverage against industry, which has the backing of well-funded powerful lobbyists, and which operates within a state regulatory framework that has allowed the proliferation of sacrificial zones of toxic hot spots, by adopting metrics and calculations that ensure compliance of permitted air emissions limits by relegating them unenforceable.

While I acknowledge that there is a solid body of science behind the benchmarks, the problem was in the question, not the answer. The Air Toxics Science Advisory Committee (ATSAC) was not asked to determine what is the safe level of the neurotoxin manganese exposure to children, which as scientists Dr. Brodsky (OHSU), Dr. Carmen (Texas Air Commission, and Lone Star Sierra Club), and Maye Thompson, PhD (Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility) would say is zero to minimal. Instead they were only asked if the science supported the reduction from current benchmark to the lower one.

We need to reframe the question. What health metric can be used to inform the regulatory process? Anything that maintains the status quo is not genuine, and threatens to provide a false pretense to the regulated community that they are compliant and do no harm. The status quo says that almost every Portland school is at danger due to toxic air pollution. The status quo says that Multnomah county, and Oregon, lead the nation in excess rates of cancer due to toxic air pollution. Nobody should be allowed to put dangerous air toxics in our common domain, and claim that they are not part of the problem.

This Thursday, June 3^rd is the next meeting of the PATS advisory committee. DEQ has scheduled three hours to discuss the benchmarks. Ms. McCutcheon can be assured that I, and others, will have questions.

pdxair: Tank Farms: Grandpa must die

2010-05-25T16:32:00.000-07:00

pdxair: Tank Farms: Grandpa must die

Tank Farms: Grandpa must die

2010-05-23T21:54:00.000-07:00

At the heart of the tank farm issue is the reality that a new tank, like the one operated by Chevron that was installed in 2007, emits half the deadly pollution than an older storage tank does, according to permit writer George Yun. The idea that some tanks are "grandfathered" in with allowable excess emissions rates makes no sense when regulating something as deadly as benzene emissions. Reasonable people would assume that there would be time limits explicitly stated for how long they may continue to operate with outdated dangerous technology. “Grandfathering” by its nature should guarantee that an end is imminent, it should not be a state of perpetual life support for old and deadly operations.

Thanks to the research of Cascadia Times' Paul Koberstein, we know the Northwest Industrial Sanctuary is home to 536 petroleum storage tanks with a 300+ million gallon capacity, and combined are responsible for spewing 1,392 tons of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) into our air shed. The majority of the tanks are old, between 40 and 100-yrs old. Due to the high public health threat of emissions associated with petro chemicals, including benzene a toxicant linked to leukemia, which has been identified at levels above health benchmarks across the entire Portland metro air shed, all storage tanks with the potential to emit this know carcinogen should be held to the strictest emissions standards, regardless of age of facility. While I appreciate that this move would be a financial burden to the companies operating these tanks, I also believe it is unconscionable that they are allowed to co-opt public health by spewing 100s of tons of deadly emissions into our air shed.

The public is currently being invited to comment on the proposed renewal of Air Quality Permits for Chevron, Kinder Morgan, and Shell (Equilon) petroleum storage facilities in NW Portland. If you have not submitted comments, or did not provide testimony at the public hearing last week, please consider doing so before the deadline: 5pm, Tuesday, May 25th to Catherine Blaine. Click here for the DEQ notice.

Some recommended "asks" from comments already submitted:

1. Continual ambient air monitoring at the tanks.
2. On-site, continuous, monitoring of wind speed and direction at each facility conducted by independent contractors.
3. Recording/reporting of all "unburned fuel" and "gasoline" odors to all facilities, and attribution applied to tank farms in aggregate, without the requirement of citizens to name an individual source.
4. Time frame to phase out all older tanks and/or require all tanks to adhere to the stricter emission standards achievable by newer tanks.
5. Clarification of why some companies, including Kinder Morgan, are classified as something other than a storage facility, despite the near identical operations to the other 6 companies operating in the tank farm who are. Citizens know that this allows them to skirt federal reporting requirements designed to safeguard public health such as the federal Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database. TRI was established under the federal Emergency Planning Citizen Right-to-know Act, that helps protect communities in case of a disaster, by informing them of the nature and volume of volatile toxic chemicals that are stored, processed, and otherwise might create a public health threat in the event of a catastrophic emergency. The tank farms in the NW Industrial Sanctuary are situated on a known earthquake fault line and in a flood zone.

AIR TOXICS BENCHMARK HEARING

2010-05-19T17:06:00.000-07:00

One neighbor summed it up best, when she asked the final question during the pre-hearing Q&A period: "Since the Town Hall Meeting a year ago at Chapman Elementary School, has the agency done any tests to better understand the problem or taken steps to fix it?"

Gregg Lande, Oregon DEQ's Senior Air Quality Analyst and the person responsible for the state's air monitoring program and the air toxics benchmarks, responded: "No."

And there is the sum of the meeting on the Air Toxics Benchmark Hearing, with particular regards to the new manganese benchmark. Manganese is the toxic that many in the room last night had first learned about last year, when also learning that their neighborhood schools ranked among the worst in the nation due to the presence of manganese and other toxic industrial emissions. The 40+ neighbors, parents and otherwise concerned citizens that attended the benchmark hearing learned that this rulemaking will have no effect on the problem identified by the study published by USA Today in November 2008.

No positive effect that is.

The more insidious threat is that under a veil of "science," the rulemaking on manganese, lead, ethyl benzene and mercury can and will be used by the polluters that put these toxins in our environment as continued protection of the status quo, and fodder for the sources to claim "they do no harm."

Let me do a quick recap of the status quo: 65 Portland area schools (117 statewide) rank in the worst 10% of schools across the nation with the most dangerous air quality due to proximity to industrial sources of pollution. The federal government's most recent National-scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) report, released in July 2009, showed Oregon to have the 3rd largest population at risk of excess cancer due to toxic air pollution. Finally, according to the National Cancer Institute, Multnomah County, which ranked among the worst counties in the nation in that same NATA report, also leads the state, and the nation, in rates of breast, lung, pancreas and brain cancers.

What was confirmed at the hearing is the DEQ has no measurement, or specific program in place to measure and address the short-term exposures that our children risk living in the many identified toxic hot spots across the city. These benchmarks are annualized averages and meant to address a lifetime of exposure. Risk is assessed by modeling and very limited monitoring data from the one monitoring station situated in North Portland. As Dr. Lambert, a toxicologist from OHSU, who sits on the ODEQ's Science Advisory Committee who makes these rulemaking recommendations, said the state does consider "these benchmarks to represent an acceptable level of risk."

Fortunately the public had some important advocates to put our concerns on record. Among them:

1. Dr. Matthew Brodsky, a neurologist at OHSU, who has done specific research on the effects of manganese. He testified to studies that show short term acute exposures to cause irreparable damages in the brain. In written testimony he notes: "It is astounding to me how this can be allowed to continue in such a densely populated neighborhood, and in such proximity to an elementary school full of children with rapidly developing little brains that are at the greatest risk of long-term neurologic damage."

2. Maye Thompson, RN, PhD, Environmental Health Program Director, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, who noted: "We are accruing evidence that air pollution affects the brain and neurological development. For instance, children from highly polluted Mexico City, compared with matched controls from a low-pollution city, showed a high incidence of cognitive deficits on psychometric testing, and brain abnormalities in the prefrontal region on MRI. These findings suggest that brain inflammation linked with air pollution begins at an early age and is associated with early cognitive impairment."

3. Sharon Genasci, Northwest District Association Health & Environment Chair, offered a great chronicle of neighbors' efforts to monitor the air shed themselves and the history of recording high levels of manganese and lead in dust samples taken off porches near, and downwind of, one of the city's largest steel foundries. She also noted her committee addressing the issue of conflict of interest of members of the science advisory committee as far back as 2004. Genasci suggested that the conflict of interest was severe enough to put a shadow over any of the benchmarks set during that period.

4. Finally, testimony was provided by Sattie Clark, parent, local manufacturing business owner, and founder of a sustainable business alliance. Clark described her personal experience of behavioral and other health issues with her son and the subsequent discovery that he had high, chronic, levels of arsenic. When she consulted the USA Today study on schools and industrial pollution, she found that the neighborhood school near her family's house was situated near an industrial source of arsenic, and arsenic was a pollutant of concern in the profile of the school's air quality problem.

Where are we now? Scientific research supports that there are no known safe levels of exposure to neurotoxins such as manganese yet DEQ's proposed air toxic benchmarks for emissions do not guarantee *reductions* in the current levels of manganese emissions around Portland and the state. We have until June 30 to let DEQ know their proposed benchmarks do not adequately protect public health.

Email your comments to them now: Gregg Lande: benchmarkupdate@deq.state.or.us

Body Burden of Toxic Chemicals

2010-05-07T16:26:00.000-07:00

Nicholas Kristof of the New York TImes wrote an editorial yesterday about an about to be released report from the Federal Cancer Panel, entitled: New Alarm Bells about Chemicals and Cancer. Read it here. This is on the heels of a report released earlier this year, and reported on by Blake Morrison for USA Today. In this study the General Accounting Office, chastised the EPA for its failure to protect children from toxic chemicals. Read Blake's article here.

This is all the more reason for us to question the decade old Air Toxics Benchmark program in Oregon. We need to press the state to ensure that the best new science is taken into consideration when new air toxics benchmarks are adopted. The problem with these benchmarks, if they stand on their own, is the false pretense they provide for polluters. These allow company's to assert, like ESCO did in a letter to the NW Examiner in December last year, that the toxic releases that have put 35 of Portland schools in the top 5% of schools across the nation with the worst air due to the aggregate load of toxic industrial air pollution, are "doing no harm."

Please help us send a strong message to the DEQ and the EQC - the rule making body for that agency - that we expect the state to adopt air toxic standards that are protective of public health, particularly children and other vulnerable populations, who live in urban areas with high industrial air toxics. Sign the petition here.

And attend the hearing on May 18th:
Public Hearing on Air Toxics Benchmark Rulemaking

DATE: May 18, 2010

TIME: 6 p.m.

LOCATION: ODOT, Main Floor, Conf Rm AB

Address 123 NW Flanders, Portland

Why the Air Toxics Benchmarks Matter

2010-05-03T22:21:00.000-07:00

For months, we have been asking people to care about the Air Toxics Benchmarks, specifically the new stricter standard being proposed for manganese. It would be pretty easy to accept that the state is addressing our concerns about industrial Air Toxics as they consider lowering the manganese benchmark to match the current California standard. Since last year when I stumbled on the report that showed 35 Portland schools, including my daughters', to be in some of the worst industrial toxic hot spots in the nation, I have been routinely directed to the Department of Environmental Quality's program: Portland Air Toxics Solutions (PATS). Last summer I became one of the over 30 members of the PATS Advisory Committee. It has been through this process, the first meeting in August 2009, and the 2nd just held in April 2010, that I have come to better understand the importance of the Air Toxics Benchmarks. And to realize it is incredibly important that citizens pay attention, especially those of us who are concerned about the high levels of these specific pollutants, like manganese, which we discovered through USA Today's national report on industrial pollution.

The Air Toxics Benchmarks will be the metric that the state agency uses to measure reductions in toxic air pollution.

The problem is, that these benchmarks are measured in terms of the annualized averages of the ambient levels detected (or most likely modeled) over the tri-county area.

And this new stricter manganese benchmark will not require any emissions reduction efforts for those facilities emitting the neurotoxin in the toxic hot spots in the city, Northwest and North Portland, where, according to DEQ data, manganese was both modeled and monitored at the highest levels in the tri-county area. And, most notably, 2008 fenceline monitoring data of the ESCO facility revealed that the manganese levels in the air emissions from the NW steel refinery were sometimes 300 times the benchmarks. At least that is what I infer from the comments by DEQ and ESCO staff who both assert that "we are already in attainment" of this new stricter benchmark.

That is why I drove the nearly 450 mile round trip to deliver the message to the Environmental Quality Commission in person at their meeting last week in Coos Bay. I showed up to address Agenda Item M, on the Air Toxics Benchmark Rulemaking, which was thankfully removed by DEQ Director Dick Pedersen to allow for more public input. Because, we need to insist that the EQC consider adopting dual standards to address not only the long term health risks, but the short term risks of high exposures experienced in the toxic hot spots, as well as the more protective levels that are needed to safeguard the most vulnerable to these high spikes, like our children. My concern is, without the qualification that these current ABC's do not address the risk of the most vulnerable to short term exposures, these benchmarks will be used as a false pretense of public health safety by the sources of these air toxics. In other words, major sources of manganese, lead and other types of toxic air pollution will go back to saying "we are doing no harm," even if the science says that there are no safe levels for children.

I urge everyone to sign the petition to ask the EQC to ensure that the Air Toxic Health Benchmarks protect children from short term and long term exposure to toxic pollutants present in the environment where they live, play and go to school. Click here to sign online. Let's deliver the message at the May 18th public hearing, or before the June 30th public comment period closes.

How bad is the air in Portland?

2010-04-19T11:18:00.000-07:00

I have been on a journey of discovery into Portland air quality since March 2009. That was when I ran across a national study that showed my daughters' elementary school to be in the top 2% of schools across the nation with the worst air due to proximity to toxic industrial emissions (USA Today: The Smokestack Effect). To make matters worse, in July 2009, the federal government published its most recent National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) report that showed Oregon to have the 3rd largest population at risk of excess cancer due to exposure to toxic emissions. My latest stop this week, a website introduced through TEDMED 2009 speaker Bill Davenhall, ERSI Global Marketing Manager, that gives users a way to assess health risks through geography.

By inputing zip codes into the search engine a visitor to the site can get a picture of their place history and the environmental exposures associated with them. I have lived many places in my adult life, and I also threw in a few zip codes from my husband's side which hails from SE Texas to SW Louisiana (otherwise known as cancer alley). Finally I threw in the zip code for Marietta OH where a school was closed because of the local industrial emissions. Here are some of what I found:

Milwaukee, WI: 14 chemicals
Baltimore, MD: 4 chemicals
Santa Cruz, CA: 8 chemicals
St. Paul, MN: 21 chemicals
Marietta, OH: 24 chemical
Houston, TX: 7 chemicals
Lake Charles, LA: 10 chemicals

And finally, Portland OR: 82 chemicals

82 chemicals. Portland's progressiveness seems to expand beyond bike paths, light rail, and the streetcar.

It has been documented that city living in and of itself is a health risk. I am a strong believer in our urban growth boundary and even in the theory of "20 min. communities." But are these pillars of progressive land use planning sustainable in an environment that still allows unfettered capitulation of natural resources by industrial entities?

Portland's contemporary dilemma is nothing new. Even in 1913, as the ESCO Corporation was part of the movement to fill in Guild's Lake, and appropriate the NW expanse along the deep water Willamette River for industrial use, other city leaders were battling to realize the promise of the 1907 million dollar municipal park bond measure, and attempting to save the west hills forest from development.

It is hard to say which more suited the values of the family who built the house in 1904 where my family currently lives on lower Thurman Street. Their parents concurrently built the house next door and a four plex right behind those. I suspect they were middle class, workers who were benefitting from the jobs close by. I also suspect they enjoyed the pristine forests nearby, though had no guarantee they would remain. I do know that they could have no idea what dangers lurked ahead as industrial activity boomed. There is very little science today to help us understand how these chemicals effect us, and almost none regarding the synergistic effects of 82 of them.

On the eve of the 2nd Portland Air Toxics Solution Advisory Committee meeting, I think it is time for our Environmental Quality Commission to address the unique problems of Portland's air pollution by ensuring that the Air Toxics benchmarks are truly protective of public health. The current benchmarks are incapable of addressing the exposures of those most at risk, like children, and those who live in toxic hotspots, exposed to all 82 toxic chemicals and heavy metals. You can send a message to the DEQ that specifically asks the EQC to ensure that the Air Toxic Health Benchmarks protect children from short term and long term exposure to toxic pollutants in the environment where they live, play and go to school.

Public Comment closes June 30th on the Air Toxics Benchmark ruling, and there will be a public hearing May 18th. I urge you to make your voice heard that we expect out regulatory process to be protective of public health.

The public meeting the public wasn't invited to.

2010-04-05T18:17:00.000-07:00

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has often taken the chance to sing the praises of citizens who are actively engaged in the effort to advocate for cleaner air. Just this past week, the NW Examiner's April edition came out with a letter from Andy Ginsburg praising Paul Koberstein's interest in air quality and the health of residents of the northwest neighborhood. Of course, he was also trying to take back statements he made on record about the effect of industrial pollution, but that's for another blog.

You can imagine the surprise when I learned today that the DEQ held a public hearing in our neighborhood, at the Friendly House on March 30th, to review the Rule change regarding Air Toxics Benchmarks. You can view the public notice here.

Specifically, the notice states: DEQ [plans] to update air quality ambient benchmark concentrations for Ethyl Benzene, Lead, Manganese and Mercury.

Many of you may recall our effort last Fall that sent more than 700 postcards to the Governor's desk to address the concerns about the manganese benchmark. Then in December 2009, some of you showed up at, and provided testimony at, the actual Air Toxics Science Advisory Committee meeting where these benchmarks were discussed. So it is reasonable to assume that if the agency felt it necessary, or even if law dictates, holding a public hearing to finalize this, that some in our neighborhood would be counted among the public that would participate.

But we never received the notification of this public hearing on the Manganese and other benchmarks. I contacted others active on this issue and not one had heard of this public hearing.

I would have assumed, if the agency was sincere in their interest to have the public participate, I could have been notified about this meeting either from any of the many Air Quality and Northwest Region DEQ staff with which I have had regular contact over the last 12 months, or through my role on the Portland Air Toxics Solutions Advisory Committee, or by whatever means it was advertised publically, or finally, as a subscriber to any one of the five DEQ online updates I have signed up for and from which I regularly receive information. As it stands, Nina DeConcini, NWR administrator for DEQ told me in a very contritely worded email, that "The update to the air quality ambient benchmark concentrations for Ethyl Benzene, Lead, Manganese and Mercury is currently slated to go the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) at the end of this month for their consideration. We are open to reopening the public comment period and having more hearings, but this would delay the EQC's action by at least two months."

This issue of conscientiously including citizen involvement in the regulatory process causing delay is beginning to sound very familiar, and frankly, feel like blackmail. We are already suffering through a two year delay on the renewal of the ESCO permit because somehow a robust and thorough process did not fit into the usual calendar. Maybe it is time for the agency to reconsider how it currently accounts for citizen engagement in its process.

I think the omission of any meaningful communication from the agency to the neighborhood for this public hearing, illustrates the vacuity of the agency's effort at public engagement. This is either a demonstration of gross negligence or malfeasance. Either way, it underscores the tremendous uphill battle of keeping an engaged and informed public participating in the process when the agency affords it.

Why I support Rex Burkholder for Metro President

2010-03-31T13:33:00.000-07:00

I think it would be a misrepresentation to call this an official endorsement, as if I was in a position to offer meaningful weight, so let's stick with political musing. I intend only to share my thoughts, and encourage all of you to choose your candidates wisely, vote with purpose, and to remind the candidates why you voted for them. I don't think our air toxics problem is a litmus test issue for political candidates, yet. But I do think that the way candidates, and already elected officials, engage on this issue is very telling about their attitudes toward their jobs and the concerns of their constituents.

There have been some notable efforts by our representatives to look at what jurisdiction they have in the area of air pollution, and how best they can use it. Representative Mitch Greenlick has been particularly active, making the connection between pollution and public health, he has been looking at ways to plug gaps in our legislation that will safeguard our kids from exposure to air toxics. His leadership on the House Health Committee has galvanized that group to push for new policy for the 2011 legislative session. Notable support from that committee has come from Rep. Ben Cannon and Sen. Suzanne Bonamici.

Other efforts to engage public officials has been less gratifying. From our Governor's office which oversees the DEQ and Environmental Quality Commission which is the agency's rule making body, we have received nothing but form letter replies, and responses from the DEQ officials to whom the letters were forwarded. I sat through yesterday's Governor's debate on the environment, and it is clear that either Democratic candidate, Bradbury or Kitzhaber, will bring a more purposeful mandate to our environmental policies than the current resident of that office.

Multnomah County officials, while responsible for our County Health Department and Public Schools, say that the County has no authority over air pollution, even if it is adversely affecting the health of children while at school.

The city, which has authority over nuisance ordinances between neighbors and businesses, does not seem engaged to move on the ongoing -and classic- nuisance complaints of odors and dust when they come from one of the large industrial sources of pollution. Mayor Adams and City Council member Amanda Fritz are very aware of the NW neighborhood's ongoing struggle with industrial emissions, and seem genuinely supportive of our efforts; and yet again, there seems to be lacking any specific authority or jurisdiction over the air pollution issue. I think for both the city and the county, this pattern of evasion underscores the need to put air toxic pollution, and enforcement against offenders, into the hands of the elected officials closest to the sources.

Which brings me to Metro and Rex Burkholder. As the nation's only elected regional government, Metro was put in place specifically because - as their website says - "clean air and clean water do not stop at city limits or county lines. Neither does the need for jobs, a thriving economy and good transportation choices for people and businesses in our region. Voters have asked Metro to help with the challenges that cross those lines and affect the 25 cities and three counties in the Portland metropolitan area."

Since Rex Burkholder first showed up at the Air Quality Town Hall Meeting we held last spring in the Chapman ES Auditorium, he has continued to be an ardent supporter of our effort. I believe, that if Rex were Metro President, he would consider taking a look at the lack of city, county and regional jurisdiction over the "nuisance" of air pollution, and give us a representative, closer than Salem, which citizens could turn to in resolving the oppressive presence of industrial odors and black dust, which affect the region's residential livability. His track record of innovation and leadership from a founder of BTA and assisting in the establishment of the Center for a Livable Future demonstrate that he not only has leadership skills, but the unique capability to look at creative new options to solve old problems. And that's why I support Rex for Metro President.

Why BPA and Air Toxics are linked

2010-03-19T22:59:00.000-07:00

Our friend at USA Today, Blake Morrison, has just published an article covering the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) damning report on chemical policies released this past week. The report was an assessment of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) performance over the past decade in regards to safeguarding our children from toxic chemicals. Morrison reports: "Top officials routinely ignored scores of recommendations by the agency's own children's health advisory committee." And the article goes on to quote Ted Schettler, science director for the advocacy group Science and Environmental Health Network, who has served on EPA and National Academy of Sciences advisory committees: the problems "are setting the stage for an overwhelming wave of disease and disability...in the coming decades." Of particular concern, Morrison notes: "the lack of information about thousands of chemicals and how they interact with each other."

Which brings me to the toxic bisphenol or BPA. Oregon's failure to pass a bill to ban BPA in baby bottles seems like a very sad indicator of the political will in this state. As I reported in an earlier blog, Jon Isaacs of OLCV said of this bill: "I don't think it's possible for a public health issue to be any less controversial and straightforward to Oregonians than keeping toxic chemicals out of food containers intended for babies." But instead of joining the ranks of Maryland, Washington, and Wisconsin -states who all figured out that we need to act faster on information that the FDA and others have now- Oregon legislators split 15 - 15--and a tie means a loss.

What to do now? Oregon Environmental Council has vowed the fight over BPA is not over. And I would implore that we consider the BPA fight closely linked to the air toxics fight. This isn't a niche issue, this is a chemical used ubiquitously: plastic bottles, baby bottles, nearly all canned goods. Consumer Reports and Environmental Working Group each issued extensive studies of the hazards of BPA late last year. And this issue is about the broader issue of chemical reform and the proliferation of industrial chemicals into our air, our food chain and our environment. We need to raise our voices and let our legislators know we expect Oregon to be at the front of this movement.

Earthquakes and Tank Farms

2010-03-12T21:27:00.000-08:00

There was a timely subject addressed at today's City Club Friday Forum. The speaker was Scott Burns, Professor of Geology, Portland State University, and the talk entitled: Earthquakes in Oregon: Past, Present and Future.

I encourage everyone to listen to this fascinating discussion of earthquakes in our region.

Specifically, I want to thank NW Neighbor and City Club Member, Isabel Sheridan, for raising the important question at the forum of the safety of the petroleum tank farms in the event of a large earthquake. You may listen on line @ http://www.pdxcityclub.org/ or listen to the rebroadcast tonight on OPB at 7pm - 8pm. Isabel's question comes @ minute 41:39 - 44:12, as the first members' question after the speaker has finished his presentation (follows host's question). She asks the following:

"In Portland there are 536 petroleum tanks with a 300 million plus gallon capacity and they are situated on fault lines, in an earthquake zone, fire zones, etc. What government agency, for example DEQ, is exercising its jurisdiction to ensure that these facilities have addressed earthquake preparedness?"

Spoiler alert: after a very interesting explanation, Mr. Burns ends his answer with "We have a lot of work to do."

Thank you to Isabel for raising this important question at the forum.

DEQ Admits: Emissions from foundry are 95% of air quality problem for neighborhood

2010-03-06T09:38:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, the March NW Examiner featured an astounding article about the air quality issue in the NW neighborhood. For most observers it seems like stating the obvious. But for those of us that live and breathe in close proximity to industrial facilities, routinely cleaning the black dust off our porches and smelling the pungent metallic odors with regularity-it is nothing short of miraculous. With stubborn resolve for over a decade, our regulatory agency has repeated the mantra: industry is less than 10% of the problem.

Knowing that history was no small part of my resolve last spring when I took on this issue. When I came across the study published in USA Today, showcasing industrial emissions in isolation, several neighborhoods in Portland were clearly ground zero toxic industrial hotspots of the worst kind. My first thought was: "This is the game changer. This is when we finally can take on the hard work of specifically mitigating the problem of industrial air toxics."

Unfortunately, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, was not ready to change so fast. In the first of many email exchanges that I received almost exactly a year ago on March 26th, 2009, Cory Ann Wind, NW region Air Quality Manager reiterates:

The study that you are referring to is the one that originally appeared in the USA Today in December 2008. The study uses information based on the Toxics Release Inventory, a chemical reporting database only for larger industry. But to fully understand air pollution, information from all sources of air pollution - industrial and business activities, cars and trucks, home and commercial heating, and population activities such as open burning, landscape maintenance and solvent use – must be taken into account. Typically, industrial activities are a very small (less than 10%) piece of the pollution puzzle.

This response, or specifically, this resolve the agency had to deflect attention from industry has been repeated many times since that first exchange. Most notably, in two legislative hearings (Aug '09 & Sept. '09) on air pollution and health that intended to examine the issue of the effect of industrial emissions on public health, Andy Ginsburg, DEQ Air Quality administrator instead showed up with a long slide presentation on the hazards of wood smoke.

There have been many points during this past year that signaled neighbors were gaining momentum on the air quality issue, but none can be more significant than this point when the regulatory agency takes the critical first step in acknowledging the problem out loud. I can not fathom why it has taken this long, and what might have triggered the change in Andy Ginsburg's heart to make such a statement, one for which he clearly understands the implications and effect on the discussion. I do think back to my first encounter that I described in a posting last July with DEQ Director Dick Pedersen. All present at that meeting who had worked with and more likely against DEQ for years, were impressed with the relatively new director's sincerity and integrity to be a change agent, and to reassert the protection of the environment into the mission of the Department of Environmental Quality.

I think it is clear that Dick Pedersen is the real deal.

DEQ's Response to Gas Odor 2/28 - 3/1

2010-03-03T10:39:00.000-08:00

As a service to the many who were concerned by the gas odor in the city last Sunday-Monday, I would like to share with you the response I received yesterday from DEQ. Cory Ann Wind is the NW Region Air Quality Manager, as the agency set her as the point person for the public response. Her email specifically addresses the requests I made in an email to DEQ Director Dick Pedersen on Monday.:

From Ms. Wind's email response:

"We fully understand your frustrations and are similarly concerned about this odor incident. We have been working since yesterday morning to investigate it. We have not been able to determine an exact cause, but wanted to respond to the questions you posed in your message and also update you on our activities.

If the situation is life-threatening, please call 911. 911 may refer calls to the Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS) which is managed by Oregon Emergency Management in Salem. DEQ is one of many entities that make up this system. This system is manned after hours and over the weekends for immediate response. OERS typically refers incidents of spills of oil or other hazardous substances to DEQ. DEQ did not receive a referral from OERS for odor complaints that were logged over the weekend. Non-urgent complaints should come directly to DEQ via our Northwest Region complaint line: 503-229-5393 or via e-mail at: nwrcomplaints@deq.state.or.us.

DEQ received some calls this weekend, primarily from residents of Northwest Portland about natural gas-related odors. The calls continued Monday morning, 3/1, but more from North Portland, described more as fuel-related or chemical-related odors. Combined, DEQ received 11 e-mail complaints and 10 phone complaints from N and NW Portland. The nature of these complaints were characterized as “industrial” odor, “oil smell”, “diesel odor”, and “unburned fuel”.

The following are the wind observations from our monitoring station in North Portland:

· February 28: from the northerly direction and light

· March 1: from the northerly direction and calm

We spoke with NW Natural Gas. They had crews out over the weekend and on Monday morning, 3/1. They confirmed that it was not a natural gas leak at any of their facilities or from any of their customers. Our complaints coordinator also checked in with the City of Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) and confirmed that they have been receiving complaints all weekend, but had not found a source. They were not observing any odors at their facility located in St. Johns. Along with the citizen complaints, we also received one call each from facilities representatives from Kaiser Permanente’s North Interstate medical facility located at 3500 N Interstate and the Portland Public Schools administrative building at 500 N Dixon. DEQ staff has contacted each complainant to follow up and explain what DEQ is doing to investigate.

DEQ responded to these complaints on Monday 3/1 with the following:

Sending staff to the North Portland area around the University of Portland to investigate the current (3/1) odor. Staff identified various odors characterized as “autoclave”, “roofing tar”, “exhaust”. No specific follow-up.
Sending staff to Swan Island to follow up on a lead we received from Northwest Natural Gas. A Northwest Natural Gas leakage inspector said maintenance being done on the Going Bridge to Swan Island may have been the source. Staff observed that grinding of concrete was being done but would not produce an odor. However, the crew he spoke to mentioned a strong “gear oil” smell coming from the rail yard earlier on Monday morning, 3/1. We have contacted Union Pacific Rail Yard about this, but have not heard back from them.
Sending staff to NW Portland to investigate the odors from the weekend complaints. No odors were detected at the time in the field, but staff recommended follow-up with Carson Oil and Myers Containers located on NW St. Helens Road. Permit staff will be following up on these items.
Communication between staff and Vigor (formerly Cascade General shipyard) to investigate their oily wastewater treatment plant. This treatment process is a potential source of fuel odors. They were operating on Sunday and Monday but immediately ceased operation when we notified them of the complaints we were receiving and of the “inversion” conditions that were in place. The permit writer will follow up on this.
The Northwest Region Air Quality duty officer was devoted exclusively to taking phone calls all day (3/1) for additional incoming complaints and getting back to complainants with information.

Each of these DEQ staff is summarizing their actions and recommending follow-up. We can make those available to you and others who would like to review them. We will continue to investigate the source of the odors until we exhaust our leads of potential sources. DEQ takes these odor complaints seriously. We want to be able to provide information that is timely and accurate to residents. We'll keep you posted on any developments and don't hesitate to contact me at any time.

Cory-Ann Wind

NWR AQ Manager

wind.cory@deq.state.or.us

(503) 229-5567

What is in our AIR?

2010-03-02T12:11:00.000-08:00

There has been a disturbing trend of gasoline odors in the NW neighborhood this past year. As neighbors to the Industrial Sanctuary in NW Portland, we are pretty accustomed to the onslaught of nasty odors. We even have developed our own key of association, to better help identify where they are coming from. Overwhelmingly, most people experience the industrial odors emanating from ESCO, described variously as: burnt toast, burning metal, and burning rubber. But these acute and persistent gas odors are a different animal altogether.

My first experience with the gas odor was last spring on May 23rd, 2009. As I finished a run at Lower Macleay, I was walking up the little cut through from Upshur to Thurman that would be an extension of NW 29th. As I emerged from the brush I was assaulted by the strong presence of a gas odor - to me it smelled like the gas that comes when the burner fails to light and the natural gas to the stove is on. I was therefore not surprised to see later that day the Northwest Natural Gas truck across the street at my neighbor's house. She had also smelled it and was concerned there was a natural gas leak at her house or somewhere nearby. I later learned that NWNG was called to the neighborhood over 100 times for the same reason. It wasn't until neighbors saw the van outside that they realized this was not just their home. At that time we were able to put it together that this was something affecting the whole neighborhood. Even as disturbing as that was, most troubling was that despite repeated calls, and the ongoing persistence over two weeks, the neighbors never got a response and most significantly never got a conclusive answer as to the source of the odor. Many things were ruled out, including NW natural gas customers, sewer or water problems, the fuel burning at the airport which happened at a different time and the wind patterns did not support that fumes from which would have carried into the neighborhood.

Whatever the source, this needs to be stopped. If this is coming from a stationary gasoline or petroleum source such as any of the 536 petroleum tanks (more info here) in the industrial sanctuary, we are potentially being exposed to dangerous levels of benzene a known carcinogen linked to leukemia and other cancers. We already know, with our high levels of benzene in gasoline that is not due to be lowered until 2012 through federal legislation, people near freeways in Portland are breathing nearly 40 times the legal limits of benzene (more on the Wyden backed federal legislation can be found in a 2007 Blue Oregon article here). And of course without an adequate monitoring network in our city, we really have no idea what our exposure is. It makes it all the more critical that the city or the state's Department of Environmental Quality has a plan of response, which includes:

1. Establishing central response team that can receive citizen reports and send an investigator immediately. Something that can react with the same efficacy as NW Natural Gas.

2. Establish real time permanent monitoring that can alert residents if there are dangerous levels of toxins in the air.

3. Find the source of these acute gasoline odor events in the neighborhoods surrounding the NW industrial sanctuary that most consistently and frequently report them.

To get this done, it is time to act. We should write our Governor, our mayor, our state legislators, and the head of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality:

1. Governor Kulongoski http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/contact_us.shtml
2. Mayor Adams: mayorsam@ci.portland.or.us
3. Representative Mitch Greenlick: greenlick.rep@state.or.us
4. Dick Pedersen (Director ODEQ): PEDERSEN.Dick@deq.state.or.us

NW PORTLAND GASOLINE ODOR EVENT

2010-03-02T11:50:00.000-08:00

A gasoline odor event was reported last Sunday, neighbors yet again experiencing an acute presence of gasoline/gas odors. Unlike the better documented gasoline odor from last spring (23 May - 6 June 2009), this one is more similar to others that have not persisted as long. (There was also a presence of strong gas odors reported early on Sunday, 7 February 2010 close in NW; and another on 24 February 2010 at 6:00pm by a group meeting near the St. John's Bridge). My understanding of our most recent experience on Sunday 28 February 2010 is:

7:30 - 8:00 SUNDAY while out hiking on the forest park trails above the neighborhood, a resident was so bothered by the presence of gasoline odor that she told her hiking partner: " The air is getting to me, I am going to stop." This person went back to her NW home and filed an online complaint through portlandair.org

8:00am SUNDAY-- staff that opened Food Front called NWNG because of the strong presence of gas odor at the store. It was reported that NWNG did not find any source related to a natural gas customer.

9:00am SUNDAY-- Cyclist @ NW Everett and 19th reports through Twitter to @pdxair that there is a strong gasoline smell at that corner.

9:00am SUNDAY-- Neighbor at St. Honore Bakery on NW Thurman smells acute gasoline odor--this person made a phone call to DEQ 800 emergency number who directed her to 911 who directed it back to NWNG. (This same person has received multiple phone calls back from DEQ, and has been in ongoing dialogue with agency staff).

10:30am SUNDAY-- Cyclist on St Helen's Road reports strong smell of gasoline/gas in front of CMS, LLC.

2:00pm MONDAY -- DEQ staff and Sharon Genasci (NWDA H&E Chair) knock on residents' doors who registered online complaints to inquire about association with ESCO.

This is not to say these are the only complaints, but it gives us a pretty good understanding of the timeline, the placement, the agency response.

In the wake of this, and the history of events like this, the neighborhood should demand the following:

1. Full report of all complaints the agency received, and the subsequent response--this would include, but not limited to: phone, online, indirect reports from other agency.

2. Report of NWNG complaints and response

3. Assessment of prevailing wind patterns during the period of time that the event was recorded.

4. Report of all potential possible sources for this kind of acute gasoline odor.

In addition a huge source of frustration is not knowing who to call or what a person should do when this occurs The neighborhood needs critical direction from DEQ, as to which of the following avenues does the agency deem MOST effective in eliciting an immediate response when there is an acute odor event such as this:

1. Oregon Emergency Response System – 1-800-452-0311

2. Online: http://www.deq.state.or.us/programs/enforcement/docs/PollutionReportingform.pdf

3. 911

4. www.portlandair.org

BPA Ban fails in Oregon Senate

2010-02-17T09:07:00.000-08:00

The Oregon Senate failure to pass the BPA ban today is a wake up call. As Jon Isaacs wrote on the OLCV blog, Feb 15th in anticipation of the passing of Senate Bill 1032: "I don't think it's possible for a public health issue to be any less controversial and straightforward to Oregonians than keeping toxic chemicals out of food containers intended for babies." The Oregon Environmental Council chronicled a whole list of scientific information regarding the harm to children in supporting the ban, including:

Premature babies are exposed to levels of BPA ten times greater than the general population
BPA exposure is linked to heart disease, diabetes and liver abnormalities in humans
The Centers for Disease Control found BPA exposure in 93% of Americans age 6 and up during a test in 2007.

What this tells me is you can't take anything for granted, not common sense, not clear and compelling health outcomes, not the fact that Washington, Wisconsin, California, and Minnesota already had pushed ahead; and not that the federal government has indicated it will enact this as well.

When it comes to curtailing toxins in our environment, the air we breathe and the products we use, citizens must continue to apply the necessary pressure through letters to our public representatives and newspapers, and through public engagement in the regulatory process.

A few weeks ago, I received an update from the Department of Environmental Quality regarding its Portland Air Toxic Solutions Advisory Committee. I am one of over 30 professionals and private citizens sitting on this committee to devise the plan to reduce the dangerous air toxins identified in the Portland air shed. This is not easy, as we found after the first meeting last August. Even agreeing on the ground rules is contentious when you have competing interests at the table. But being at the table is critical, and not taking anything for granted is essential, to seeing real and measurable improvements to our policy of regulating and reducing air toxics.

Despite the tremendous strides on this issue this past year and the growing national momentum behind curbing the health endangering chemicals and toxic substances in our environment, the failure of the BPA ban in the Oregon legislature reminds me of the uphill battle citizens face to push back the tide on the proliferation of chemicals in our midst. We must continue to speak out about our concerns.

February Update

2010-02-11T11:28:00.000-08:00

Lest you think your Air Quality Team has been slacking, time to fill you in on some of what is in the works. I am going to focus most on where we are with ESCO, but I want to briefly address the Tank Farms. Unfortunately, a robust process does take time, but I think we should be very encouraged by the increased diligence and thoroughness, and generally, the additional attention that is being given to address our concerns of the health risks of exposure to air toxins.

PETROLEUM TANK FARM HEARING -- PRE-MEETING

DEQ is in the process of scheduling and planning a hearing on these permits. Part of that will be arranging for a pre-meeting where citizen representatives will be able to meet with the permit writers to learn more about how these facilities are currently regulated. This meeting is tentatively set for Wed. March 10th @5pm. It is DEQ's intention to advertise it and make it open to the public. I want to let you know that Aubrey Baldwin, staff attorney from Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, Mark Riskedahl, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Sharon Genasci, NWDA H&E, myself and representatives from the Linnton community have all committed to participate in this pre-meeting. I feel very confident this will be an important opportunity for us to learn more. The official public hearing is in and of itself a very static process, meant to be a process of recording public comment, not discussion or debate. While this pre-meeting is open to the public, and I welcome anyone who wishes to attend, I am frankly trying to ensure a productive exchange that a smaller group affords. If any of you feel strongly about attending and/or have specific concerns that you want addressed at this meeting PLEASE EMAIL ME with your concerns and we will make sure they get addressed. Sharon Genasci has said, and I agree, that it will be more important to turn out bodies at the actual hearing later down the road.

ESCO INDEPENDENT AUDIT

Over the holidays, a group of us worked with DEQ on the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) that the agency will put out to hire the contractor to execute the independent audit of the ESCO plants. We expect a final draft soon, with a goal of hiring someone by April. Up to this point, we are satisfied with DEQ's transparency and willingness to listen to neighbors concerns. A team of us including NWDA Health & Environment Chair Sharon Genasci, Attorney Aubrey Baldwin, NEDC's Mark Riskedahl, Bob Holmstrom, and Dr. Bob Amundson poured over the draft and offered feedback on modifications and specific areas of concern primarily within the scope of work, but also in regards to criteria of selection for the contractor. I also want to thank neighbors Tom Giese, Will Aitchison, and Kitty Midson for their time on this task.

Estimated date of Independent Contract to Commence: April

ESCO TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

ESCO will, as part of this procedure, be conducting an Alternative Analysis- the company has invited neighbors to participate in the development of the Scope of Work for this preliminary process. The AA will, as ESCO's Carter Webb explains: evaluate air pollution control equipment at ESCO's Portland plants, and will identify potential alternatives to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants, particulate and odor. We very much appreciate that ESCO has included myself, Sharon Genasci, Dr. Bob Amundsom, Bob Holmstrom and NEDC's John Krallman in this process.

Estimated date of ESCO AA completion: April

AMBIENT AIR MONITORING

I would also like to report on a meeting earlier this week which Carter Webb requested with DEQ's Nina DeConcini and myself to discuss the company's offer of money towards monitoring at Chapman School. I explained to him my position, which I have shared with most of you, and articulated in a letter to the editor which was published in the December NW Examiner, but want to make clear:

While neighbors appreciate the value of monitoring, it is generally believed at this time the limited scope of the proposed monitoring (2 months of ambient air quality monitoring-such as was conducted by EPA at the Harriet Tubman site this past fall) offers little additional understanding of the toxins in our air, and is generally recognized to be of little value if conducted for any time period less than 2 years. We have that kind of historical ambient air monitoring data, as well as the results of a neighborhood sponsored dust analysis, both corroborating significant levels of industrial air toxins present in the neighborhood. DEQ has also budgeted for a continuation of the fenceline monitoring which will expand on the abbreviated picture we got from last year's report provided by Cooper's Environmental Services when they conducted a feasibility study of their monitoring technology on behalf of the EPA.

Monitoring will have the most value to our neighborhood when it can be used to confirm the efficacy of any potential changes made at the site identified through the independent audit. I will continue to support and fight for the funding to reestablish PERMANENT air quality monitoring at sites across the city to better inform and protect residents from the ongoing presence of toxic air pollution.

Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Kinder-Morgan, Equilon (Shell) and Chevron Title V Permits up for renewal

2010-01-17T18:15:00.000-08:00

7 companies

8 terminals

586 storage tanks

300 million gallon capacity

1,394 tons of volatile organic compounds emitted annually

--This is a description from Paul Koberstein, of CASCADIA TIMES, of the Northwest Portland Petroleum Tank Farm situated between Hwy 30 and the Willamette River, as analyzed from current Title V air pollution operating permits. On the ten year anniversary of publishing BAD AIR DAYS, Cascadia Times has been looking back into the air quality issues of Northwest Portland. After CT's publication of the story of faulty control technologies at the fuel transfer stations along the Willamette, David Paul a leading attorney with a soft spot for the environment, successfully represented NW neighbors fighting Chevron for failing to properly capture hundreds of tons of VOC's in their fuel transfer process at the NW terminal.

Currently three companies' Title V air permits are up for renewal: Equilon (Shell), Chevron and Kinder-Morgan. If you click on their names, you can go to the Department of Environmental Quality's website announcements. According to Koberstein, "Kinder Morgan's gasoline storage tanks contain 30 percent of the 300 million gallons of gasoline stored here in Portland, and they leak like crazy." He estimates 236 tons per year. California has required that companies ensure storage facilities have a leakage rate of no more than 100 parts per million (ppm); Oregon allows for 10,000 ppm. That, and the fact that our gasoline (due to a combination of refinery standards and where it is sourced from) has some of the highest Benzene content in the US (nearly 3x higher), makes for a really bad stew.

If you live in the Northwest neighborhood, you may recall in spring 2009, experiencing a strong presence of "natural gas" or "unburned fuel" odors that persisted for almost two weeks. NW Natural Gas was called over 100 times, by anxious residents concerned about an active leak in their home. A medical clinic on NW 23rd and Lovejoy called an inspector out to determine the cause of the odor. Lincoln High School was thoroughly inspected by a hazmat team, and Ainsworth ES evacuated the students before it was determined the gas odor was not originating on site. Many residents complained of dizziness and headaches. Though we were never provided a definitive explanation, many neighbors suspect the tank farms as the potential source of those odors.

For this reason, residents have requested a public hearing before these permits are renewed. It is essential for citizens to make a strong showing at the public hearing for these two permits, to express concerns about the safety of these nearly 100 year old fuel storage units that have the potential to leak hundreds of volatile and deadly HAPS into our airshed including Benzene, a known carcinogen. The request for a hearing has been accepted by DEQ and I will forward information as soon as I have it. In the meantime, DEQ advises that the written public comments are due by the following dates (click following links for each companies' public records):

Equilon (Shell) 5pm, January 25th
DEQ Request for Comment
Draft Permit
Draft Review Report
Kinder-Morgan 5pm, January 26th
DEQ Request for Comment
Draft Permit
Draft Review Report
Chevron 5pm, January 26th DEQ
Request for Comment
Draft Permit
Draft Review Report

All comments may be submitted to:
Catherine Blaine NWR AQ Permit Coordinator

nwraqpermits@deq.state.or.us

If you would like to receive notification directly, please email: pdxair@me.com, or you may follow us on Twitter: pdxair.

Thanksgiving Meditation

2009-11-23T16:38:00.000-08:00

Ever since my niece was born, half into our family of Minnesota Catholics of European descent and half into the Lakota nation, I have had to reconsider much of the world I take for granted. Some of those things are in the details, in insidious stereotypes perpetuated by sport team mascots and Peter Pan. Others are in the larger context of our cultural mythology, like the institutionalized teaching of the uniquely American Thanksgiving holiday, or even more unique: Columbus Day. It is not a far stretch of empathy to understand that a portion of our nation may not see either of those events as a reason to celebrate, or certainly in the same light that has been shined on them from the European perspective.

Thanksgiving is still one of my favorites, a holiday of gathering with friends, or less often these days, family; a chance to reflect on gratefulness, and an unabashed excuse to bask in self-absorbed guiltless culinary indulgence (hours in the kitchen all to myself!). More considered reading of history has only added depth to its importance. My total immersion this year into the effort to reduce toxic industrial air pollution provides interesting fodder for meditation while chopping onions and herbs. I find myself considering what was lost, as much as gained in that fateful collision of the two worlds represented in the history book as "pilgrims" and "indians."

As a civilization we had a chance then, and in the ensuing years of establishing what would become the United States of America, to reconsider what was "own-able." Ownership and sovereign rights vex civilization to this day. How different the world economy and potentially the environment and climate would be if we didn't assume that the natural world was own-able. It occurs to me now, that since certain classes of people were still deemed own-able, convincing power and money hungry entities that trees, land, water, and air should be universally shared, would be nearly impossible.

The history of corporate America is littered with an undulating path of push and pull regarding sovereign rights. Early 19th century corporate leaders resisted labor organizing, leery of the inherent concept that employees had rights or ownership of any decision making regarding company practices. In the 1990's when I worked for NIKE, the idea of rights filtered down to consumers, as activists insisted that a company that makes so much money from the African American community and culture, should also make sure that they are more inclusive in their hiring practices.

My hope for this century is a reformation of the cost of the environment. We need the external costs to be internalized, to be reflected in the value put on each and every thing we do and we produce. I have faith in the free market, and continue to be inspired by the ingenuity of innovation that characterizes American business practice. So I believe that once external costs of polluting air, of consuming non-renewable resources, and of harm to public health and well-being are calculated, businesses will be able to adapt and continue to do what they do best: determine a way to build wealth and capital. But, the problem I see for the future of sustainable business, is that we haven't stopped subsidizing non-sustainable business. If a company can continue to process non-renewable raw materials spewing hundreds of thousands of persistent bioaccumulative toxins into the air, land and water and can still claim, as ESCO did in the letter to the NW Examiner editor in November 2009: "results assured us that ESCO is not causing harm," then the bike component manufacturer around the corner with a net zero carbon output doesn't have a chance unless we find a "value" to be added beyond market differentiation.

We need a discount, or at least a financial benefit, for the businesses who do no harm, who do not add to the health care costs of the state, or the superfund clean up, or the Department of Environmental Quality's costs to protect humans and the environment. The businesses who, in effect, do not take for granted that impact on the natural environment is free.

International Climate Action Day

2009-10-24T09:27:00.000-07:00

Do you know what the number 350 means? If you do nothing else to mark this year's International Climate Action Day, I suggest you discover the meaning behind this number, and why an organization has devoted itself to educating the world to this cause.

350 parts per million is the magic number of sustainable levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Anything more than that, scientists say, causes Artic ice to melt, widespread drought, and kills forests. The earth is currently at 390 ppm. Yes. We are too high. But, the organizers say: "If we can stop pouring more carbon into the atmosphere, then forests and oceans will slowly suck some of it out of the air and return us to safe levels."

350.org is an International movement (click here to see more about this event) to raise citizen awareness and create a collective sense of urgency when our governments meet in December in Copenhagen to agree on a new climate treaty.

To live the creed: Think Global Act Local, Neighbors for Clean Air has launched a letter writing campaign aimed at reducing Portland's local industrial toxic air emissions. Citizens of Portland have already adopted lifestyle changes that reduced our local carbon emissions in 2007 to 1% below 1990 levels. That is outstanding, and shows a commitment by individuals to make the necessary sacrifices to reverse the damage of global climate change. But, that is only part of our air pollution problem in Portland. Industry makes up at least 15% of the total air pollution soup in our tri-county air shed, and as far as we can tell, looking at one industrial polluter, that number is only increasing.

So our 350 action is to send 350 letters (ok, I would rather it be 3500) to the Governor's office to ask for the following specific actions to curtail industrial air pollution in our state:

1. Reduce the Ambient Benchmark Concentration for manganese to the lower 0.09 ug/m3 level recently adopted by California.

2. Monitor to ensure the ambient conditions of fenceline neighborhoods of known industrial lead sources do not exceed the new stricter federal requirement of no more than 0.15µg/m3 per quarter.

Why these two actions?

Before last spring, when I came across the report published in USA Today about industrial air pollution and our schools, I knew little about the air toxic Manganese. But it is this toxin that put fifteen Portland schools, primarily in North and Northwest Portland, in the top 2% of the schools nationwide with the worst air due to industrial air toxics. Manganese, like lead, is a potent neurotoxin. There are no safe levels of exposure to children. While we have had some constructive conversation about the air toxics problem in our city over the last six months, there have been no substantive changes.

It is time to hold industry in this state to the same high standard we hold ourselves, to be part of the solution. This takes incremental rule changes and specific legislation that gets at source specific mitigation. This is how we will all win, and Oregon will truly become the greenest state in America.

Send your letter to the Governor today:

Governor Kulongoski

160 State Capitol

900 Court Street

Salem, Oregon 97301-4047

or online email: http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/contact_us.shtml

Neighbors for Clean Air + STAND for Children

2009-10-21T22:18:00.000-07:00

I am excited to announce an important partnership in the effort to clean the air of toxic industrial emissions around our schools and neighborhood. The newly formed West-side chapter of Stand for Children (http://www.stand.org) has partnered with Neighbors for Clean Air, and will make protecting our children by advocating for Air Toxics reduction one of their top priorities. The cooperation between our organizations will allow us to coordinate efforts and speak with a stronger voice.

Founding members of the West-side Portland Stand for Children chapter are joining the thousands across the state already advocating to protect our children and the services they need to thrive especially in this tough budget climate, where nothing can be taken for granted. If you have not already joined Stand, I encourage you to join now: http://www.stand.org/Page.aspx?pid=1361. A modest donation of any amount not only helps pay for the full-time legislative lobbyist that ensures our concerns as parents are heard in Salem, but every due paying membership strengthens the power of our grassroots voice. Whether you become an active chapter member or a financial supporter, you will have the satisfaction of knowing you are making children a higher priority, and supporting the effort for clean air in the neighborhood. So have your voice counted today. If you have any more questions about the West-side chapter of Stand, please contact Karen Ritzinger karen.ritzinger@hotmail.com.

ESCO Emissions and Children's Health

2009-10-04T16:00:00.000-07:00

At a recent symposium on children's environmental health, Philip J. Landrigan, professor and chairman of preventative medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in NYC, outlined the challenges of protecting our children from the onslaught of diseases caused by the proliferation of toxic chemicals in the environment. Landigran said that there are 3,000 high-volume chemicals used today; for roughly half, there is no basic toxicity information publicly available. (You can read an article about the event here.) "The environment is a powerful determinant of human health, and there's no group more vulnerable or susceptible to adverse influences in the environment than kids," Landrigan said. "Pound-for-pound children experience greater exposure to chemicals than adults." Landrigan also noted that chronic childhood diseases linked to toxic chemical exposure is surging, estimating the costs in the US to be almost $55 billion a year. Any of us who are parents, know that these finite monetary costs don't even come close to describing the toll on families that children's health problems can impose.

What I am discovering as I get deeper into this issue of toxic industrial air pollution in our neighborhoods, is that so much about this is just not known. The federal government has only done exhaustive research on the health risks of the 6 criteria pollutants, leaving another 187 different hazardous air pollutants on their list. Admittedly, there are hundreds, if not thousands more toxic substances, not yet even identified. For example, by the EPA's own admission, some studies have found that cancer risks from diesel particulate matter, which is not even included in the measures above because of uncertainty regarding the appropriate values to use as cancer benchmarks, could exceed those of most other hazardous air pollutants. If the California's benchmark for diesel particulate matter were adopted, 95 percent of children would be considered to live in counties (including Multnomah County) where hazardous air pollutant estimates combined to exceed the 1-in-10,000 cancer risk benchmark.

Recently, Paul Koberstein of Cascadia Times, looked more closely at the emissions data of ESCO, a steel refinery named as the major contributor of toxic air pollution around 5 NW schools that were ranked in the top 2% of schools nationwide with the worst air due to exposure to industrial air pollution. Carter Webb of ESCO continues to insist that the emissions coming from the 3 plants located on the outskirts of the NW neighborhood do no harm. But with such an obvious lack of scientific data that supports that claim, I think it is time for the company to admit that they base their claim on a standard of regulatory compliance not scientific understanding of the synergistic health effects of hazardous air toxics. And, I believe that the company should admit these regulatory benchmarks are increasingly being shown to not adequately protect public health. When it comes to small children, and the impact on critical windows of development, there are no safe levels of inhaled manganese, lead, arsenic, and hexavalent chromium.

The Swigert family has operated ESCO for close to a century, with Hank Swigert being the latest to hold the position of chairman of the ESCO board, and continues as a board member since leaving that post. Much has been learned in the ensuing years; more often than not, whether it is alcohol, tobacco, or the host of pharmaceuticals that pregnant women unknowingly subjected their children to, we have learned that what today has yet to be proven harmful, reasonable doubt might be the precedence for later knowledge of the serious health risks undertaken. We are just beginning to learn about the dangers of toxic chemical exposures and how what we put in our air can harm us. Don't the companies that are using our common air space as the depository for their chemical waste owe it to the public to prove they are doing no harm?

Chrome VI found in ESCO's emissions

2009-10-04T11:03:00.000-07:00

Guest Columnist, Paul Koberstein asks:

What do Erin Brockovich, residents of Northwest Portland and some members of the Oregon National Guard serving in Iraq all have in common? The answer is: they all have experience with hexavalent chromium, a dangerous cancer-causing chemical.

Cascadia Times is reporting on its web site (www.times.org) that ESCO, owner of two steel foundries in the Northwest Portland neighborhood, has been emitting small amounts of hexavalent chomium, also known as chrome 6, since 2005 http://www.times.org/archives/2009/chromevi.html.

Cascadia Times is also reporting that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality had documentation of hexavalent chomium emissions at ESCO since 2005, but waited until September 2009 to release the data.

This disclosure comes on the heels of reports in The Oregonian that the Army and war contractor Kellogg, Brown & Root may have exposed hundreds of soldiers to dangerous levels of hexavalent chromium while they guarded civilian workers at a water treatment plant in Iraq (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/post_10.html). Among the troops exposed are at least 292 Oregon Army National Guard soldiers, including 16 who say they were sickened by the contact.

As The Oregonian reported on September 29, “Hexavalent chromium is a corrosion fighter so toxic that an amount the size of a grain of salt in a cubic yard greatly increases the risk of leukemia and lung, stomach, brain, renal, bladder and bone cancers. “

Erin Brockovich, is the Southern California legal researcher whose efforts to help residents of a small town who were stricken with chromium 6 exposure was dramatized by the 2000 movie starring Julia Roberts in the title role.

Right to Know

2009-09-13T21:20:00.000-07:00

"Every American has the right to know the chemicals to which they may be exposed in their daily living. Right-to-know laws provide information about possible chemical exposures." EPA website: Protect the Environment: Learn about your right to know.

A recent NW Examiner article documenting the contradictions and discrepencies in the emissions reports from ESCO Corp. reveals a troubling picture of the current state of toxins reporting. First established by the EPA in 1986, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was passed in response to concerns regarding environmental and safety hazards posed by the storage and handling of toxic chemicals. These concerns were triggered by the disaster in Bhopal, India. The Bhopal disaster, or Bhopal gas tragedy, was an industrial disaster that took place at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in the Indian city of Bhopal, Madhaya Pradesh. At midnight on 3 December 1984, the plant released an estimated 42 tons of toxic methyl isocynates (MIC) gas, exposing more than 500,000 people to MIC and other chemicals. The first official death toll was 2,259. The government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release. Others estimate 8,000-10,000 died within 72 hours and 25,000 have since died from gas-related diseases.

The Bhopal disaster is frequently cited as the world's worst industrial disaster. To reduce the likelihood of such a disaster in the United States, Congress imposed requirements on both states and regulated facilities, a hallmark of which was the creation, in 1988, of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), a database which provides information to the public about releases of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities into the environment through the air, water and land.

But what Paul Koberstein of The Cascadia Times, the investigative reporter responsible for the September Examiner article, uncovered as he plumbed the depths of the many reports of ESCO emissions is a dizzying array of calculations and varying lists of toxins, one list reported to EPA for TRI, one to DEQ, others that come up on their testing reports, and still others reported nowhere in the previous reports that come up in the fenceline monitoring that was conducted by Cooper Environmental Services. The effect for residents of the NW neighborhood reading this article is confusing and troubling. As one neighbor asked me after reading it, "why do they (ESCO) seem to lie if there is nothing to hide?"

The intent behind TRI and emissions reporting is to inform the public. But the information is anything but clear, often inspiring fear and confusion among citizens trying to assess their own risk of living in proximity to industrial sources of pollution. That's why the study of schools and industrial air pollution, reported in the USA Today report, was so useful. It translated complex industrial emissions information into data the public could understand: health risks. Was it a smoking gun, no? But using highly sophisticated risk drivers, which balanced the proportional toxicity of each chemical, its volume, smokestack heights and prevailing wind patterns that would effect its concentrations, it certainly gave us a blueprint for where to start. Looking at the model, and understanding that this model successfully predicted the high levels of toxins in the Ohio school that was subsequently shut down, it was reasonable in the wake of the publication of this report, for communities to investigate further when the data indicated a high probability of a toxic industrial pollution hot spot.

ESCO's answer to the USA Today report, as stated by Carter Webb at the Aug. 7th House Health Committee Interim Workgroup hearing chaired by Rep. Mitch Greenlick: "We look at the DEQ and the ESCO monitoring data and we see that our operations are not creating a risk to anyone." But, in reality, and in closer scrutiny of this self-reported data, and self-funded monitoring that Mr. Webb is referring to, is not that there is any solid science backing the understanding that the ESCO emissions don't cause physical harm or long term health risks. But that instead, ESCO emissions, which include heavy metals like nickel, lead, manganese and Chromium VI - all known to perpetuate indefinitely in the environment once introduced - fall under current ambient benchmark concentrations by which the company is regulated. In other words, the company is fully compliant with the letter of their permit.

But science has not established that there is any safe levels for lead and manganese, known neurotoxins; or Chromium VI the cancer causing compound made famous in Julia Robert's portrayal of Erin Brochovich. Or the synergistic health effects of the 64+ toxic chemicals listed in the emissions reports from ESCO.

This is industry's dilemma. They are paying significant amounts in fees to be permitted to pollute (money that amounts to 70% of DEQ's budget). And I imagine that they pay equal if not greater amounts to meet their compliance requirements and generally jump through the hoops to provide the reports required of them, not to mention the lobbyists to protect them. All for what? If you are not buying public trust with this investment than really what good is it? The EPA, the Clean Air Act, Citizens Right to Know, and TRI are all efforts by our federal government to provide US citizens with peace of mind. If the state agency's process of administering the regulations is flawed, or certainly its stringency - and the agency's loyalty -suspect, then the money and energy that industry dumps into the regulatory process is a waste. My argument is that industry needs transparency and a strong regulatory process as much as neighboring residents, to bank the public trust they so desperately depend on to continue to operate their facilities, emissions from which trespass on our public airshed in annoying odors and black dust.

At this point we can neither afford to go back to unregulated, unfettered toxic industrial emissions, or stay where we are, trapped by confusion, suspicion and fear. Our city and state legislators must provide us with the leadership to forge a new path forward, one that ties regulation firmly to the objective of realizing specific public health outcomes when science exists, and precautionary health safeguards when negative health outcomes can be reasonably anticipated.

Transparency

2009-08-23T10:12:00.001-07:00

It was disturbing to read The Oregonian article last week about DEQ's effort to assist a major industrial polluter in circumventing Federal emission laws: DEQ to help polluter seek federal break.

This article is not about jobs vs the environment. It is about DEQ's discretionary authority and the transparency of the process the agency uses to set priorities. It demonstrates the worst fear residents have about the alleged science that tells us industry is not a significant part of the air pollution problem in our city. Instead it is very possible to infer this science masks an agency bias, that while employing no economists on staff, the agency still chooses to weigh the financial interests of the industrial facilities that the DEQ is charged with the duty to regulate. This calls into question every aspect of the DEQ's Air Quality Division, including its basic assumptions for the Portland Air Toxics Solution which specifically has said addressing individual point sources of pollution will be excluded from consideration.

I appreciate that our elected officials like city and state representatives and the governor, may at times be faced with these kinds of tough decisions. Decisions that must look at what serves the greater public good: economy or environment. But this type of over arching decision should not be in the hands of the Department of Environmental Quality which has a mission statement to specifically safeguard the environment and public health and well-being.

In the time since I was given the opportunity to testify at the Health Interim Workgroup hearing, I have been trying to consider what legislative/policy steps might be taken to fix this problem. I have also taken part in the first of six meetings of the Portland Air Toxics Solution (PATS) Advisory Committee. And I have researched existing programs that are better addressing the mitigation of industrial pollutants. There are two things that I think could be specifically interesting for Portland and Oregon to consider:

1. Re-framing PATS to model after the Louisville, KY STAR program. This program brought industry to the table and held them to enforceable emissions standards based on a "no greater than 1 in a million risk" of additional cancers for any one source of toxic pollution. With 32 of 37 industrial facilities in compliance within 2 years, the city has seen dramatic drops in toxic air pollution including a 75% drop in 1,3 Butadiene. Compare this to PATS, which has already invested 10 years to just define the problem and is projecting the program, which will ultimately produce voluntary, not mandatory, guidelines, will also take another 10 yrs to realize results. That is almost two generations of children.

2. Consider a state version of "Kids Safe Chemical Act." legislation introduced by Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Representatives Solis (D-CA) and Waxman (D-CA) to protect Americans, especially children from chemicals introduced by industry, by putting the burden on companies to prove they are safe before they can introduce them into the environment.

While most of the provisions of this bill are designed to combat the unfettered use of toxic chemicals in consumer products designed for children, I believe much of this same language could inform the industrial air pollution regulatory process to better safeguard the air quality of the communities where our children live, play and go to school:

Highlights of the Kid Safe Chemicals Act of 2008

Require Basic Data on Industrial Chemicals
Chemical companies must demonstrate the safety of their products, backed up with credible evidence. Chemicals that lack minimum data could not be legally manufactured in or imported into the United States. [Section 505]

Place the Burden on Industry to Demonstrate Safety
EPA must systematically review whether industry has met this burden of proof for all industrial chemicals within 15 years of adoption. [Section 503]

Restrict the Use of Dangerous Chemicals Found in Newborn Babies
Hazardous chemicals detected in human cord blood would be immediately targeted for restrictions on their use. [Section 504]

Use New Scientific Evidence to Protect Health
EPA must consider and is authorized to require additional testing as new science and new testing methods emerge, including for health effects at low doses or during fetal or infant development and for nanomaterials. [Section 503]

Establish National Program to Assess Human Exposure
The federal government’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is to expand existing analysis of pollutants in people to help identify chemicals that threaten the health of children, workers, or other vulnerable populations. [Section 505]

Expand the Public Right to Know on Toxic Chemicals
New, Internet-accessible public database on chemical hazards and uses will inform companies, communities, and consumers. EPA is to rein in excessive industry claims of confidentiality. [Sections 511 and 512]

Invest in Long-Term Solutions
New funding and incentives are provided for development of safer alternatives and technical assistance in “green chemistry.” [Section 508]

I sincerely believe that the engagement and leadership of our elected officials brings new hope for optimism on this issue of turning back the clock of unfettered industrial emissions. It is time to take the burden off the DEQ to manage the huge conflicted tasks of safeguarding the environment and public health and well being with balancing the interests of the industrial polluters the agency regulates. Specific policy and legislation will provide the clear framework for the regulatory process. I look forward to working with the elected officials, at the city, county, metro and state level, to realize this.

8/7/09 House Health Committee Workgroup Hearing Testimony

2009-08-10T08:17:00.000-07:00

"Most of the cases [of pollutants chronicled in Late Lessons] involved costly impacts on both public health and the environment, two fields of science and policy-making that have become specialized and somewhat polarized during the last 100 years.

Individuals experience their health and their environment as one, interconnected reality. Science, regulatory appraisal and policy-making need to be similarly integrated."

-Late Lessons From Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896-2000

THE EFFECTS OF TOXIC INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION ON PORTLAND SCHOOLS AND NEIGHBORHOODS

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's current regulatory policy does not adequately protect public health from the hazardous emissions of the more than 71 industrial facilities in Portland, including 19 Title V permitted facilities.

34 Portland City Schools ranked in the top 5% of schools across the nation with the worst air due to toxic industrial emissions.[i]

15 Portland Schools ranked in the top 2%, making them nearly equivalent to the modeled conditions of a school in Marietta OH that was closed down, because the ambient conditions matched the modeled profile.

In July 2009, the EPA released its National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) report based on 2002 data, showing Multnomah County to be in the top 2% of counties in the country with the largest populations at increased risk of developing cancer due to toxic air pollution (exceeding 100 cases per million).[ii]

1. DEQ has failed Oregon communities by allowing air toxics standards to be voluntary benchmarks, not legally mandated restrictions. This makes our air toxic standards among the weakest in the country.

• CA, WA, MD, NY, VA, KY and other states have led the way to use the discretion afforded states by the Clean Air Act to set stricter ambient air quality standards. Oregon has not.
• Benzene levels in gasoline are nearly 3x greater in this region than anywhere else in the country.
• 586 gasoline storage tanks are located along the Willamette River in NW Portland operated by 7 different companies (Some nearly 100 years old). Together, these tanks in NW Portland, which hold about 200 million gallons, annually emit ~1,394 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including the known carcinogen benzene.[iii]

· Oregon law allows leakage rates at these tanks of up to 10,000 parts per million (ppm).

· In San Francisco, CA the law allows only up to 100 ppm

2. For Title V permit holders, those polluters who meet the standards of highest volume of toxic emissions, Oregon relies on Plant-Site Emissions Limits (PSEL) that are specifically unenforceable as there are no coinciding operating limits in place.

• For example, ESCO Corp. operates two steel foundry/metals casting facilities in NW Portland within 1000 ft of several schools. DEQ describes the plants as such: "The ESCO plants emit particulate matter and fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), lead and sulfur dioxide. The ESCO plants are considered a major source of VOCs some of which are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous air pollutants."

Without enforceable operating limits in place, the two plants ESCO operates have been able to increase their reported toxic air emissions (Toxic Release Inventory TRI) by over 4800 % from 2003-2007, including nearly doubling the release of heavy metals (from 425 lbs to over 1000) and increasing the release of Glycol Ether to nearly 20,000lbs.[iv] ESCO, as I am sure their representative will tell you when he has the floor, can still maintain that they are fully compliant with their Oregon DEQ-issued air permit.

3. Oregonians must rely on modeled data, not actual monitored ambient conditions information, because the DEQ does not allocate funding for monitoring in industrial neighborhoods.

• USA Today published a risk assessment report developed by researchers and scientists at the U. Mass-Amherst, Johns Hopkins, and the U. of Maryland to analyze exposure to industrial pollution at schools across the nation.

•A recent EPA report (NATA), further concluded that toxic air pollution puts residents of Multnomah County among those most at risk of developing cancer in the US.

4. DEQ has significant data sources (e.g. Cooper Environmental Services and a history of neighborhood monitoring) raising cause for specific concern; yet, the agency appears to want to dismiss all the data sources and ignore potential community health threats.

•"Total Airshed"- the model that still informs the DEQ Air Quality regulatory process was developed to confront the six original smog causing pollutants (carbon, lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfer dioxide). Unfortunately, a focus on a total air shed, in our case a tri-county area, has created sacrificial zones of toxic industrial pollutant hotspots across the city. This is because industry is seen to be only 10% of the problem statewide. This belies the experience of many neighborhoods in Portland which are in very close proximity to industrial point sources like the Northwest.

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELL BEING FROM TOXIC INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS

Mandatory restrictions/reductions of toxic air emissions by industrial sources in aggregate.
•DEQ should revisit a study that set a total cap on industrial emissions in Portland and determined individual appropriations to facilities. In turn, enforceable total limits need to be assigned to Title V industrial facilities.
Mandatory Pollution Prevention (P2) program of independent audits every 5 years that aims at the reduction of overall emissions.
Fund adequate ambient air quality monitoring in order to protect concerned citizens' right to know what is in the air they breathe.
Adoption of the "Precautionary Principle" by DEQ.
• The Precautionary Principle would inform the regulatory process in a way that better safeguards public health by immediately reducing benchmarks to their lowest known safe levels, and then proceeding with caution in incremental increases that prove there is no harm to public health.

E.g. Manganese: The current available knowledge says, that like nickel and lead, there are no known safe levels of exposure to children. And with recent court cases being won, proving the connection of exposure of manganese in workers causing Parkinsons-like neurological damage, it would be prudent to limit manganese emissions until we can assess the safety of the cumulative loads.
Adoption of Polluter Pays Health Tax
• It is widely known that industrial pollution increases the costs of health care[v]. This was documented in Portland as early as 1974 by a specific study conducted by researchers at OSU.[vi]

It, therefore makes sense, that if DEQ receives nearly 70% of their budget from the process of allowing polluters the regulatory process that allows them to emit dangerous and hazardous emissions into our public air shed, that we should make the polluters assume some of the health care costs that are born from their pollution.

This would be a logical way to fund universal health care coverage through fees, based on emissions volume, taken from the industries allowed to pollute the air.

Reference Notes

[i] USA Today: The Smokestack Effect, Toxic Air and America's Schools http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/index

[ii] 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment: http://www.epa.gov/nata2002/

[iii] Koberstein, P. Portland's Toxic Cloud Cascadia Times, 2009

[iv] Koberstein, P. Portland's Toxic Cloud Cascadia Times, 2009

[v] Ostro, B and Chestnut, L. Assessing the Health Benefits of Reducing Particulate Matter Air Pollution in the United States. Environmental Research 76:94-106, 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress: The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010. EPA-410-R-99-001, November 1999.

[vi] Jaksch, J and Stoeveneur, H. Outpatient Medical Costs Related to Air Pollution in the Portland, Oregon Area. Department of Agricultural Economics, Oregon State University July 1974

Contemplating the role of sincerity in institutional change

2009-07-30T17:03:00.000-07:00

OK, I know that sounds more like a Tweet or a Facebook status update (which it was) than a title for an essay. I have been asked by many of you to communicate the outcome of the July 29th meeting with Dick Pedersen, Director of the Department of Environmental Quality. The general impetus for the meeting was the dissatisfaction of neighbors with regards to DEQ's response in the wake of the USA Today Report, and a growing crisis of faith in the community of his agency to work honestly on behalf of citizens to protect us from unfettered industrial pollution. The purpose of the meeting, was a little more specific. Mainly we want to see them do a better job of oversight at the ESCO facility, and industrial pollution sources in general; and, because of the afore-mentioned crisis of faith issue, we had some specific actions that we expect DEQ to take to achieve the desired outcome.

To be expected, we have no clear answers on the specific requests we made, the first of which, was to ask Mr. Pedersen to view a 20 minute video that was taken at the Town Hall Meeting on May 21. In this meeting he can see the frustrations of neighbors as they continue to ask reasonable specific questions, and get answers from his staff about process. Most of the other neighborhood requests are around obtaining a clearer picture about what ESCO does and how they might do it better (or in the case of the toxic industrial pollution: do LESS of it). We are left once again in the position to wait and see how DEQ responds. Clearly their's is not a track record that inspires optimism on this issue with this neighborhood.

So what is the difference? Why the optimism today? First and foremost because I think as a neighborhood we have done an excellent job applying the pressure that is needed to enact change. Have I reminded you lately how amazing it was to collect over 1200 signatures on the petition we circulated in little over a month? (Signatures are still coming in and keep them coming.) That when over 100 concerned citizens show up at a Town Hall Mtg ("I have been doing this for twenty years and this is the most people I have ever seen at a meeting" -Greg Lande, DEQ) it makes a difference. Do I need to tell you again that when one representative gets over 150 emails/letters about the same issue (Mitch Greenlick after the Town Hall Mtg) that he will feel compelled to do something? Clearly the difference, and the sense of optimism comes from you and your willingness to do the work we need to send the message that this is important to us.

That brings me to the meditation on sincerity. There was another dynamic at play in the meeting room yesterday. (Possibly inspired in great part by the presence, on the neighbors' behalf, of Mark Riskedahl, who, as executive director of the NEDC, has been the most effective thorn in the side of industrial polluters in this state, and whose engagement on this particular issue must inspire a vigorous accountability -if not more than a bit of fear- on the part of the DEQ staffers involved.) But in many ways the meeting boiled down to one man: Dick Pedersen, and his sincerity to bring change to the Department of Environmental Quality that inspires public trust.

So, while Mr. Pedersen needs to recognize that there is not a great reserve of patience for waiting and seeing how DEQ process might resolve this, I think as a neighborhood we should extend the benefit of the doubt that his desire to be an agent of change is real, and we will take it on face value to believe him, until he proves otherwise. The clock is ticking.

Necessary Caution

2009-07-20T15:53:00.000-07:00

Nicholas Kristoff wrote in a recent op-ed in the NY Times: "One of the conundrums for scientists and journalists alike is how to call prudent attention to murky and uncertain risks, without sensationalizing dangers that may not exist? Increasingly, endocrinologists are concluding that the mounting evidence is enough to raise alarms." He wrote this about phthalates, noting their ubiquitous presence in modern life.

A related story was published the next day in The Washington Post, titled: Kids' lower IQ scores linked to prenatal pollution. And earlier this month, I shared a story about the latest EPA Nata report that shows people living in Oregon, Multnomah County in particular, to have an increased risk of cancer due to exposure to air pollution.

In researching this issue of industrial air pollution as I prepare testimony for the House Health Committee Workgroup on August 7th, I came across a guiding principle of the European Union Environmental Legislation. It's called the "Precautionary Principle." It was adopted by the EU Environmental Agency formally in 2000. The National Institute of Environmental Health's 1998 consensus statement characterized the precautionary principle this way: "when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically". The statement went on to list four central components of the principle:

taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty;
shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity;
exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions;
and increasing public participation in decision making.

As the European Environmental Agency said in adopting the principle: "the precautionary principle is seen principally as a way to deal with a lack of scientific certainty." In an absolutely amazing document (please pardon these banal descriptives, but, really, I think everyone should read it) entitled "Late Lessons from Early Warnings: the Precautionary Principle 1896-2000," the authors spell out how important the basic understanding of certainty, or uncertainty, is. And how that plays out in risk assessment and the regulatory and policy-making process. Twelve case studies reviewing the early warnings of such ubiquitously used, but now widely accepted known contaminants as PCBs, asbestos, benzene, and radiation, documented the at times near 100 years from the first sign of human/environmental threats to the establishment of policy to stop their use.

In reading this document, and its call for more weight to public participation, and a recognition of the hazards of "scientific uncertainty" being used to describe actual ignorance, I can't help but draw relevant connections between this paradigm and our neighborhood concerns at the moment. I have been able to watch a video tape of the Town Hall Meeting we held back in May, many thanks to a concerned neighbor with a camera. The tape demonstrates the near impossible task of our current system. Concerned citizens gather with reasonable and specific questions about industrial pollution to address to the regulatory agency responsible for the oversight and permitting of industrial facilities. The result is near comic, if it weren't my neighborhood, my concerns, my children. One after another speakers ask: Are we safe? Is there a compelling reason not to monitor? Does DEQ know what comes out of ESCO? Can we have the confidence that DEQ is protecting our health? We are looking for information. We have confirmed ESCO as the source of manganese and chromium and probably lead in the neighborhood. Independent monitoring was able to determine that there are spikes that at times exceed benchmarks 100x the acceptable level, these spikes could be dangerous, but they would not show up on annualized averages. What is DEQ going to do?

The answers (as quoted directly from the transcript of the Town Hall on 21 May 2009): Compelling is an interesting word. DEQ doesn't test at the facility, ESCO contracts a third party to conduct tests. There is hexavalent Chromium (Chrome VI-think Erin Brockovich) in the neighborhood, but we can't tell you if it is coming from ESCO or the machine shop next door. We have a lot of monitoring data calculating annualized averages of chemical toxicity-we have yet to find any concentrations to cause concern. We will have meetings.

This dance, which has been repeated in the neighborhood for over 10 years illustrates the imbalance in current environmental regulation and, as the authors of Late Lessons point out in their conclusion: "the urgent need for a more complete and systematic basis for thinking about the different ways in which scientific uncertainty may pervade regulatory appraisal." They go on to discuss the subjective assumptions of traditional risk assessment, and if uncertainty is allowed to mask what is truly ignorance, the effects in environmental policy can have devastating and irreversible consequences. The study provides many examples where the scope of hazard appraisal was too narrow, and the voices too few who could impact decision making. And finally concludes: "If more account, scientifically, politically and economically, is taken of a richer body of information from more diverse sources, then society may do substantially better in the future at achieving a better balance between innovations and their hazards."

There are many things "uncertain": What is in the air? Where is that odor coming from? There are no safe levels for children on many of the criteria pollutants that ESCO is considered a major source of. How much do ESCO's emissions add to our risk factor of living in the neighborhood, and the known increased risk of cancer? Of other health issues, related to neurological development, not necessarily morbidity, what are the cumulative affects of the levels of known neurotoxins such as manganese and lead on our children and ourselves? As the conclusion of Late Lessons states: Most of the cases in the book involved costly impacts on both public health and the environment, two fields of science and policy making that have become specialized and somewhat polarized during the last 100 years. Individuals experience their health and their environment as one, interconnected reality: science, regulatory appraisal and policy-making need to be similarly integrated.

DEQ may not in the end be the source for action we need. But they need to quit masking ignorance as "scientific uncertainty." And they need to quit addressing reasonable public concern with arrogance and dismissive "science"- and a tactic of paralysis through analysis- that does not answer legitimate questions.

Environmental Justice and Industrial Pollution

2009-07-09T13:52:00.000-07:00

I went to two environmental Town Hall Meetings this week. The first, on the joint city/county Climate Action Plan in North Portland sponsored by the Urban League; and the second, sponsored by the Attorney General John Kroger to discuss his newly funded environmental crime division, along the banks of the Tualatin River in the town that bears its name. One thing that stood out for certain is: the environment is not an issue that attracts a diverse racial population to its meetings in this area. As Marcus Mundy, President and CEO of the Urban League, quipped in his opening remarks and introduction of Mayor Sam Adams, he supposed by asking the Urban League to sponsor the event, the city expected a high black turn-out. Mundy went on to add that it was a good thing his family came.

But, not surprisingly, the burdens of climate change and industrial pollution fall disproportionately on the shoulders of African Americans. According to J. Andrew Hoerner and Nia Robinson who co-wrote the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative, African Americans are thirteen percent of the U.S. population and on average emit nearly twenty percent less greenhouse gases than non-Hispanic whites per capita. "Though far less responsible for climate change, African Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects. Health, housing, economic well-being, culture and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability. African Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S.

Like-wise, the Political Economy Research Institute at University of Massachusetts Amherst published a report Justice In The Air, that determined "Air pollution from industrial facilities is unevenly distributed...A growing body of research has demonstrated that people of color and low-income communities often face the greatest environmental hazards. Toxic air pollution from industrial facilities is a case in point. Using the RSEI data, EPA researchers have found that nationwide, the most polluted locations have significantly higher-than-average percentages of blacks, Latinos, and Asian-American residents (Bouwes et al. 2003)."

And this seems to be true in Portland as well. In the USA Today special report, The Smokestack Effect: Toxic Air and America's Schools, the worst schools in Portland are all located in North Portland at the Roosevelt Campus.

I don't have all the answers, to be sure, but a city that wants to be the "greenest in the world" should start by cleaning up its dirtiest spots. And I believe also find a way to better engage a wider portion of the population in the conversation. This may entail facing some hard facts of the burden of responsibility for clean up in certain neighborhoods. It might also entail considering it an environmental crime to allow legal, permitted, emissions that in effect have created sacrificial zones of toxic industrial air pollution hot spots in the city.

Benzene

2009-07-03T09:12:00.000-07:00

Many of you hit on the issue of the high levels of benzene (a class A carcinogen) in our gasoline as a probable cause for Oregon's high ranking in the latest EPA report. As was widely reported last week (well, except for in the Oregonian, but you can read about it in the USA Today) Oregon and Multnomah County specifically rank in the top geographic areas for population at risk due to toxic air pollution based on 2002 emissions data.

Oregon has nearly twice the ratio of benzene in our gasoline as the rest of the nation. This is due to both where the fuel originates (Oregon crude oil comes from Alaska which is naturally high in benzene. Drill, baby, drill!); and most Northwest refineries do not have the equipment to remove benzene when producing gasoline. To remedy this situation, Senator Wyden pushed the EPA to establish a benzene cap on each refinery in the nation. Unfortunately refiners have until 2012 to comply. So just hold your breath for a couple more years...

For more information on this issue, read the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's fact sheet on benzene.

Portland's Climate Action Plan

2009-06-30T10:16:00.000-07:00

Riding the 15 bus downtown with my girls last Saturday, a sign caught my eye as we turned the corner at SW Salmon. It was a standard lawn sign, like those used for political campaigns, and it was stuck in the ground outside the Lincoln HS track fence. It read: Climate Change Town Hall, June 29th 6.30pm Lincoln HS. I made a quick note to myself on my calendar.

And that's how I found myself in the Lincoln HS cafeteria last night listening to Sam Adams' vision of Portland in 2050, at the heart of which is the reduction of local carbon emissions by 80%.

The plan is ambitious and doable, when you consider the impact individuals have on our city's carbon footprint, which the city and county estimate to be 50% of all local carbon emissions due to residents driving, and the heating, cooling and powering of our homes. Our track record is impressive in the 15 years the City and Multnomah County have been working together to reduce carbon emissions. In 2007, the carbon emissions were 1% below 1990 levels, despite the rapid population growth and economic expansion in the region. In the US as a whole, by contrast, emissions increased 17%. source: Multnomah County and City of Portland Climate Action Plan 2009 Draft We already recycle at rates far above the national average (64% of all Portland's waste is recycled-the nat'l rate hovers in the 30's); we are one of the bike friendliest towns in the country with nearly 300 miles of bike lanes and a bike commuter rate of 9% in some neighborhoods; and of course there is our near legendary network of streetcar and light rail public transportation. This is the Portland we all love and evoke fondly when we regal far-flung family and friends with the magical spot we call home.

But, as I told the mayor in the few minutes after the meeting concluded, when we were both grabbing our bike helmets and heading out the door, the 800lb gorilla in the room (or more accurately NOT in the room) was the contribution of our industrial neighbors to this master plan. I wondered aloud what changing my light bulbs and bringing my own bags to the supermarket would compare to the emissions emanating from the industrial smokestacks 1000ft from my front porch. With yet another EPA report underscoring the high load of industrial pollution that Portlander's carry, with Multnomah County yet again ranking in the top 10 counties in the nation with increased risk of cancer due to industrial air pollution, I wondered where was industry in this Climate Action Plan conversation, or for that matter the DEQ?

And again the answers: City and County have no jurisdiction over industrial pollutants and the funding at the DEQ (the agency that DOES have direct jurisdication over industry in the state) has been slashed so much that they have no teeth. What's a citizen to do? I have a couple ideas for you :)

1) Let the City of Portland and Multnomah County know that you are concerned by the lack of attention and accountability regarding industrial specific emissions in the Climate Action Plan. You can read the plan here. Send emails to climateactionplan@ci.portland.or.us. You might also email Mayor Adams (Office_of_Mayor_Sam_Adams@mail.vresp.com) and Jeff Cogen, the Multnomah County Commissioner atop the Sustainability Program: jeff.cogen@co.multnomah.or.us. While they say the county and city has no jurisdiction, they sure do have a strong record of innovation and results.

2) Show up to the next Climate Action Town Hall and plan on attending the City Council hearings on the topic. There is one more Town Hall Mtg in this 1st round: Tuesday, July 7th, 6.30pm University Park Community Center. Mayor Adams mentioned that it is important to show up to be heard (and seen) that this issue is a priority. I strongly believe that our citizen support on this issue can also be parlayed into leverage on increasing pressure on our industrial neighbors to meet this challenge of innovation and nation-leading mitigation of industrial emissions that threaten our health and well-being.

3) And of course, change your light bulbs, bring your own reusable bags to the grocery store, buy local, and ride your bike, walk and use public transportation instead of your car. For a more thorough calculation of your personal carbon footprint and ideas of how to reduce it, click here.

How Green is Oregon?

2009-06-24T09:05:00.000-07:00

Hello Friends,

The warm sunny weather makes it difficult to face reality sometimes. And it is a beautiful morning, and I will head out in a few minutes to enjoy the best our city has to offer with a run up on the Wildwood Trail.

But, first, I am compelled to share some sobering facts, released yesterday by the EPA, regarding Oregon and air pollution. We have once again risen near the top--of the dirtiest heap. Blake Morrison reports in the USA Today this morning that: "The government's latest snapshot of air pollution across the nation shows residents of New York, Oregon and California faced the highest risk of developing cancer from breathing toxic chemicals." You can see the official EPA report here.

What good is this kind of information? I believe strongly that it is the kick in the pants that the Governor's office and our state legislators and Washington representatives need to act specifically and deliberately to mitigate toxic hot spots where residents are at risk of increased exposure to harmful emissions.

As one EPA official notes: "Air toxic risks are local. They are a function of the sources nearest to you," said Dave Guinnup, who leads the groups that perform the risk assessments for toxic air pollutants at EPA. "If you are out in the Rocky Mountains, you are going to be closer to 2 in a million. If you are in an industrial area with a lot of traffic, you are going to be closer to 1100 in 1 million."

The missing component for Oregon has been a state agency that has the teeth to provide leadership and oversight on this issue. The NWneighborhood has for years brought attention to, and documented, the existence of toxic emissions coming into the neighborhood from nearby industrial sources. But the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality continues to stand behind the "industry is less than 10% of the overall air pollution problem STATEWIDE." But as Guinnup noted, air pollution is local. In our case, the majority of the population at risk in Oregon lives in Multnomah County. Oregon needs to adopt swift legislation that gives DEQ the authority to clean up toxic hot spots, and require the best available technology (a step beyond the current federally mandated MACT standard for Title V permitting) that effect high density residential neighborhoods. This needs to come with the authority to demand oversight and monitoring at industrial sites which pose a potential threat to residents, that currently are relying on self-reporting and company arranged monitoring to assess risk.

Please write to the Governor's Office. Let Kulongoski know that this is a priority to residents and must be addressed if we are going to fulfill the mission to be the "greenest city in the world."

Rep Earl Blumenauer's superfund bill

2009-06-23T18:05:00.000-07:00

If you were outraged by Steve Duin's article about the landfill that the Oregon DEQ is attempting to shift the bill for clean up from the polluter to the Oregon tax payers, then you should applaud Rep. Blumenauer's sponsoring HR 564, which he calls the "Superfund Reinvestment Act."

The Superfund program went bankrupt in 2003 because polluter pays fees legislation lapsed in 1995. Needless to say the Republican congress under Clinton and the Bush administration did not support reinstating the fees. The good news is that President Barack Obama recommended restoring Superfund fees in his budget proposal. Congress is also moving on the long overdue reinstatement with Blumenauer's bill.

Louis Gibbs, Executive Director of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, says: "The time to act is now. The country cannot afford to continue bailing out polluters while the list of unfunded sites grows. Congress should restore the polluter pays fees and enable Superfund to move forward and respond to new toxic threats. The core principle of the Superfund program is that polluters, not taxpayers, should pay to clean up these deadly toxic waste sites."

With the Portland Harbor designated a Superfund site, and the fee showing up on our city water bill each month, I am sure you all appreciate my support of Blumenauer's bill.

Health Care Committee to Form Air Quality Workgroup

2009-06-22T14:25:00.000-07:00

Hello Friends,

As I mentioned before, last week was a big week. You are probably already aware, Representative Mitch Greenlick attended our Town Hall Meeting with DEQ in May. He followed that up by meeting with Dick Pedersen, director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. It seems that Rep. Greenlick shares our concerns about industrial air pollution and the potential adverse health risks to us and our children. Rep. Greenlick, and three other state representatives:Tina Kotek (D-N/NE Portland), Michael Dembrow (D-NE Portland) and Ben Cannon (D-NE/SE Portland) made a very exciting announcement on Tuesday of last week, the formation of an Air Quality Workgroup within his Health Care Committee.

It should be noted that the press release cites the "public outcry" from residents concerned about air quality. Our voices are being heard, and it is important that we keep using them. Thanks to everyone who has been willing to sign the petition, and send letters. This is so important in getting the right people's attention on this issue; and I am convinced it will be the crucial component in seeing real change enacted regarding the mitigation of industrial pollution. Read on for the official press release, and please contact Tom Powers (Tom.Powers@state.or.us) if you want to participate in the Air Quality Workgroups. It is very important that we demonstrate our ongoing commitment to this issue by participating fully in this important process.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Tom Powers

June 16, 2009 (503) 986-1433

Health Care Committee to Form

Air Quality Workgroup

SALEM, Ore.—Representative Mitch Greenlick (D-NW Portland) today announced the formation of a workgroup of the House Health Care Committee to study the health effects of Portland-area air quality. Joining Rep. Greenlick, chair of the committee, on the workgroup are Representatives Tina Kotek (D-N/NE Portland), Michael Dembrow (D-NE Portland) and Ben Cannon (D-NE/SE Portland).

Members of the Health Care Committee are wrapping up the 2009 Legislative Session this month and upon adjournment sine die, each will return home to work on important issues during the interim. The Portland-area members of the committee decided to form an interim workgroup in response to outcry from residents who have grown uneasy about air conditions in northern Portland.

“I have received many calls and emails from constituents in northwest Portland who are concerned about the negative health effects of poor air quality in the area,” said Rep. Greenlick. “The workgroup we are forming in the interim will gather comments and input from the public as well as findings from experts in these fields.”

A recent USA Today report concluded that multiple Portland schools rank in the top first or second percentile nationwide among schools with poor air quality. “We need to change the reality that schools in my district rank first in the nation for being located in communities with very poor air quality,” said Rep. Kotek. “I am eager to work with my colleagues to find solutions as we look into this important issue.”

Representative Dembrow added that many constituents have been contacting his office about air quality in House District 45, which stretches from Irvington to Parkrose. “Not a week goes by that I don’t hear about someone else from Portland who has developed a respiratory problem. I look forward to getting to the bottom of this during the interim,” said Rep. Dembrow.

The air quality workgroup is slated to convene for several meetings in the late summer this year in Northwest and North Portlandneighborhoods. Members of the public are encouraged to attend each meeting. The committee will announce the setting of each meeting after the close this session. For more information please please contact Sandy Thiele-Cirka at (503) 986-1286 or sandy.thielecirka@state.or.us.

###

Welcome to pdxair.

2009-06-22T11:44:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,

I have been looking for a medium to best share updates and more information regarding the neighborhood industrial air pollution issue with more people. My network maxxes out when I send too many emails within 24 hours. Let me know if reading a blog works for you. I will send an email announcement when I update it with something significant or actionable.

Last week was big. Not just because my family spent 3 eye-opening days at the Great Wolf Lodge in Centralia, WA. That is definitely another story. More interesting was the flurry of discussion around another ODEQ issue that The Oregonian has been covering since 30 May in Steve Duin's column and online blog. If you didn't see it, and in case you are still doubting if we have to worry about DEQ's oversight of our industrial neighbors, you might be interested in catching up:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2009/06/meanwhile_back_at_deq.html

That brings me to how the week started off with the much anticipated response from Cory Ann Wind of DEQ to our concerns voiced during the Town Hall Mtg on 21 May at Chapman. I don't want to ruin it for you all, but there is not a lot of concrete action, except to ask for more meetings. But please read the email sent on 15 June 09 for yourself. I would love to hear your thoughts:

Hi Mary,

Sorry for the delayed response to your request. Thank you for your email and invitation to the neighborhood meeting at Chapman Elementary. DEQ is committed to addressing your concerns and hope that with your help on both the ESCO permit renewal and Portland Air Toxics Solutions advisory committee, that we are able to identify and implement agreeable solutions to the problem.

1. You suggested that we explore and mutually agree on permanent testing and monitoring of ESCO and all other sources of industrial emissions. While there are resource limitations, we are willing to explore the possibility of ambient monitoring for air toxics in Northwest Portland. DEQ will also be analyzing the monitoring requirements in ESCO’s permit during the renewal of the permit (See Item #5) to determine whether the amount and type of monitoring required is appropriate.

2. You asked for a review of the Cooper Environmental Services fence-line monitoring data. We are committed to sharing the report and our review with the public. DEQ is currently reviewing the Cooper report. Our goal is to have the review completed by the end of June, however staffing limitations may require more time.

3. You asked for a DEQ response regarding the feasibility of the requests made in the petition. We are entering contact information from the petition signers into a spreadsheet to compile an interested persons mailing list. When a formal response to the petition is developed, all persons on this mailing list will be notified. The response to specific requests will take some time to develop and will be folded into the renewal process of the ESCO permit (See Item #5). We are discussing the details of the petition amongst a variety of technical staff and policy analysts within DEQ. Much more information needs to be compiled before DEQ can state its position with respect to specific requests. Be assured that DEQ is committed to exploring all of the requests in the petition.

In the meantime, to improve communication with the neighborhood, DEQ is developing a new website that will be a clearinghouse of information regarding air quality in Northwest Portland. This web page will include ESCO-related public documents, progress on the ESCO permit renewal process, the Cooper report and review, a schedule of public meetings, monitoring and computer modeling information specific to NW Portland, progress of the Portland Air Toxics Solutions project, and any other information that is pertinent. Our goal is to have this website live by the middle of July, and it will continue to be updated as more information becomes available.

DEQ plans to schedule public meetings on specific topics. We have received survey responses (the green sheets handed out at the meeting) that show broad interest in the following topics: Air Pollution 101, Air Permitting 101, Air Toxics 101, compliance and inspections, and odors and nuisance. We do not have a fixed schedule for these activities yet, but are looking forward to working with you on dates and locations for these meetings.

4. You asked for a timeline for the drafting of the ESCO permit and public hearings. The timeline for permit drafting is not set in stone; DEQ’s process for drafting a Title V permit can take several months. Drafting the renewal for ESCO, or any other facility, consists of a detailed technical review and assessment. Some preliminary work has already begun to organize some of the broader issues within the permit, but the actual work of renewing the permit has not yet begun. We will start this process in July, at which time the permit writer may develop a better estimate of how long his review will take and an anticipated timeline for a draft permit. We will keep you apprised of our progress during this lengthy process.

5. You noted that neighbors expected to participate in drafting the permit. While we plan to hold neighborhood meetings throughout this process to inform neighbors and get your feedback, DEQ alone is responsible for drafting the permit. We will consider all issues raised in public meetings and invite public comment on the permit once drafted. We will modify the draft permit, as appropriate, based on the comments received during the formal public comment period.

Again, I thank you for your concerns regarding these issues. I agree that the next step should be to set up a meeting with you and key DEQ staff. Can you propose a few dates for the first half of July that we can use as a starting point?

Cory-Ann Wind

NWR AQ Manager

wind.cory@deq.state.or.us

(503) 229-5567

Hope everyone's summer is off to a good start.

Kind regards,

mary