Good Neighbor Agreement

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.

Body Burden of Toxic Chemicals

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

The public meeting the public wasn't invited to.

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.

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

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

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?

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

BPA Ban fails in Oregon Senate

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.

Thanksgiving Meditation

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.

Transparency

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.

Contemplating the role of sincerity in institutional change

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.