Sustained Outrage

Good news, bad news for imperiled fish species

17610091918_c12c54ff84_z

 

Although darters in general make up 20 percent of freshwater fish species in North America, candy darters are found only in a portion of West Virginia and Virginia. Measuring 2-3 inches in length, this colorful fish prefers shallow, fast flowing stream reaches with rocky bottoms. Photo T. Travis Brown via U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The announcement yesterday from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Administration sounded like good news at first:

Visit the fast-flowing streams of Virginia and West Virginia’s upper Kanawha River Basin, and you might be lucky enough to witness flashes of teal, red and orange from the minnow-like candy darter. But with the latest data indicating a declining trend for the species, this vibrant freshwater fish could soon be protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Following a review of the best available scientific information, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the candy darter as threatened under the ESA. Nearly half of the 35 candy darter populations known when the species was first described in 1932 have now disappeared.

Paul Phifer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional director, said:

The candy darter has been called one of our country’s most vivid freshwater fish, and all signs suggest its future is threatened. Federal, state, and university partners are already at work to conserve the species, and we look forward to collaborating with industry and local partners to explore additional conservation opportunities.

But then came the rest of the story, from the Center for Biological Diversity:

In response to a legal victory by the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today proposed protecting two colorful Southeast fish under the Endangered Species Act, but denied protection for two other fish.

The trispot darter in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee and the candy darter in Virginia and West Virginia will gain final protection one year from today’s proposal. The Service simultaneously denied protection for the holiday darter and the bridled darter, despite status reviews indicating they’re in poor condition.

Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center, said:

The Trump administration is such an enemy to the environment that we’re surprised and elated to see even two of these imperiled fish move closer to protection. The decision not to propose protection for the holiday darter and the bridled darter sure smells fishy, though, so we’ll carefully review the best available science and consider challenging those determinations in court.

There are six surviving populations of the bridled darter, all in poor condition. Of the seven surviving populations of holiday darter, six are ranked as being in poor condition.

Continue reading…

Storms, chemical safety and appeals courts

The Arkema Inc. chemical plant is flooded from Tropical Storm Harvey, Wednesday, Aug. 30, 2017, in Crosby, Texas. The plant, about 25 miles (40.23 kilometers) northeast of Houston, lost power and its backup generators amid Harvey’s dayslong deluge, leaving it without refrigeration for chemicals that become volatile as the temperature rises. (Godofredo A. Vasquez/Houston Chronicle via AP)

 

The Arkema Inc. chemical plant is flooded from Tropical Storm Harvey, Wednesday, Aug. 30, 2017, in Crosby, Texas. The plant, about 25 miles (40.23 kilometers) northeast of Houston, lost power and its backup generators amid Harvey’s dayslong deluge, leaving it without refrigeration for chemicals that become volatile as the temperature rises. (Godofredo A. Vasquez/Houston Chronicle via AP)

As if things weren’t bad enough for people living in the Houston area, there’s this happening:

A fire broke out at the Arkema plant in Crosby early Thursday, following chemical explosions overnight that sent plumes of black smoke into the air.

Arkema officials warned that more explosions should be expected because there are eight additional containers of the same product at the plant, which is 25 miles northeast of downtown Houston.

… Crosby officials had been bracing for days for explosions at the Arkema plant where floodwaters knocked out power and generators needed to keep chemicals stored at the facility cool.

What’s absolutely remarkable is this, from that Houston Chronicle story:

The Arkema facility was among the Houston-area sites with the highest potential for harm in an incident, according to a 2016 analysis by the O’Connor Process Safety Center and the Houston Chronicle. That analysis factored risks based on the amount and type of dangerous chemicals on site and their proximity to the public.

The volatile chemicals involved in the reaction are organic peroxides, according the company, which can become flammable at warm temperatures.

At a press news conference Wednesday, Rich Rowe, Arkema’s CEO, said that if the volatile organic peroxides stored at the plant get too warm, some sort of explosion will happen.

“There is no way to prevent an explosion or fire,” Rowe said. He refused to release the company’s federally mandated risk management plan or its chemical inventory to reporters.

Let’s be clear about that last part:

He refused to release the company’s federally mandated risk management plan or its chemical inventory to reporters.

Just a few hours before all of this, a federal appeals court in Washington was issuing this short ruling, in which it declined to temporarily block the Trump administration’s delay of an update of an important U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule on chemical plant safety. The temporary delay would have kept the EPA rule in place while the case was being litigated.

Continue reading…

Trump EPA moves to drop chemical safety rule

bayerblastt

Photo by Tom Hindman

Here’s a bit of interesting news announced yesterday by the Trump administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Pruitt took action today to reconsider the “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: “Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air” (“RMP Rule”) and signed an administrative stay to delay the effective date of the rule regarding chemical accident preparedness and prevention, until June 19, 2017.

The 90-day extension will allow time for EPA to consider whether to further extend the effective date of the rule through a rulemaking action while the Agency reconsiders the rule in response to a petition the agency received in February 2017 from the RMP Coalition.

“As an agency, we need to be responsive to concerns raised by stakeholders regarding regulations so facility owners and operators know what is expected of them,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said as he directed the Agency to extend the comment period.

New EPA report sets record straight on gas drilling

Natural Gas, fracking

 

As the clock ticks away on the Obama administration, officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are trying to set the record straight on the agency’s landmark effort to study the potential water quality impacts of the nation’s natural gas boom.

Here’s the announcement today from the EPA press office:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing its scientific report on the impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities on drinking water resources, which provides states and others the scientific foundation to better protect drinking water resources in areas where hydraulic fracturing is occurring or being considered. The report, done at the request of Congress, provides scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources in the United States under some circumstances. As part of the report, EPA identified conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe. The report also identifies uncertainties and data gaps. These uncertainties and data gaps limited EPA’s ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally. These final conclusions are based upon review of over 1,200 cited scientific sources; feedback from an independent peer review conducted by EPA’s Science Advisory Board; input from engaged stakeholders; and new research conducted as part of the study. 

That’s quite different from the announcement EPA issued more than a year ago, when it published a draft version of this report:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing a draft assessment today on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing activities on drinking water resources in the United States. The assessment, done at the request of Congress, shows that while hydraulic fracturing activities  in the U.S. are carried out in a way that have not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources, there are potential vulnerabilities in the water lifecycle that could impact drinking water. The assessment follows the water used for hydraulic fracturing from water acquisition, chemical mixing at the well pad site, well injection of fracking fluids, the collection of hydraulic fracturing wastewater (including flowback and produced water), and wastewater treatment and disposal.

Readers may recall that we reported at the time, in June 2015, that even the draft EPA report really indicated that the data just wasn’t there to make sweeping conclusions about the safety of this industrial activity, and at the time EPA scientists admitted as much to any reporter who bothered to ask. Today’s new, final report follows strong criticism of the draft by the EPA Science Advisory Board (read the final SAB review here), and a recent story by Marketplace that detailed some of the behind-the-scenes moves that led to the incorrect spin back in 2015.

Thomas A. Burke, EPA’s science adviser and deputy assistance administrator for research and development, said today:

The value of high quality science has never been more important in helping to guide decisions around our nation’s fragile water resources. EPA’s assessment provides the scientific foundation for local decision makers, industry, and communities that are looking to protect public health and drinking water resources and make more informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing activities. This assessment is the most complete compilation to date of national scientific data on the relationship of drinking water resources and hydraulic fracturing.

freedom aerial

 

If you’ve been wondering what ever happened to that U.S. Chemical Safety Board recommendation that West Virginia create a local program to prevent chemical plant incidents, there was some action on this issue today.

During a morning meeting in Charleston, the West Virginia Public Water Supply System Study Commission unexpectedly approved the following recommendation:

… That the recommendation of the CSB be followed without redundancy using the existing rules and agencies of the state.

The commission’s recommendation will be included in its annual report to the Legislature, which is due to be completed by Dec. 15.

Some readers may recall that lawmakers created the commission as part of the measures passed after the January 2014 chemical spill at Freedom Industries, which contaminated the drinking water supply for the entire Kanawha Valley. The CSB recommendation for creation of a local chemical safety program for the Kanawha Valley and other parts of the state was first made following the 2008 explosion at Bayer CropScience in Institute.   State and local officials basically did nothing about the CSB recommendation for years, until we published this story after the Freedom spill:

Three years ago this month, a team of federal experts urged the state of West Virginia to help the Kanawha Valley create a new program to prevent hazardous chemical accidents.The U.S. Chemical Safety Board recommended the step after its extensive investigation of the August 2008 explosion and fire that killed two workers at the Bayer CropScience plant in Institute. Since then, the proposal has gone nowhere.

Even after that, and after the Legislature instructed the water study commission — created to provide some long-term oversight over efforts to protect state drinking water supplies — to review the CSB recommendation, nothing much happened on the commission’s end. For its first two annual reports, the commission punted.

Continue reading…

IMG_4790

 

When we last left the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, board Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland was saying that the agency’s investigative staff had review public and scientific criticism of its Freedom Industries report and didn’t see any need for an addendum — let alone a wholesale write of the sort that some experts are advocating — and Sutherland was saying it was likely the board would accept that recommendation.

[Shortly after our story on those comments was published, Sutherland was apparently trying to backpedal, with a board spokeswoman seeking a correction — saying that, of course, nothing was final until the board took a formal vote.]

It turns out, though, that the board may have to spend a little more time reviewing all of the criticisms of its Freedom report after all … On Tuesday, Kanawha Valley resident Philip Price, a former Carbide chemist, filed a formal petition with the CSB seeking correction of its Freedom Industries report.

I’ve posted a copy of Price’s petition here, and this is his request:

A major revision or addendum must be issued for this seriously flawed report. It contains misstatements of fact, unsubstantiated allegations, and critical omissions. It would not pass standard peer review, nor be acceptable for publication in a refereed scientific journal (I review for several international journals). This incident record will have no historical use, if viewed as flawed.

Price explains:

After two and a half years of work, the CSB Report fails to address the most fundamental questions of a chemical spill investigation:

     • What chemicals were spilled?
     • How much of each chemical was spilled?
     • When did the spill happen?
     • How did the spill happen?
     • Who received what relative exposures? (which residents’ neighborhoods, census tracts)

Continue reading…

water intake

 

Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver made public the “term sheets” in tentative class-action settlements with West Virginia American Water Co. and Eastman Chemical Co. aimed at resolving litigation over the role both companies played in the water crisis that followed the Jan. 9, 2014, chemical spill at Freedom Industries.

The settlements are far from final, and there are many steps left to go before residents, businesses and workers will see any compensation. Here’s a look at what we know and what we don’t know at this point:

How much money is involved?

The total settlement amount is up to $151 million. It’s “up to” that amount because at some point, if claims filed by residents and businesses don’t use up all the money, some of it will go back to West Virginia American and Eastman.

Of the total amount in the two settlements, $126 million of it will come from the deal with West Virginia American Water, its parent company, and an affiliated service company. The other $25 million comes from Eastman Chemical. It’s not entirely clear at this point how much of the settlement comes from insurance policies, but a new lawsuit filed by West Virginia American against one of its insurers suggests some of the water company’s insurers are paying, but at least one of them had as of Friday been balking at providing coverage for the settlement.

What is the settlement about?

The central lawsuit that prompted the settlement is called Crystal Good v. American Water Works Co, for a local resident who was the lead named plaintiff and for West Virginia American Water’s parent company. It was set for a trial to start on Oct. 25, in which the focus was not so much what caused the Freedom Industries spill, but what caused the spill to be allowed to contaminate the region’s drinking water supply.

While West Virginia American Water and Eastman in their defense wanted to point to Freedom’s criminal negligence, the plaintiffs planned to present a detailed case about the water company and Eastman.

For example, the plaintiffs planned to present evidence that West Virginia American was treating and storing drinking water at far below its capacity in the cold days prior to the spill, leaving it with little in the way of backup water that would have allowed it to briefly close the Elk River intake until the worst of the spill had passed.  Plaintiffs alleged that the water company, by allowing the drinking water to be contaminated, had breached its contract with its customers across the region. The plaintiffs alleged that Eastman didn’t warn Freedom Industries that the Crude MCHM Eastman sold could corrode Freedom’s chemical tanks, and that Eastman officials knew the Freedom site was in terrible disrepair, but did nothing about it.

The trial itself, though, was only going to be about fault — whether the water company and Eastman were liable for the drinking water contamination. Had the plaintiffs gone to trial and won on that issue, any awarding of monetary damages could have taken much longer, through a separate legal proceeding.

Who is covered by the settlement?

The case that was set for trial covered a broad class that included three categories of people: Everyone who lived at the time of the spill in a dwelling supplied with tap water by the West Virginia American Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant, everyone who at that time owned a business supplied with water by that plant, and everyone who worked at a business supplied with water from the plant, but who lived in a dwelling that got its tap water from some other source.

Expert testimony in the pre-trial phase of the case put the size of the resident class at about 224,000 people and the business owner class at more than 7,300 people. It is not clear how many wage earners could be covered.

The water company settlement’s term sheet, though, states that a final agreement — still to be prepared by the lawyers for both sides — “will identify a proposed settlement class” that would have to be approved by the court.

What if I didn’t sign up for any lawsuits?

Generally speaking, class actions don’t work that way. Anyone who fits into the class definition that is eventually approved by the court as the “proposed settlement class” would automatically be part of the case. The intent of the settlement is to resolve all litigation over the water crisis with Eastman and West Virginia American. This includes not just the “Good” case that was set for trial, but a variety of other cases that were pending in state and federal courts.

At least one case has already been identified as not being part of the settlement, one brought on behalf of the West Virginia Hospitality Association. People who fall within the definition of the class will also have an opportunity later to “opt-out” of the settlement. But the term sheets also indicate that, if enough people do that, the defendants can decide to pull out of the deal. For example, if more than 1,100 claimants opt-out of the Eastman settlement, Eastman can terminate its obligation to pay. West Virginia American can back out of the deal if either 900 individuals or 250 businesses opt-out of the settlement.

Continue reading…

Read the court filings in the water crisis case

Coal Water Pollution

 

 

water intake

 

The first clue I had I’d missed a potentially important story was the Facebook status update from Charleston City Councilwoman and water safety advocate Karan Ireland:

“Public hearing on WVAW’s SWPP. Where y’at?”

It all become more clear when Councilwoman Ireland posted this follow-up status:

There weren’t any journalists at tonight’s public hearing on West Virginia American Water’s SWPP. (And, only a handful of the “public”.)

I’m curious to know why there was no coverage.

While not exactly the second coming, this meeting was fairly important to readers in the Kanawha Valley. The whole reason that water utilities are being made to write plans for protecting their source water supplies is the Freedom Industries chemical spill, and the effects it had on the state’s largest drinking water facility, serving something like 300,000 people in Charleston and surrounding communities. The hearing offered a chance for local residents to comment on West Virginia American Water’s plan, and perhaps mention things like the need for a secondary, backup water source.

Folks like Councilwoman Ireland were understandably concerned that there wasn’t much turnout, and that perhaps the lack of media coverage prior to the event played a role in that — and that the lack of media attendance of the hearing itself wasn’t such a great thing either.

Why was there no coverage? Well, I can only speak for the Gazette-Mail, but the answer is I didn’t know the hearing was taking place.

I should have. Public notice of the meeting — held last night in South Charleston — was right there on the Secretary of State’s website.  The notice was submitted to the Secretary of State on Aug. 23, and went on the website that very day, officials there tell me. The Department of Health and Human Resources and its Bureau for Public Health have a list of all the public hearing dates on its website here.

So how did I miss it? Well — I’m ashamed to say — I was waiting for the press release.

Continue reading…

Whelton

 

Over the weekend, we had another story in the Gazette-Mail outlining some of the findings of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board’s report on the Freedom Industries chemical spill and the ensuing regional drinking water crisis.

That story made a brief mention of some comments from Andrew Whelton, the Purdue University engineer who led the Tomblin administratin’s WVTAP team, investigating the impacts of the spill:

Purdue University water system engineer Andrew Whelton led the WVTAP program for the Tomblin administration and was surprised at both the way the CSB selectively cited his work, and at the fact that the board’s report did not cite any of the numerous peer-reviewed publications about the spill that have been written by academic experts over the past two years. Many of those scientific papers warned of spill-related problems and dangers that government officials had insisted did not exist, and other papers clearly outlined gaps in how the nation’s drinking water system is protected from such incidents.

“Not citing work conducted by the multitude of universities that participated in the response and recovery seems deliberate,” Whelton said last week, after a preliminary review of the board report.

“I would be interested in the reasons why work conducted by academic institutions did not rise to the level of citation in such an investigation,” Whelton added. “Several organizations conducted testing to better understand the chemical properties and exposures. Others examined wastewater treatment plant processes and the fate of chemicals in the environment and wastewater systems.”

Since then, though, Andy Whelton has submitted a much more thorough examination of the CSB’s report, along with a demand that the agency “immediately retract your report and remove it from circulation until it is corrected.” Now, putting aside the problems with a government agency removing a public document — even a flawed one — from circulation — it’s well worth looking at some of the major points Andy Whelton makes here:

— CSB has claimed the 4-MCHM level entering the water treatment plant at 5pm on January 9 was 13.7 ppm. CSB provides absolutely no source for this information and this level was never made public by the State of West Virginia or WVAW. In fact, when I was part of WVTAP the state of West Virginia told us the data they jointly collected with WVAW was all that was available for 4-MCHM levels.

— At no point did CSB acknowledge that the CDC screening level did not consider inhalation exposure. This is highly disturbing and perpetuates a falsehood lacking scientific basis.

— How is the discovery by WVTAP that 4-MCHM was still present in resident homes one month after the spill not a major event on the timeline? This should be added.

— CSB has deliberately mislead the public with the following statement and this is shocking: “The yearlong study, completed in June 2016, evaluated the toxicity of MCHM and concluded that exposure at or below the MCHM Screening level of 1 ppm is not considered not likely to be associated with any adverse health effects.” While the CSB cites the National Toxicology Program final update posted online, CSB fails to point out that the NTP studies did not evaluate inhalation exposures. There is NO data for the long-term health impacts caused by inhalation exposures. National Toxicology Program admitted publicly their data do not apply to inhalation exposures. The omission of this information by CSB is disturbing and must be addressed in the revised CSB report.

— CSB does not indicate they reviewed drinking water customer complaint records from WVAW, yet makes the claim that “WVAW did not receive any complaints of licorice-smelling water from customers prior to becoming aware of the release…”

— CSB shall more clearly define what liquids were spilled, what they fully consisted of, what chemicals entered the water supply, were distributed to residents, and what research was conducted to identify and evaluate the fate and toxicity of these chemicals. CSB’s inconsistent approach in their report implies they do not understand what chemicals were spilled, where they went, what residents were exposed to, and what different agencies did based on requests from other agencies, among other deficiencies.

— Why wasn’t any of the plumbing system flushing guidance discussed? How is this not a critical aspect of the chemical exposures residents experienced? There was no scientific justification provided for this deliberate omission. In light of the disclosure by CSB that the highest MCHM level experienced was over 4 ppm, this makes the inhalation exposure a lot more significant.