Hurricane Harvey’s toxic impact deeper than public told

Written by

Associated Press
By Justin Pritchard, Associated Press and Alex Stuckey, Houston Chronicle

A toxic onslaught from the nation’s petrochemical hub was largely overshadowed by the record-shattering deluge of Hurricane Harvey as residents and first responders struggled to save lives and property.

More than a half-year after floodwaters swamped America’s fourth-largest city, the extent of this environmental assault is beginning to surface, while questions about the long-term consequences for human health remain unanswered.

County, state and federal records pieced together by The Associated Press and The Houston Chronicle reveal a far more widespread toxic impact than authorities publicly reported after the storm slammed into the Texas coast in late August and then stalled over the Houston area.

Some 500 chemical plants, 10 refineries and more than 6,670 miles of intertwined oil, gas and chemical pipelines line the nation’s largest energy corridor.

Nearly half a billion gallons of industrial wastewater mixed with storm water surged out of just one chemical plant in Baytown, east of Houston on the upper shores of Galveston Bay.

Benzene, vinyl chloride, butadiene and other known human carcinogens were among the dozens of tons of industrial toxic substances released into surrounding neighborhoods and waterways following Harvey’s torrential rains.

Hurricane Harvey’s toxic impact on Houston was more widespread than publicly reported, an AP-Houston Chronicle investigation has found. In the more than 100 spills catalogued by reporters, environmental testing was limited.

In all, reporters catalogued more than 100 Harvey-related toxic releases — on land, in water and in the air. Most were never publicized, and in the case of two of the biggest ones, the extent or potential toxicity of the releases was initially understated.

Only a handful of the industrial spills have been investigated by federal regulators, reporters found.

Texas regulators say they have investigated 89 incidents, but have yet to announce any enforcement actions.

Testing by state and federal regulators of soil and water for contaminants was largely limited to Superfund toxic waste sites.

Based on widespread air monitoring, including flyovers, officials repeatedly assured the public that post-Harvey air pollution posed no health threat. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official in charge now says these general assessments did not necessarily reflect local “hotspots” with potential risk to people.

Regulators alerted the public to dangers from just two, well-publicized toxic disasters: the Arkema chemical plant northeast of Houston that exploded and burned for days, and a nearby dioxin-laden federal Superfund site whose protective cap was damaged by the raging San Jacinto River.

Samuel Coleman, who was the EPA’s acting regional administrator during Harvey, said the priority in the immediate aftermath was “addressing any environmental harms as quickly as possible as opposed to making announcements about what the problem was.”

In hindsight, he said, it might not have been a bad idea to inform the public about the worst of “dozens of spills.”

Local officials say the state’s industry-friendly approach has weakened efforts by the city of Houston and surrounding Harris County to build cases against and force cleanup by the companies, many of them repeat environmental offenders.

“The public will probably never know the extent of what happened to the environment after Harvey. But the individual companies of course know,” said Rock Owens, supervising environmental attorney for Harris County, home to Houston and 4.7 million residents.

The chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Bryan Shaw, declined when asked by lawmakers in January to identify the worst spills and their locations. He told a legislative subcommittee hearing he could not publicly discuss spills until his staff completed a review.

The amount of post-Harvey government testing contrasts sharply with what happened after two other major Gulf Coast hurricanes. After Hurricane Ike hit Texas in 2008, state regulators collected 85 sediment samples to measure the contamination; more than a dozen violations were identified and cleanups were carried out, according to a state review.

In Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters ravaged New Orleans in 2005, the EPA and Louisiana officials examined about 1,800 soil samples over 10 months, EPA records showed.

“Now the response is completely different,” said Scott Frickel, an environmental sociologist formerly at Tulane University in New Orleans.
Frickel, now at Brown University, called the Harvey response “unconscionable” given Houston’s exponentially larger industrial footprint.

Reporters covered some environmental crises as they happened, such as AP’s exclusive on the flooding of toxic waste sites and the Chronicle’s Arkema warnings before fires broke out. But the sheer quantity of spills was impossible to document in real time.

Academic researchers are now trying to fill in the gaps in environmental monitoring, helped by grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. One project, a Harvey-related public health registry for Houston, was funded just this month but is not yet underway.

“People are left in a state of limbo of not knowing if they were exposed or not — or if they were, what the implications are for their health,” said Dr. Nicole Lurie, who oversaw federal public health responses to the Superstorm Sandy and Deepwater Horizon disasters while at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Scientists say the paucity of data also could hamstring efforts to prepare for and mitigate damage from future violent weather events that climatologists predict will happen with increasing frequency.

‘NOTHING SHORT OF CATASTROPHIC’

When it meets moisture, hydrogen chloride gas becomes hydrochloric acid, which can burn, suffocate and kill.

Between lulls in Harvey’s pounding torrents on Aug. 28, an 18-inch pipeline leak at Williams Midstream Services Inc. unleashed a plume of the chemical near the intersection of two major highways in La Porte, southeast of Houston, where the San Jacinto River meets the 50-mile ship channel. It’s the petrochemical corridor’s main artery that empties into Galveston Bay.

A toxic cloud spread about a quarter-mile in an industrial sector as firefighters and police rushed to shut down roads, blared neighborhood sirens and robo-dispatched phone and text messages warning people to stay indoors.

Two hours ticked by before a county hazardous materials response unit — lucky to find a road not under water — arrived and ended the danger with the help of a crew from a nearby plant.

The spill was among dozens barely noticed at the time, records show. A county pollution control inspector, Johnathan Martin, wrote in his report that he could not safely monitor the toxic plume but believed it did not reach homes less than a mile away. There were no reports of injuries.

On land, the deluge — five feet of rain in some spots — appears to have scoured the top soil, according to separate testing efforts by scientists from Texas A&M and Rice universities.

The Texas A&M collection of 24 samples — taken in September from lawns mainly in a neighborhood near Valero Energy Corp.’s refinery — turned up only low traces of petroleum and petrochemical-related compounds.

“As expected the rains washed most things out,” said Texas A&M research leader Anthony Knap.

Rice researchers tested soil at a school and park in Baytown, east across Upper Galveston Bay, where residents said floodwaters rushed in from the 3,400-acre ExxonMobil refinery and chemical plant. They also sampled in Galena Park, a community of 11,000 hemmed in by heavy industry along the ship channel, just east of downtown.

Only one of the nine samples collected by Rice researchers showed elevated levels of petroleum-related toxic substances, according to an independent chemical analysis funded by the AP-Chronicle collaboration. Collected in Galena Park, it showed the presence of benzo(a)pyrene, a known carcinogen, at levels just above what the EPA deems a cancer risk.

Jessica Chastain lives a block away.

During Harvey’s three-day downpour, the nearby Panther Creek swallowed Chastain’s home, forcing the 36-year-old mother and four of her children to swim across the street to the safety of her parents’ two-story house, through slimy brownish-black water that smelled like a “rotten sewer,” said Chastain. “It had a coat of film over it. I’m not sure what it was. It was probably oil.”

Her children — 15, 11, 9 and 6 — all developed skin infections and strep throat, she said.

Her youngest still “cries when it rains hard,” she said. “‘Is it going to flood?’ he asks.”

The creek, which empties into the nearby ship channel, had backed up from flooded chemical plants and tank farms.

A number of Harvey-related spills occurred near Chastain’s home, including the 460,000-gallon gasoline spill at a Magellan Midstream Partners tank farm and nearly 52,000 pounds of crude oil from a Seaway Crude Pipeline Inc. tank.

Samples taken in October at a Houston park upstream of the ship channel showed elevated levels of dioxins, PCBs and hazardous chemicals typically created in the burning of oil, coal and gas, said Jennifer Horney, an A&M epidemiology professor who conducted testing for the city.

Benzo(a)pyrene was among the chemicals found in sediment on the banks of Brays Bayou at the park, a popular recreation site with baseball diamonds, soccer pitches and bicycle pathways.

“It’s coal tar and it’s a known carcinogen and mostly you find it in industrial settings,” said Horney. “We know the ship channel — or the bayou — was (up) in that park.”

While worrisome, the levels at the park were not high enough to trigger a cleanup under EPA standards, she said. Neither Houston nor Texas A&M officials have publicly released those test results, which the city health department’s chief environmental science officer, Loren Raun, said showed “nothing of concern for human health risk.”

The surface soil scrubbing that scientists believe occurred during Harvey means contaminants likely migrated downstream, said Hanadi Rifai. The head of the University of Houston’s environmental engineering program, she has been studying pollution in the watershed for more than two decades.

“That soil ended up somewhere,” Rifai said. “The net result on Galveston Bay is going to be nothing short of catastrophic.”

VAPOR CLOUD

Residents of the tidy, mostly Latino neighborhood off Old Industrial Road in Galena Park are accustomed to the foul odors that wind shifts can bring.

But no one told them about the gasoline spill at the Magellan terminal a mile away — one of more than a dozen Harvey-related releases in a two-mile radius. The release was initially reported to the Coast Guard at 42,000 gallons — and residents would only learn of it a week later through news reports. Not until 11 days after the spill did Magellan report that it was actually more than 10 times bigger.

Asked about the discrepancy, Magellan spokesman Bruce Heine said floodwaters prevented the company from accessing the ruptured tanks until Sept. 5. He said the company later removed 15 dump trucks of tainted soil.

The spill was reported to the Coast Guard on Thursday, Aug. 31 at 11:35 p.m. — six days after Harvey made landfall.

An explosion risk prompted workers to evacuate upwind as the nearly half-million gallons of gasoline gushed out failed storage tanks, state environmental and Coast Guard records show. The spill ranked as Texas’ largest reported Harvey-related venting of air pollutants, at 1,143 tons.
The local fire department put down foam to suppress the fumes, records revealed, and a police report described “a vapor cloud.”

Claudia Mendez, a 42-year-old housewife, said she later saw foam by the side of the road and wondered about its origin.

The fumes were so strong, Mendez said, “I thought my husband had brought the lawnmower gas can inside.”

Magellan has been cited for 11 environmental violations since 2002 by Texas regulators and fined more than $190,000, more than half in August 2012 for a single violation of air quality standards.

Its spill is among at least three post-Harvey releases about which Harris County officials have withheld information, saying they remain under investigation.

The second involves W&P Development Corp., owner of an industrial park where about 100,000 gallons of oily wastewater were reported to have spilled into the San Jacinto from Aug. 29 to Aug. 31. The site was formerly Champion Paper Mill and a landfill there received wastes including turpentine- and lead-contaminated soil and mercury until 2008. For most of 2015 and 2016, the property was in violation of federal anti-pollution laws, EPA records show.

A spokesman for W&P Development, Dennis Winkler, said the company later determined that a smaller amount — 30,000 gallons — had escaped from a water treatment plant when the river overtopped a berm.

The third site is Channel Biorefinery & Terminals, where some 80,000 gallons of methanol spilled from a tank rupture into Greens Bayou, which enters the ship channel just downstream of the Magellan terminal. Highly flammable and explosive, methanol can cause brain lesions and other disorders.

The property, once the site of the nation’s largest biofuels refinery, was in violation of federal hazardous waste-management rules the first half of 2017. Texas cited the property’s owners for failing to prove they could manage licensed wastes, including oily sludge and petroleum distillates, records show.

Dennis Frost, the on-site manager for Gulf Coast Energy, the tenant of Channel Biorefinery, said he and co-workers did their best to prevent the spills.

“They were impossible to contain,” he said. “The water here down by our facility was up over 20 feet.”

INDUSTRY: NO DANGER

Companies are required under federal law to report spills to the state and federal government but not to counties, which are the first line of defense against industrial pollution.

Harris County pollution control investigators queried more than 150 plants on Harvey-related spills, but many did not provide estimates.
“Spill information is provided as a courtesy,” said Latrice Babin, deputy director of the county’s pollution control office. “Likewise, there is no requirement of notification of evacuation.”

The largest spill, by far, was at ExxonMobil Corp.’s Olefins Plant in Baytown, east of the ship channel. Two days after Harvey hit, some 457 million gallons of stormwater mixed with untreated wastewater, including oil and grease, surged into an adjacent creek.

The spill was not reported to the public. In a water quality report filed with the county and obtained through an open records request, ExxonMobil said “available information does not indicate any potential danger to human health or safety or the environment.”

It did not include results of third-party water testing that the company said had been done. The plant has a history of federal air pollution violations and reported emitting 228 tons of airborne pollutants during Harvey.

Other large spills found in official records include:
— More than 3,000 pounds of benzene from Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s Deer Park complex on the ship channel’s south bank. Initially, the company reported a half ton of phenol, which can burn skin and be potentially fatal, was spilled. It later revised that downward to just two pounds.
—About 34,000 pounds of sodium hydroxide, or lye, which can cause severe chemical burns, and unpermitted airborne emissions, including 28,000 pounds of benzene, from the Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. plant in Baytown, near where thousands of residents live along Cedar Bayou. A spokesman, Bryce Hallowell, said a containment pond kept about 38 percent of the lye from escaping the facility.
— About 60,000 tons of what Dow Chemical Co. called “non-hazardous biosolids” at the company’s plant in Deer Park. The company now says that roughly 50 tons of that consisted of biosolids and that the rest was “primarily” stormwater.

Yvette Arellano of the advocacy group Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services surveyed the area by helicopter on Sept. 4.

She reported seeing flooded tank farms, fluorescent liquid streaming from Exxon’s outfalls, and refineries and chemical plants flaring gas intensely like giant candles.

“The entire skyscape looked like a birthday cake,” Arellano said.

Watch video.

Global campaign challenges Starbucks to keep its promise to curb plastic pollution, create 100% recyclable cup

Written by

Leading environmental organizations launch “Starbucks: Break Free From Plastic” campaign to confront coffee giant on its plastic pollution problem prior to annual shareholder meeting in Seattle

AUSTIN, TX — Today, more than a dozen leading environmental organizations announced the launch of “Starbucks: Break Free From Plastic” — a global campaign demanding that Starbucks take accountability for its contribution to the growing plastic pollution crisis. Sign the petition here.

The campaign formed ahead of Starbucks’ 2018 annual shareholder meeting, where the coffee giant is urging its shareholders to vote “no” on a sustainability proposal by As You Sow. The proposal asks Starbucks to address its plastic pollution problem by developing stronger efforts to move toward sustainable packaging. View As You Sow’s argument in favor of the proposal.


Starbucks fails on sustainability pledges

The campaign is being launched amidst a backdrop of corporate pledges to address plastic pollution, including from McDonald’s and Coca-Cola. The campaign is demanding firm commitments from Starbucks on how it will address its plastic pollution problem.

In 2008, Starbucks pledged to make a 100% recyclable paper cup and sell 25% of drinks in reusable cups by 2015. To date, Starbucks has failed to produce a 100% recyclable paper cup, and currently serves only 1.4% of drinks in reusable cups.

“Starbucks serves an astounding 4+ billion paper cups each year, most of which end up in the trash because their plastic lining makes them unrecyclable in most places. That’s a disgraceful amount of plastic pollution ending up in our local landfills. It’s time for Starbucks to start living up to its promises.” -Ross Hammond, Stand.earth

Starbucks plans massive global growth

Despite knowing its environmental impact, Starbucks has pledged to dramatically expand its presence in Asia in 2018 — with no plan to address its plastic waste. Because of this inaction, governments are being forced to step up. A parliamentary committee in the UK recently proposed a “latte levy” on single-use cups to help address the growing plastic pollution problem, and the City of Vancouver, BC is considering imposing a fee on unrecyclable, plastic-lined cups.

“Starbucks has pledged to open one store every 15 hours in China in 2018. CEO Kevin Johnson continues to turn a blind eye to his company’s contribution to our global plastic pollution problem even as the coffee giant continues to open stores at an astonishing pace.” –Sondhya Gupta, SumOfUs

Starbucks part of global plastic pollution problem

Starbucks cups, lids, and iconic green straws make up a visible portion of the catastrophic plastic pollution in our oceans. In the marine environment, plastics break down into small indigestible particles that birds and marine animals mistake for food, resulting in illness and death.

“Starbucks needs to stop being part of the problem and instead be part of a Zero Waste solution. They need to promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of materials instead of being the poster child for the global ‘to-go’ disposable coffee cup culture. Right now, they are contributing to the trashing of our communities, waterways, Gulf and oceans.  – Robin Schneider, Texas Campaign for the Environment

“Americans use half a billion plastic straws every day. That’s an unfathomable amount. These plastic straws are consistently among the top items collected during beach cleanups. Starbucks’ green straws may be iconic, but this staggering amount of plastic pollution is simply unacceptable.”  -Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, 5 Gyres Institute

“Each minute, the equivalent of a garbage truck full of plastic ends up in the ocean, and by 2050, there is projected to be more plastic in the ocean than fish by weight. Starbucks needs to take immediate steps to #breakfreefromplastic before our global plastic pollution problem overwhelms our oceans and marine life.” -Von Hernandez, Break Free From Plastic

“Plastics are a symptom of our throw-away culture. Companies like Starbucks need to take responsibility for the harm to people and the environment that comes from irresponsible use of a material for minutes that is designed to last lifetimes. We need them to help build a culture of stewardship among consumers and businesses.” -Jamie Rhodes, UPSTREAM

The campaign is calling on Starbucks to address its plastic pollution in 5 specific ways:

  • Create a 100% recyclable paper cup without a plastic lining.
  • Reduce plastic pollution by eliminating single-use plastics like straws.
  • Promote reusable cups and encourage customers to change their habits.
  • Recycle cups and food packaging in all stores worldwide.
  • Report publicly on the type and amount of plastics used in packaging.

The campaign includes 5 Gyres, Care2, Texas Campaign for the Environment, Clean Water Action, CREDO, Plastic Pollution Coalition, Stand.earth, The Story of Stuff Project,  UPSTREAM,  Captain Planet Foundation, Kōkua Hawaiʻi Foundation, Plastik Diet Kantong, Heirs to Our Oceans, Wild at Heart Taiwan, and a variety of organizations participating under the Break Free From Plastic global movement.

###

 

Victoria County sewage sludge dumping dispute officially ends

Written by

ABC 25 Victoria
by Adrianna Garcia
Original story here

A two and a half year process has finally ended with a settlement agreement where Victoria County Commissioners stopped a land owner from receiving a permit to dump hazardous products on their land. Commissioner Clint Ives calls this a victory for Victoria County.

On Monday, County Judge Ben Zeller made this agreement officials, where he signed the settlement document.

According to County Commissioner Clint Ives, Victoria County Commissioners took an aggressive opposition to this permit, and took years of town hall and  TCEQ meetings to try and stop this process. The land applicant decided to no longer pursue The permit to land apply the grease and grit trap waste.

With this agreement, it doesn’t allow land application to these experimental products on any land in Victoria County.

The commissioners argued with the proximity of the Arenosa Creek from the potential dumping location,this  could bring health and safety concerns to the residents of that area.

“Victoria County achieved everything we were asking for, and gave up no ground. Personally, I think this is such a victory for Victoria County. number one, we stuck to the tactical mission of protecting our priority which is protecting the public health and welfare of our residents in Victoria, and this settlement does that, said Ives.

Precinct four County Commissioner Clint Ives, says the public’s health and safety were their top priority, which they achieved with this settlement.

Ives explained this settlement saves tax payers the cost of a contested hearing, which is where this case would have gone without the agreement.

He says this agreement sets a precedent for the rest of Texas if another company wants to apply for a similar permit.

Commissioners says this is a triumph not only for Victoria, but for the state of Texas.

Lucas city council reinstates curbside recycling

Written by

GreenSource DFW
By Minnie Payne
Original Article here

Curbside recycling is returning to Lucas, thanks to a grassroots campaign led by an environmentally conscious resident.Last April, Lucas resident Victoria Howard was shocked to read in the Lucas newsletter that the city would end curbside recycling in the fall. Not wanting to see the community take a step backward, soon Howard was leading a grassroots campaign to reverse the decision with help from two Dallas-based environmental groups.

“The idea of not having a recycling program so frustrated me that I didn’t see any other option than to act,” said Howard. “I couldn’t have lived with myself if I did not try. I knew I may not win, but I had to try.”

As a result of a months-long campaign, last Thursday, the Lucas City Council authorized City Manager Joni Clark to negotiate an agreement with Republic Services for a subscription-based solution for curbside recycling, allowing recycling pick up twice per month.

But Howard and her group Save Lucas Recycling say that’s not enough. Howard says that while the council responded with unanimous voting to reinstate a one-year contract subscription recycling program for residents who opt in, it is her goal to have city-wide recycling for the Collin County community of 6,500.

“We would also like to see curbside brush composting, Styrofoam recycling and perhaps even a soft textile recycling program brought to Lucas,” Howard says.

With cities across DFW expanding their recycling programs, Lucas should be doing more, not less, to divert waste from landfills, she said.

“It is really unacceptable to me that in 2017 and 2018 the legitimacy and necessity of curbside recycling would be called into question,” said Howard.

At the first council meeting she attended last spring, Howard’s impression was that very few council members were taking her argument seriously. So she started a petition. Her intent was to change council members’ perception and convince them how serious and necessary curbside recycling is in keeping local bulging landfills from overflowing as Lucas’ population grows.

Many volunteers joined her to help canvas door-to-door. The campaign also got a boost from Corey Troiani, DFW program director for Texas Campaign for the Environment; Jared King, president of the Lovejoy High School Environmental Club; and Dick Guldi, Dallas Sierra Club.

Guildi says that Howard’s hard work in enlisting others resulted in a successful resolution.

“She worked all day every day until midnight, and I think the canvassing reached every home in Lucas,” said Guldi. “Hundreds of emails were forwarded to city council members, and 78 people were in the audience at the January 2018 council meeting.”

Guldi also shares that in his opinion Lucas City Council members are genuinely concerned about the environment and while they have good ideas, those ideas need to be better communicated, which is sometimes a difficult task.

“Lucas residents got the impression that council either wasn’t going to resume recycling or couldn’t make a decision as to how to do it and didn’t have a sense of urgency.”

Howard, whose Mom was a recycler, has lived in Lucas most of her life, remembering gravel roads and men who tipped their cowboy hats. She loves Lucas and the people of Lucas and says she couldn’t have led the successful campaign without them.

“To the countless people who helped with Save Lucas Recycling, I say there are no words to adequately express how much I admire you. You have my truest thanks.”

Walgreens pledges to launch long-awaited chemical policy

Written by

Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Original article here

US pharmacy chain Walgreens Boots Alliance has announced it will launch its long-awaited chemicals management programme this year. The retail chain had been criticised by NGOs for failing to publish the programme, first announced in 2014.

In its latest corporate social responsibility report, WBA pledges it will publish a list of high priority chemicals of concern in its products and create an action plan for their management in 2018.

The programme will initially focus on the company’s own brand baby, personal care and household products. However, WBA will also publish a roadmap to extend the scope of its chemical management to other products in its portfolio. It intends to report on progress annually.

The report says that WBA has been acquiring tools over the last twelve months to trace the ingredients in its products and supply chain.

It is using the UL PurView platform, a system which helps businesses collect data across the supply chain and compare ingredients against sustainability standards.

“Building traceability into our supply chain will help us continue to review the substances in our products, such as chemicals,” the report says.

WBA is also preparing for compliance with the EU’s May REACH deadline to register substances, particularly in relation to cosmetics and hard goods, such as candles and makeup brushes.

‘Notable steps’

Last year, the WBA-owned pharmacy Walgreens received a D- grade in the Mind the Store report card – an NGO campaign that rates US retailers on their actions to eliminate chemicals in consumer products. Walgreens came 18th out of 30 stores, scoring just 21.5 out of 135 possible points.

Mike Schade of the NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families – which runs the Mind the Store campaign – told Chemical Watch he was pleased the pharmacy was making progress towards a safer chemicals policy.

“We congratulate Walgreens for taking these notable steps and look forward to reviewing their chemicals management roadmap. We are pleased that the company has also committed to reporting on progress annually,” he said.

Mr Schade added that he hoped the chemicals action programme would “set clear metrics and timeframes for reducing and eliminating chemicals of concern in these and other product categories, and report on those metrics annually.”

He urged Walgreens to follow other retailers such as Target and Walmart – which scored high marks in the NGO report – by expanding the policy over time to include brand name products they sell and becoming a signatory to the Chemical Footprint Project.

Health concerns swirl in Texas months after floods from Harvey spread toxic waste

Written by

PBS NewsHour


(Photo Courtesy of Greg Moss)

Three months after Hurricane Harvey struck the shores of Texas, some local environmental groups say they are in the dark about the safety of federal Superfund sites damaged during the storm.

In the days following the hurricane that made landfall there on Aug. 25, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said at least 13 of the 34 of federal Superfund sites in the path of the storm had been affected by widespread flooding and heavy rains. By Sept. 8, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said only two of those sites had incurred damages.

Since the hurricane, the EPA mandated that two companies deemed responsible parties spend at least $115 million cleaning up one: the San Jacinto River Waste Pits. The site is located in the middle of the San Jacinto River about 20 miles east of Houston, where “highly toxic dioxin contamination,” known to cause host of health problems including cancer and developmental and reproductive issues, leaked out after flood waters tore through it.

(Photo Courtesy of 1 Houston)

But some residents are questioning the methods used to test that site and surrounding communities, as well as the EPA’s designation of at least 12 other federal Superfund sites “cleared” from damages since Hurricane Harvey. These concerns come as officials said that the amount of dioxin released into the San Jacinto River may never be known.

The lack of information about how the Superfund sites might influence the river’s overall water quality and surrounding communities worries Jackie Young, founder of the environmental group Texas Health Environment Alliance.

“My biggest issue with the response to Hurricane Harvey was that for a month after we were pressing the EPA, we were pressing our local and state government on the safety of the local environment and the safety of these sites, and we were repeatedly told that everything was okay,” Young told the NewsHour Weekend.

The San Jacinto River Waste Pits date back to the 1960s when toxic waste from paper mills was routinely dumped. The pits were designated a Superfund site in 2008. Since 2011, the waste, which is made up of dangerous dioxins and furans, has been temporarily held in place by an “armored cap.” The site is located in proximity to some of Harris County’s more than 4.5 million residents, including the city of Houston.

(Photo courtesy of EPA)

Preliminary data from the EPA indicated that in sediment samples taken around the site, dioxins levels spiked 2,300 times above acceptable levels.

Part of the EPA’s recovery plan is to remove most of the nearly 212,000 cubic yards of toxic waste at the San Jacinto site in the coming years. But it’s difficult to establish how much of the waste escaped into the river and nearby bayou, Samuel Coleman, the EPA’s acting regional administrator, told NewsHour Weekend.

He told a Congressional subcommittee in November testimony that one of the tactics the EPA used in the aftermath was a mobile lab capable of evaluating water samples “that proved to be invaluable in an area this is devastated and lacking in basic infrastructure.”

But more than a week after Harvey bore down on Texas on Aug. 25, the flooded Superfund sites had received only aerial inspections, EPA officials said.

Federal and local officials contend that access to those sites in the wake of the late August storm was limited, and that they quickly determined some sites, including the San Jacinto River Waste Pits and another called the U.S. Oil Recovery, had released toxic waste into surrounding waterways.

Bob Allen, the director of the Harris County Pollution Control Services, cited the complications of observing possible breaches at Superfund sites as flooding continued to grip the Houston area.

“Yes, waste got out in the river but how much is difficult to determine,” Allen said. “I think that both the locals and the feds and the state, we’re doing as much as we can. It’s a difficult site. It’s probably the most challenging site I’ve ever seen and I’ve been here almost 40 years.”

What about the surrounding community?

Rosanne Barone, of the advocacy group Texas Campaign for the Environment, said she worries about the river and several downstream bays that are popular with fishermen and for recreational use, both of which help feed the local economy.

Barone added that while many of the Superfund sites have been deemed secure by federal officials, a dearth of public data also raises questions about the potential long-term health effects on residents of the community.
“As far as damage to the other sites and cleanup, still not much is known,” Barone said.

“These are people who can literally see the waste from their homes.”

Young said in some cases it took the EPA, and companies responsible for overseeing some of the Superfund sites, weeks to begin conducting thorough inspections after the flooding.

A NewsHour Weekend analysis of EPA documents showed that some soil and water sampling from those two Superfund sites began on Sept. 4. Sampling at 11 other sites that were flooded during the storm did not begin until at least Sept. 10.

Since then, Young’s office has been inundated with calls from concerned residents who live near the San Jacinto River, and other areas, some who live near the San Jacinto River Waste Pits.
“These are people who can literally see the waste from their homes,” Young said.

Greg Moss, 62, is a retired boat mechanic who lives just upriver from the San Jacinto River Waste Pits. His home and workshop are located adjacent to the river and two blocks from the Superfund site.

(Photo Courtesy of Greg Moss)

Moss said since the 1990s he has lived in the San Jacinto River Estates neighborhood known to locals as “River Bottom.” But he said he wasn’t aware of the toxic waste that was found nearby until 2011, long after he would ride his jet skis through the river’s murky waters or take joy-rides on his four-wheeler through the mud of the Superfund site.

Moss said when the “tide surge” from Hurricane Harvey caused water to rise 113 inches into the shop he uses to fix motor boats, and 8 inches into his elevated home next door, he was trapped for days along with his dog until rescue workers took them out by boat.

(Photo Courtesy of Greg Moss)

A week later, when he returned home, the stench of mud and foul water was overwhelming and the months-long cleanup process was just beginning.

Moss cut out the damaged floor of his house and a portion of his wall, and used vinegar and peroxide to scour his shop. All the while, he said, he worried about how many toxins were now in his home.

“What else do you do with it?” he said. “You’ve got to have a place to live.”

‘Historic contamination’ predates Hurricane Harvey

Allen said he doesn’t necessarily agree that the federal government was slow to release information to the public, citing a confluence of data from various governmental agencies and private companies in the months following the storm.

“As soon as Harvey happened, as soon as it was safe enough to look at these sites the EPA was down here,” Allen said.

And Coleman said federal employees conducted a “detailed inspection” of the San Jacinto site, using boats to survey at least two areas that were breached and putting divers in the water amid zero visibility to collect water and sediment samples.

“Where the cap was breached, we did find some exposed dioxin and we collected samples, along with the responsible parties, who collected samples, to confirm that it was dioxin and it was dioxin waste that was placed in the waste pit,” Coleman said. “That was repaired immediately.”

But Coleman said “historic contamination” predating Hurricane Harvey has also created problems in the nearby Houston Ship Channel and other local waterways including the San Jacinto River.

“The San Jacinto Waste Pits was a contributor to that, not the only contributor,” he said.
Coleman said after the hurricane, federal officials have left some of the testing and research on potential health effects up to state and county officials.

(An aerial view of INEOS Phenol (L) and the Sam Houston Ship Channel Bridge is seen in Pasadena, Texas, U.S. August 31, 2017. Photo by Adrees Latif/Reuters)

Scott Jones, of the Galveston Bay Foundation, said his group recently secured a $250,000 grant to test fish populations in the San Jacinto River and other nearby waterways after Harris County officials called for additional studies. But the results of those tests will be unavailable for at least a year.

“There’s just multiple sites unfortunately in this area with all of the petrochemical we’ve had in the past and we had a lot of you know past practices or lack of practices way back in the day,” Jones said. “So I hear from people mainly around the center of the waste pits that they’re definitely concerned about it.”

On Friday, the EPA announced it added the San Jacinto River Waste Pits to a list of 21 Superfund sites slated to receive “immediate and intense attention.” The list was created by the Superfund Task Force, formed in July by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who visited the site along the San Jacinto River in September.

But Coleman said the process to clean up the San Jacinto River Waste Pits would likely take more than four years. The first year or two would be spent in negotiations with the two companies — International Paper and McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation — which would be responsible for the cleanup.

And in a region known for storms and hurricanes, some advocates say that timeline could make the situation even more tenuous.

“The whole Superfund process is just so screwed up for a number of reasons that these sites just sit there with these highly toxic materials just sitting there right in the open, right in the middle of people’s areas where they live,” Barone said. “They were causing problems anyway and then when a hurricane hits it just makes it a million times worse.”

Victory for the San Jacinto and a New Fight for TCE

Written by

TCE Blog
By Robin Schneider, Executive Director

On October 11, 2017 the EPA ordered the full removal of dioxin-laden waste pits just outside of Houston on the San Jacinto River. Big companies like Waste Management Inc. and International Paper are now on the hook for as much as $115 million.

You read that correctly: the current EPA, headed by Scott Pruitt–who was appointed by Donald Trump–went against corporate power and took the environmentalists’ side in a major dispute. It’s a testament to incredible organizing from TCE’s allies, an effort we were honored to help.

In the 1960s a paper mill in Pasadena, Texas sent their wastes to open pits at this location, disposing of highly toxic materials including dioxins. Over the years groundwater pumping has caused the ground to sink (subside), bringing the pits partially underwater. High tide and flooding events have further inundated the site, putting many of the most dangerous materials under the water.

Maybe the worst nightmare of them all came when EPA finally revealed the results of their post-Hurricane Harvey testing at the site. Dioxin is one of the most dangerous carcinogens known to science, and testing after Harvey showed some parts of the site to have dioxin levels at 2,300 times the level considered safe by the EPA.

It’s one of the worst pollution situations we’ve heard of in this state’s history.

But neighbors in the area have been undeterred at any step in this multi-year process. They won the support of their members of Congress and thousands of people in the Houston area wrote letters, compelling even one of the most environmentally compromised EPA leaders in history to go against the big businesses and with the public interest. The order for full removal is a landmark victory for our state and for our movement.

Unfortunately the federal and state programs meant to clean up sites like this one–including the Superfund program–are broken. The San Jacinto waste pits are the exception, and even that site may end up polluted for many more years while corporate attorneys and lobbyists take advantage of the failing program meant to hold them accountable.

TCE is committed to building a long-term, multi-faceted campaign to fix our state and federal cleanup programs. This means making cleanup a priority, making polluters pay for these cleanups, engaging the public at every step along the way, and putting human health and the environment ahead of developer profits.

We will still be working on better recycling and composting for our communities, and fighting a variety of other fights as they come up. But what our allies in Houston have done is given us a proof of concept. When Texans press their local and federal officials they can make even anti-environment decision-makers do the right thing for our land, water, and air.

We need your help providing that pressure as we step into this battle.

As Austin concludes recycling phase-in, city preps for zero waste goal

Written by

Community Impact News


(Courtesy of City of Austin)

Is Austin’s goal of sustainability sustainable? The city aims to be zero-waste by 2040—meaning 90 percent of discarded materials will be either recycled or composted and not sent to landfills—yet 80 percent of the items at city landfills could have been recycled or composted, according to a 2015 study.

However, business community members and environmental advocates alike seem to agree that Austin is making strides toward a target that seemed high to some at the time of its adoption in 2009—when the city became the first in Texas to adopt such a strategy.

The four-year phase-in of the city’s ordinance requiring commercial properties—including schools, medical facilities, businesses, apartments and condominiums—to provide recycling services was complete Oct. 1.

Austin still has a long way to go to meet its zero-waste goal, but the general manager of Austin’s largest processor of recyclables said the doubling of its workforce and continued investment in its far East Austin facility stand as evidence of the progress made.


(Courtesy of City of Austin)

“This is not an easy task we set ourselves at, and it’s one that I think we are as a company very much in partnership with the city on,” Balcones Resources General Manager Joaquin Mariel said.

The last phase of the recycling ordinance that rolled out Oct. 1, required all multifamily and nonresidential commercial properties to provide tenants and employees with convenient access to recycling services.

The municipal law, which has been implemented gradually since 2013, mandates that affected properties provide the following: sufficient recycling capacity; convenient access to recycling services; recycling services for such items as paper, plastics Nos. 1 and 2, aluminum, glass and cardboard; bilingual recycling education and informational container signs; and online submission of an annual diversion plan.

Single-family homes, to which the ordinance does not apply, receive curbside recycling collection via the city.

Failure to abide by any of the five guidelines can result in a fine between $200 and $2,000 per deficiency, per day.

The Texas Campaign for the Environment completed independent monitoring of how Austin businesses and apartment complexes are complying with the universal recycling ordinance. Program Director Andrew Dobbs said from what his organization has seen the ordinance has been a success.

When the ordinance was introduced in 2013, Dobbs said hardly any of the businesses and multifamily complexes were filing an annual waste-diversion plan, as required by the ordinance. Dobbs said there has been a “big shift” since then, and a majority of properties are now reporting compliance.

“There are still big gaps that need to be filled and it will be an ongoing project, but we have the foundation and framework we need to make sure all businesses in the city of Austin are recycling and diverting materials through composting,” Dobbs said.

The next true measure of the city’s progress toward its zero-waste goal will come in 2019—when the latest diversion study is slated to be released.

Understanding waste behaviors

The city’s zero-waste advocates are not the average Austinite, however, and staff members at the city’s department overseeing recycling services, Austin Resource Recovery, have been working with innovation fellows—designers and developers hired to bring solutions used in the tech sector to the public sector—to explore locals’ behaviors when it comes to material waste.

ARR Waste Diversion Planner Ron Neumond said the project was aimed at drilling into the “why” behind Austin’s numbers, such as why residents sent to landfills more than a third of organic material that could be composted.

“We decided it would be best to understand people’s perceptions of recycling first-hand,” Neumond said.

ARR staff and innovation fellows spoke to residents about recycling and how they dispose of their food and other waste after eating. The team concluded four factors determine whether a resident recycles and composts: motivation, ability, knowledge and discovery.

“This research really did change our conversations with people,” Neumond said, adding those interactions now center on improving residents’ diversion efforts rather than quizzing them.

In response to these discoveries ARR changed its messaging. Any educational materials must now address one of the areas for understanding recycling behaviors. The team rolled out an interactive way to teach the recycling dos and don’ts—a board game in which players sort items for recycling, composting, hazardous waste and donations.

“We can already see that people are more excited about recycling—that they’re more comfortable with the topic,” he said.

EPA Orders Cleanup at Texas Toxic Site Flooded by Harvey

Written by

Chicago Tribune
By Michael Biesecker, Associated Press

Members of the Texas Campaign for the Environment prepare to deliver over 2,300 letters from Texas families to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region VI office in Dallas, Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017. The letters are calling for saving federal cleanup programs under the Trump Administration. The EPA has approved a plan to remove sediments laced with highly toxic dioxin from a partially submerged Superfund site near Houston damaged during Hurricane Harvey. (AP Photo/LM Otero) The Associated Press

Trump administration orders two big corporations to pay for a $115 million cleanup at a Texas toxic waste site that may have spread dangerous levels of pollution during the flooding from Hurricane Harvey.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has handed a rare victory to environmentalists, ordering two big corporations this week to pay $115 million to clean up a Texas toxic waste site that may have spread dangerous levels of pollution during flooding from Hurricane Harvey.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a directive Wednesday requiring International Paper and McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corp., a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc., to excavate 212,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the San Jacinto River Waste Pits.

Pruitt visited the Superfund site outside Houston last month following historic rains and flooding from the storm, meeting with local environmental activists who had campaigned for years for approval of a cleanup plan.

Pruitt has said cleaning Superfund sites is among his top priorities, even as he has worked to delay and rollback a wide array of environmental regulations that would reduce air and water pollution. Often Pruitt has done so directly at the behest of industries that petitioned him for relief from what they characterize as overly burdensome and costly regulations.

At the waste pits, both companies opposed the expensive cleanup, arguing that a fabric and stone cap covering the 16-acre site was sufficient. The former site of a demolished paper mill that operated in the 1960s, the island in the middle of the San Jacinto River is heavily contaminated with dioxins — chemicals linked to cancer and birth defects.

“International Paper respectfully disagrees with the decision by the EPA,” said Tom Ryan, a spokesman for International Paper. He said removing the existing protective cap “could result in significant damage to public health and the local environment.”

Pruitt’s decision triggers the beginning of what could be months of negotiations between EPA and the two companies to reach a final settlement. If the companies refuse to comply with Pruitt’s order, EPA could sue in federal court to require compliance.

The Associated Press reported Sept. 2 about the risks from flooding at Houston-area Superfund sites, highlighting six prior occasions where the cap at the waste pits required significant repairs. Journalists surveyed seven flooded Superfund sites in and around Houston by boat, vehicle and on foot, including San Jacinto.

The EPA said at the time it was too unsafe for its personnel to visit the sites, and accused the AP in a statement of engaging in “yellow journalism” and creating panic. Nearly one month later, however, the agency confirmed that contaminated sediments at San Jacinto had, in fact, been uncovered by the storm.

A sample collected by an agency dive team from an exposed area at the site showed dioxin levels at 70,000 nanograms per kilogram — more than 2,300 times the level set to trigger a cleanup. Dioxins do not dissolve easily in water but can be carried away with any contaminated sediments and deposited over a wider area.

The EPA says additional testing will now be needed to determine whether the contamination spread and to ensure that the exposed waste material is isolated. Those results should be known in about two weeks, the agency said Thursday.

Meanwhile, workers have temporarily covered the exposed sediments with stone until the final cleanup begins.

The San Jacinto River empties into Galveston Bay, where state health officials have long advised against regularly consuming fish and shellfish due to contamination from dioxins and PCBs. The cleanup plan EPA approved this week requires the construction of a temporary dam to hold back the river while workers use heavy machinery to dig up and remove enough contaminated soil and sentiment to fill about 16,000 dump truck loads.

One of the local environmental advocates who met with Pruitt during his visit last month, Jackie Young, said people living along the river still don’t know whether the floodwaters carried toxins to their yards and homes.

“This is a monumental victory and testament to what an engaged community can accomplish,” said Young, executive director of Texas Health and Environment Alliance. “We may never know the extent of damage from Hurricane Harvey or numerous other storms, but at least the EPA is putting their best foot forward and moving in the only direction that upholds their mission.”

 

Austin’s recycling ordinance enters next phase; city works toward zero waste goal

Written by

Community Impact News

Is Austin’s goal of sustainability sustainable? The city aims to be zero-waste by 2040—meaning 90 percent of discarded materials will be either recycled or composted and not sent to landfills—yet 80 percent of the items at city landfills could have been recycled or composted, according to a 2015 study.

Though, business community members and environmental advocates alike seem to agree that Austin is making strides toward a target that seemed high to some at the time of its adoption in 2009—when the city became the first in Texas to adopt such a strategy.

The four-year phase-in of the city’s ordinance requiring commercial properties—including schools, medical facilities and businesses, in addition to apartments and condominiums—to provide recycling services is set to be complete Oct. 1.

Although Austin still has a long way to go to meet its zero-waste goal, the general manager of Austin’s largest processor of recyclables said the doubling of its workforce and continued investment in its far East Austin facility stand as evidence of the progress made.

“This is not an easy task we set ourselves at, and it’s one that I think we are as a company very much in partnership with the city on,” Balcones Resources General Manager Joaquin Mariel said.

When the last phase of the recycling ordinance rolls out Oct. 1, all multifamily and nonresidential commercial properties will be required to provide tenants and employees with convenient access to recycling services.

The municipal law, which has been implemented gradually since 2013, mandates that affected properties provide the following: sufficient recycling capacity; convenient access to recycling services; recycling services for such items as paper, plastics Nos. 1 and 2, aluminum, glass and cardboard; bilingual recycling education and informational container signs; and online submission of an annual diversion plan.

 

Is Austin’s goal of sustainability sustainable? The city aims to be zero-waste by 2040—meaning 90 percent of discarded materials will…

Single-family homes, where the ordinance does not apply, receive curbside recycling collection through the city.

Failure to abide by any of the five guidelines can result in a fine between $200 and $2,000 per deficiency, per day.

Business community

On the flip side, commercial properties are offered rebates and other incentives to invest in recycling and composting equipment.

Melissa Vogt heads the diversion efforts at The Vortex, a complex on Manor Road that comprises a stage-production theater, The Butterfly Bar and Italian food truck Patrizi’s.

The Vortex has been recycling since it was incorporated in 1988, Vogt said. Back then she said the theater company’s artistic director used to load up The Vortex’s recyclables and take them to the facility.

Now the burden on recycling enthusiasts has eased with recycling pickup available through the city’s contractors, such as Texas Disposal Services.

Last year The Vortex began discussing composting materials. The company ended up receiving $1,000 go to toward setting up that service.

The business switched from plastic to compostable straws at its bar, and Patrizi’s now uses all compostable items, including napkins and utensils.

The Vortex is not 100 percent zero-waste—the theater company uses some materials in the construction of its sets that cannot be composted or recycled.

“We definitely downsized what’s going in the landfill,” Vogt said.

Mariel said early recycling adopters can be found throughout the small-business community in Austin.

“Many of our local small businesses have been engaged in the recycling process,” he said. “Because they believe in that—it’s part of their business mission—and because they understood the [return on investment]a long time ago.

“When you reduce the amount of space you’ve dedicated to landfill [waste]and offset that with space dedicated to recycling there is … a financial balance that happens there.”

Understanding waste behaviors

The city’s zero-waste advocates are not the average Austinite, however, and staff members at the city’s department overseeing recycling services—Austin Resource Recovery—have been working with so-called innovation fellows to explore locals’ behaviors when it comes to material waste. The fellows are designers and developers hired to bring tech sector-style solutions to the public sector.

Ron Neumond, waste diversion planner with ARR, said the project was aimed at drilling into the “why” behind Austin’s numbers—why, for example, did residents send to landfills more than a third of organics that could have been composted?

“We decided it would be best to understand people’s perceptions of recycling first-hand,” Neumond said.

ARR staff, along with the innovation fellows, hit the streets to have “casual conversations” with residents about recycling and were walked through mock dinners in which respondents showed the researchers how they dispose of their food and other waste after eating. The overall 50 conversations helped the team identify some common threads.

The team concluded there are four factors in determining whether and how a resident recycles and composts: motivation, ability, knowledge and discovery.

Further, the researchers broke down their respondents into five types: enthusiasts, lone recyclers in a household, people who struggle to make ends meet and cannot prioritize recycling, the well-intentioned—but perhaps not informed—group, and the analysts or skeptics who do not trust their recycling is going to the right place.

“This research really did change our conversations with people,” Neumond said, adding those interactions now center on improving residents’ diversion efforts rather than quizzing them.

In response to these discoveries, ARR has changed its messaging. Any educational materials must now address one of the areas of its new framework for understanding recycling behaviors. The team has also rolled out an interactive way to teach the recycling dos and don’ts—a board game in which players sort items for recycling, composting, hazardous waste and donations.

“We can already see that people are more excited about recycling—that they’re more comfortable with the topic,” he said.

Progress and future monitoring

The Texas Campaign for the Environment has done independent monitoring to see how Austin businesses and apartment complexes are complying with the universal recycling ordinance.

Program Director Andrew Dobbs said from what his organization has seen the ordinance has been a success.

When the ordinance was introduced in 2013, Dobbs said hardly any of the businesses and multifamily complexes were filing an annual diversion plan, as required by the ordinance, or they were self-reporting that they would not be complying with regulations. Also known as a recycling plan, the document details such things as the types of material—and how much of it—the property plans to divert.

Dobbs said there has been a “big shift” since then, and a majority of properties are now reporting compliance. Further, he said volunteers have dropped in on businesses and apartment complexes and found most are following the rules.

“There are still big gaps that need to be filled and it will be an ongoing project, but we have the foundation and framework we need to make sure all businesses in the city of Austin are recycling and diverting materials through composting,” Dobbs said.

The next true measure of the city’s progress toward its zero-waste goal will come in 2020—when the latest diversion study is slated to be released.