It's a little while now since the spill of toxic chemicals into the Elk River in West Virginia. For several days, after a storage tank owned by the wonderfully-named Freedom Industries leaked 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, into the river, West Virgina drinking water service was virtually shut down.
Last Sunday, the Washington Post published a useful article with a broader look at regulatory oversight of toxic chemicals. In fact, Joel Achenbach, the reporter for the piece, leaves the impression that there’s little or none. He reports that when officials were scrambling to deal with the leak and assess its seriousness, they had next to no information about the chemical contaminating the water supplies. According to his article, the MCHM safety data sheet that officials were probably looking at anxiously, uses the phrase “no data available” 152 times.
That would seem unacceptable when so much emphasis is placed on the safety of the things we eat and drink. But a spokesperson for Freedom Industries said the company was, in fact, following stricter European Union standards in the data sheet; under U.S. regulations, she said, they didn’t even need to say that much.
So the Elk River spill points out the need for better information about and regulation of industrial chemicals, right? Right. But the most prominent proposed legislation, drafted by the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and David Vitter (R-LA), both from states with sizable petro-chemical industries, would, if anything, weaken oversight. Elk River may have raised the salience of the issue for a while, and prompted an effort towards stricter regulation. Here’s hoping something comes of it.
Showing posts with label water pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water pollution. Show all posts
Friday, January 24, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
Agricultural pollution in drinking water
Farmers and environmentalists often have a hard time being friends. This is especially true when agricultural fertilizers and pesticides are leaching into groundwater systems and drinking water supplies. Another instance of this was recently reported in the French department of the Vienne just south of the Loire Valley.
A biennial report from the Agence régionale santé (ASR) for the Poitou-Charente Region found dangerous levels of nitrates in several local drinking water supplies. As a result, some drinking water agencies are considering investing in special treatment systems to remove the contaminants. The ARS found similar contimination from pesticides.
The article in La Nouvelle Republique (published in Tours) only reported on the release of the ARS study, not on any corrective measures. So, absent any action, this appears to be where things will remain. Farmers will continue current practices and drinking water customers will pay higher rates to cover costs of decontamination, effectively providing another form of agricultural subsidy.
The national consumer organization UFC Que Choisir is reported to have initiated some form of legal action, but the article didn’t provide details.
A biennial report from the Agence régionale santé (ASR) for the Poitou-Charente Region found dangerous levels of nitrates in several local drinking water supplies. As a result, some drinking water agencies are considering investing in special treatment systems to remove the contaminants. The ARS found similar contimination from pesticides.
 |
| © La Nouvelle République |
The national consumer organization UFC Que Choisir is reported to have initiated some form of legal action, but the article didn’t provide details.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
What's in the water?
Earlier this week the Environmental Protection Agency released seriously disconcerting news about water quality in our rivers and streams. During 2008 and 2009 the agency drew nearly 2,000 samples from all sizes of streams, from the Mississippi River to little rivulets. Barely a fifth (21%) of these streams could be considered to be in good biological health, meaning that they provided healthy habitats for plants and animals. Slightly more than a fifth (23%) were judged to be in "fair condition." But most significantly more than half (55%) were judged to be in "poor condition"; plants and animals struggle to survive in these streams.
What's causing the pollution? The EPA report stressed two sources. The first, and probably most important, is nutrient pollution in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen originating in agricultural fertilizers and animal waste products, and to some extent from urban waste waters. The second is residential and commercial development; runoff from cleared lands carries pollutants into the streams.
When I can, I also try to follow this issue in France. (Someday maybe the political situation in Italy will get sorted out and I'll have time to catch up on environmental policies there, too.) In France a report issued in 2010 indicated that, even if the sampling methodologies were different, the water quality problems are similar. In this case Onema (l'Office national de l'eau et des milieux aquatiques) included lakes and marshes, as well as rivers and streams. The agency reported that 45% of the surface water systems were in good or very good condition, whereas 55% were in average, mediocre, or bad condition.
Interestingly, France is subject to an E.U. water quality agreement and could potentially face sanctions if it doesn't meet agreed-upon standards within the next two years.
What's causing the pollution? The EPA report stressed two sources. The first, and probably most important, is nutrient pollution in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen originating in agricultural fertilizers and animal waste products, and to some extent from urban waste waters. The second is residential and commercial development; runoff from cleared lands carries pollutants into the streams.
 |
| © U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
When I can, I also try to follow this issue in France. (Someday maybe the political situation in Italy will get sorted out and I'll have time to catch up on environmental policies there, too.) In France a report issued in 2010 indicated that, even if the sampling methodologies were different, the water quality problems are similar. In this case Onema (l'Office national de l'eau et des milieux aquatiques) included lakes and marshes, as well as rivers and streams. The agency reported that 45% of the surface water systems were in good or very good condition, whereas 55% were in average, mediocre, or bad condition.
Interestingly, France is subject to an E.U. water quality agreement and could potentially face sanctions if it doesn't meet agreed-upon standards within the next two years.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Murky water at Onema
One of the principal French water quality agencies has been charged with mismanagement and possible fraudulent contracting. This comes as as the European Union may assess France with monetary penalties for not meet water quality standards.
The Cours des comptes, the French version of the General Accountability Office, is about to release a report charging that the Office national de l'eau et des milieux aquatique (Onema) has failed to maintain records required under public contracting laws. More or less at the same time, the union representing Onema employees has filed a legal complaint with charges of fraudulent contracting and pressure on employees to ignore contracting rules.
Onema is a good-sized agency; it employs about 900 people and operates with an annual budget of 110 million euros. Formally, it's a semi-independent "établissement publique" under the administrative supervision of the Ministry of Ecology. So far Delphine Batho, the Ecology Minister, has quietly transferred the Onema director and the head of the agency's board of directors. She also shifted responsibility for the critical water information system (système d'information sur l'eau) from Onema to an agency within the Ministry, the Direction de l'eau et de la biodiversité.
Apart from the alleged individual bad acts, Le Monde suggests the potential for mismanagement and fraud was fostered by Onema's administrative position. The paper suggests the the ministry's oversight agency, also involved in water quality, was disinclined to strictly oversee a sister agency with whom it shared overlapping objectives. This may be part of the story, but it sounds incomplete. It doesn't explain, for example, how Onema also seemed to be able to avoid oversight by management and budget officials at the Ministry of Economy.
The country's slow progress towards meeting E.U. standards most likely has political as well as administrative causes. And a political one that comes to mind immediately is agriculture. The French farm industry has been doing all it can to resist stricter rules on pesticides, fertilizers, and farm waste products.
The Cours des comptes, the French version of the General Accountability Office, is about to release a report charging that the Office national de l'eau et des milieux aquatique (Onema) has failed to maintain records required under public contracting laws. More or less at the same time, the union representing Onema employees has filed a legal complaint with charges of fraudulent contracting and pressure on employees to ignore contracting rules.
Onema is a good-sized agency; it employs about 900 people and operates with an annual budget of 110 million euros. Formally, it's a semi-independent "établissement publique" under the administrative supervision of the Ministry of Ecology. So far Delphine Batho, the Ecology Minister, has quietly transferred the Onema director and the head of the agency's board of directors. She also shifted responsibility for the critical water information system (système d'information sur l'eau) from Onema to an agency within the Ministry, the Direction de l'eau et de la biodiversité.
Apart from the alleged individual bad acts, Le Monde suggests the potential for mismanagement and fraud was fostered by Onema's administrative position. The paper suggests the the ministry's oversight agency, also involved in water quality, was disinclined to strictly oversee a sister agency with whom it shared overlapping objectives. This may be part of the story, but it sounds incomplete. It doesn't explain, for example, how Onema also seemed to be able to avoid oversight by management and budget officials at the Ministry of Economy.
The country's slow progress towards meeting E.U. standards most likely has political as well as administrative causes. And a political one that comes to mind immediately is agriculture. The French farm industry has been doing all it can to resist stricter rules on pesticides, fertilizers, and farm waste products.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Nitrate pollution in the U.S., too
After yesterday's post, I thought I'd check on nitrate pollution in the U.S. It turns out it's a major problem here, too. Just yesterday, protesters were gathered outside an EPA hearing in Tampa, Florida, demanding action to deal with nitrates and phosphorous pollution. According to the Tampa Bay Times, when the weather warms up, algae blooms in Florida waterways have become an annual problem, killing fish and closing swimming areas. And back in November the New York Times had an article on nitrate contamination of water supplies in poorer, rural areas of the California Central Valley.
I've only begun to learn about the issues involved here. Still, I have a sense that the U.S. tends to approach the problem as one of water treatment. I may be overstating it, but it generally seems that farmers can fertilize and operate feed lots as they wish. Local water systems, if they exist and can afford it, will remove the pollutants. By contrast, the E.U., with the 1991 nitrates directive, seems to be moving towards direct regulation of these pollution sources.
[I]n Tulare County, one of the country’s leading dairy producers, where animal waste lagoons penetrate the air and soil, most residents rely on groundwater as the source for drinking water. A study by the University of California, Davis, this year estimated that 254,000 people in the Tulare Basin and Salinas Valley, prime agricultural regions with about 2.6 million residents, were at risk for nitrate contamination of their drinking water. Nitrates have been linked to thyroid disease and make infants susceptible to “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal condition that interferes with the blood’s capacity to carry oxygen.Amazing!
I've only begun to learn about the issues involved here. Still, I have a sense that the U.S. tends to approach the problem as one of water treatment. I may be overstating it, but it generally seems that farmers can fertilize and operate feed lots as they wish. Local water systems, if they exist and can afford it, will remove the pollutants. By contrast, the E.U., with the 1991 nitrates directive, seems to be moving towards direct regulation of these pollution sources.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Nitrates, protests and elections
France's FNSEA (Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles) brought members into the street this week to protest an E.U. directive on nitrates. The directive, adopted over 20 years ago in 1991, is intended to improve water quality by reducing the quantities of nitrates entering ground and surface waters from agricultural sources, principally from nitrogen fertilizers. France faces E.U. sanctions this year if it fails to meet directive requirements.
The country, as required by the directive, has already identified some 18,860 "nitrate vulnerable zones." If voluntary "best practices" haven't done enough to meet water quality standards, farmers will face compulsory reductions in fertilizer use. On the face of it, this appears to be what the demonstrations were about. Farmers in Le Puy, Tours, Rennes, and several other cities, voiced their opposition by driving tractors and wagons into town and dumping manure or old tires or other junk in front of targeted government offices.
Meanwhile, as it happens, farmers across the country have just received ballots for elections to the chambres d'agriculture and need to put them back in the mail before the end of the month. Under the law of the Code rural, the chambers have consultative, representative, and professional functions. And they exist at the departmental, regional, and national levels. They are a kind of corporate representation for agriculture in governmental affairs.
FNSEA, the largest farm organization, has its candidates for the chambers. And so do the Confédérataion paysanne (which includes José Bové) and Coordination rurale. A spokesperson for Coordination rurale was probably not being too cynical when he suggested that the FNSEA demonstrations, timed as they were, may have had more to do with mobilizing support for its candidates than it did with objections to nitrate regulations.
The country, as required by the directive, has already identified some 18,860 "nitrate vulnerable zones." If voluntary "best practices" haven't done enough to meet water quality standards, farmers will face compulsory reductions in fertilizer use. On the face of it, this appears to be what the demonstrations were about. Farmers in Le Puy, Tours, Rennes, and several other cities, voiced their opposition by driving tractors and wagons into town and dumping manure or old tires or other junk in front of targeted government offices.
Meanwhile, as it happens, farmers across the country have just received ballots for elections to the chambres d'agriculture and need to put them back in the mail before the end of the month. Under the law of the Code rural, the chambers have consultative, representative, and professional functions. And they exist at the departmental, regional, and national levels. They are a kind of corporate representation for agriculture in governmental affairs.
FNSEA, the largest farm organization, has its candidates for the chambers. And so do the Confédérataion paysanne (which includes José Bové) and Coordination rurale. A spokesperson for Coordination rurale was probably not being too cynical when he suggested that the FNSEA demonstrations, timed as they were, may have had more to do with mobilizing support for its candidates than it did with objections to nitrate regulations.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
State of the Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has just issued its new State of the Bay report for 2012. The last one was two years ago and covered 2010.
Overall, the Foundation found a modest improvement. Based on thirteen indicators, it increased the measure of the Bay’s health by one point to an overall score of 32 out of 100, still, a D+ in school terms. At this level CBF judges the Bay to be “dangerously out of balance.” It would need to reach a score of 50 before being considered “stable” and 70 to be considered “saved.”
Under CBF's methodology five indicators were up, seven were at the same levels, and one, the health of underwater grasses, declined. The report expressed a little optimism in noting that despite 2012’s small improvement, the score is up by 4 points over the last five years. Even so, by my quick calculation, at this rate it could take nearly 50 years to reach the level at which CBF considers the Bay to have been saved.
A big part of the problem is the complexity of Bay governance. The federal Environmental Protection Agency can do a certain amount to set regulatory standards and provide funding to states and localities. But the real will to improve Bay conditions lies with the six states in the Bay watershed (see map above) -- New York, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Each of these by their water pollution control efforts affects the quality of the water entering the Bay.
The report was also featured on the front page of today's Washington Post.
Overall, the Foundation found a modest improvement. Based on thirteen indicators, it increased the measure of the Bay’s health by one point to an overall score of 32 out of 100, still, a D+ in school terms. At this level CBF judges the Bay to be “dangerously out of balance.” It would need to reach a score of 50 before being considered “stable” and 70 to be considered “saved.”
Under CBF's methodology five indicators were up, seven were at the same levels, and one, the health of underwater grasses, declined. The report expressed a little optimism in noting that despite 2012’s small improvement, the score is up by 4 points over the last five years. Even so, by my quick calculation, at this rate it could take nearly 50 years to reach the level at which CBF considers the Bay to have been saved.
A big part of the problem is the complexity of Bay governance. The federal Environmental Protection Agency can do a certain amount to set regulatory standards and provide funding to states and localities. But the real will to improve Bay conditions lies with the six states in the Bay watershed (see map above) -- New York, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Each of these by their water pollution control efforts affects the quality of the water entering the Bay.
The report was also featured on the front page of today's Washington Post.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Toxic clothing
In many cases analysts found high levels of cancer-causing phthalates and hormone-affecting nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). The U.S. has banned phthalates from use in clothing and children’s toys. The European Union has restricted use of NPEs, which are lethal for aquatic animals. Offenders included Giorgio Armani, Calvin Klein and Zara. The report praised H&M and Levi’s for efforts to detoxify their clothing.
The report doesn’t mention J. Crew or Patagonia, but, of the things I'm wearing right now, at least I know my jeans are trying to be toxin free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)