Mediaboss Marketing

For decades, a 1,4 dioxane plume has contaminated groundwater in Scio Township and Ann Arbor. Legal battles have been ongoing with the original polluter, Gelman Sciences, and its subsequent owners. Now, a new consent judgement has been reached and it is expected to improve the situation. In this week's "Issues of the Environment," WEMU's David Fair talks with the City of Ann Arbor's water treatment services manager, Brian Steglitz, about the agreement and what needs to happen next to get the settlement approved and implemented.

Issues of the Environment: 09/02/20

Overview

Gelman Settlement - Important Facts

Who is currently in charge of the cleanup?

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE).

What is 1,4-dioxane (dioxane") and what are the potential health impacts that might result from exposure to it?

Dioxane is a manmade compound that mixes easily in water. It is used in industry as a solvent to manufacture other chemicals and it is a by-product in many items, including paint strippers, dyes, greases, antifreeze and aircraft deicing fluids. It also is found in other chemicals that are used to manufacture cosmetics, detergents, deodorants and shampoos.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has determined that 1,4-dioxane is "possibly carcinogenic" to humans because it is a known carcinogen in animals. USEPA states that it is likely to be carcinogenic to humans. More information on exposure to 1,4-dioxane and its health effects is located on the State of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services website.

Where is the dioxane in the groundwater and how did it get there?

Dioxane was used from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s in the manufacturing processes at Gelman's facility on Wagner Road. Gelman's wastewater, containing dioxane, was disposed onsite during that time. In the mid-1980s dioxane was discovered offsite, in nearby surface waters and groundwater.

The groundwater in underground aquifers that is carrying dioxane is referred to as a plume. Multiple plumes have been spreading west in Scio Township and northeast then east into Ann Arbor, moving towards the Huron River. More information on dioxane and its location in the groundwater is located on the Washtenaw County Public Health Department's website.

When was the original Consent Judgment established and what does it now require?

In 1992, the Washtenaw County Circuit Court entered a Consent Judgment regarding Gelman's dioxane contamination. Three amendments to the original Consent Judgment have been approved by the Court and are in effect.

The Consent Judgment and its amendments dictate the obligations of Gelman to investigate, clean up, contain and monitor the contaminated groundwater, under the direction of EGLE.

The Court did not require full cleanup of all of the released dioxane. As one example, the portion of the plume within the City of Ann Arbor and its projected pathway toward the Huron River, including buffer areas, is designated as the Prohibition Zone." Because of existing and projected groundwater contamination within this zone, no uses of groundwater, such as residential wells for irrigation or other purposes, are permitted within this zone.

What is the Prohibition Zone (or PZ") and how does it affect my property?

In the State vs. Gelman lawsuit, the Court approved a Prohibition Zone (PZ") as an Institutional Control. This allows dioxane above the groundwater cleanup criterion to migrate, rather than be cleaned up, within the PZ. The prohibition" part of the PZ title refers to a prohibition against installing or maintaining wells for drinking water or irrigation purposes on land within the PZ boundaries. All of the PZ is within the boundaries of the City of Ann Arbor, which requires all propertiesregardless of where they are relative to the PZto connect to the city's municipal water supply system rather than get water from wells on their properties. The location of the PZ can be viewed on the map.

What is the current status of the cleanup effort?

Gelman has been pumping and treating groundwater contaminated with dioxane it released since the early 1990's. Gelman discharges the treated water into Honey Creek which is a tributary of the Huron River. The discharge is permitted by the State of Michigan through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

What is the Proposed Fourth Amendment and Restatement to the Consent Judgment and what is its current status?

Following EGLE's approval of a reduction of the groundwater cleanup criterion for dioxane from 85 parts per billion (ppb) to 7.2 ppb in October 2016, a proposed fourth amendment to and restatement of the Consent Judgment has been under negotiation between Gelman, the State of Michigan (EGLE), the City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and its Health Department, Scio Township, and the Huron River Watershed Council since the spring of 2017. The result of this negotiation is the proposed Fourth Amendment to and Restatement of the Consent Judgment. The proposed fourth amendment and related documents, including a chart of key changes it proposes is available via the document repository webpage.

What are the major elements included in the proposed Fourth Amendment and Restated Consent Judgment that are new?

The fourth amendment and restated consent judgment includes four significant elements:

These elements are expected to result in an increasing of pump and treatment of groundwater by over 40 percent and an increase in removal of dioxane by over 200 percent. This will be completed by the installation of additional extraction wells as well as incorporation of two new treatment technologies for dioxane removal:

If I would like more information about the proposed Fourth Amendment and Restated Consent Judgment, where can I find it?

There is a document repository webpage with all the documents being considered by the Local Government Intervenors, including:

How can I provide input?

There will be opportunities for public input. It is anticipated that one or more work sessions could be scheduled of Ann Arbor City Council, Washtenaw County Board, and the Scio Township Board. Once scheduled, the date(s) will be promoted via this webpage, the city's meeting calendar and shared via city communication channels. If you would like to receive more information when scheduled, please sign up for email notifications from the city.

What are the next steps in advancing the cleanup effort?

The next steps in the cleanup effort are set out in, and are dependent on the fourth amendment to the Consent Judgment being approved and entered by the Court.

What decisions are impending, who will make them, and what is the timeline?

Following public comment hearings, the local government Intervenors (City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and Scio Township) will vote on the proposed Fourth Amended and Restated Consent Judgment, Order of Dismissal, and the Settlement Agreement with that local unit of government. See the Document Repository webpage to review those documents.

When all three local governments and the Huron River Watershed Council have made their decisions, the parties will notify the court whether they and Gelman have approved or agreed to all these documents. The date for the vote by the Ann Arbor City Council will be posted once identified. If dates for the votes by the County Board of Commissioner or Scio Township Board of Trustees become known to the city, they also will be posted. There will be a hearing prior to each of these entities voting allowing for public comment.

The court will incorporate public comments before it decides whether to approve and enter the Fourth Amended and Restated Consent Judgment, Order of Dismissal, and Settlement Agreements. The parties have a court date on October 22, 2020, to report on the Intervenor votes, so the local government Intervenors are expecting to vote before then. (Source: https://www.a2gov.org/departments/water-treatment/Pages/Gelman-1,4-Dioxane-Litigation.aspx)

Lifting of Confidentiality - Public Comment Begins

Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw County Health Department, the City of Ann Arbor, Scio Township and the Huron River Watershed Council were granted intervenor rights several years ago allowing them to participate in a legal process to develop a revised Consent Judgment that will govern the continued clean-up of the Gelman site.

The Gelman site is currently contaminated with 1,4-Dioxane and there has been significant public interest in increasing the on-going clean-up efforts. Until now, the process of revising the Consent Judgment was subject to a Court Confidentiality Order dated March 23, 2017 which prohibited the parties from disclosing publicly any information about the negotiations.

The parties have now reached a point in the legal process where certain information may be shared for public review and comment after Washtenaw County Trial Court Judge Connors partially lifted the Confidentiality Order on Monday, August 31, 2020. That order allows for the following documents to be made public:

Seven short videos providing summary explanations of the proposed settlement,

These documents are available via an online repository developed by the intervening parties. The repository is available at http://www.a2gov.org/gelmanproposedsettlementdocs or through links on the intervening parties websites. (Source: https://www.a2gov.org/Pages/Gelman-Proposed-Settlement-Documents.aspx)

Non-commercial, fact based reporting is made possible by your financial support.Make your donation to WEMU todayto keep your community NPR station thriving.

Like 89.1WEMUonFacebookand follow us onTwitter

David Fair is the WEMU News Director and host of Morning Edition on WEMU. You can contact David at734.487.3363, on twitter@DavidFairWEMU, or email him atdfair@emich.edu

See the original post here:
Issues Of The Environment: Consent Judgment Reached To Better Remediate Gelman 1,4 Dioxane Plume - WEMU

He has become part of the furniture when it comes to discussions about privacy rights and personal liberties, arguably an odd sort of thing for a man who also dealt in the shadows of intelligence secrets. But Edward Snowden has been doing his bit to reveal and chip away at the foundations of the national security state that continues to thrive. The advent of coronavirus and pandemic surveillance will merely serve to advance it, but in June 2013, Snowdens exposures of National Security Agency practices were raw and unsettling to the wonks of the establishment.

The most troubling of the revelations was not that the NSA conducts surveillance, its natural bread and butter; it was how such grubbily enterprising efforts as the metadata collection program were allowed to flourish with feral abandon. The forests of paranoia after the 9/11 attacks on US soil proved rich for such legislative instruments as the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 215, in particular, authorised the bulk collection by agencies of telephony metadata, known in the trade as call detail records. It had been barely read by members of Congress in a hurry; patriotism can encourage a special sort of dedicated illiteracy.

The NSA program, at least in that form, was ended with the reforms passed by the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. Critics were quick to note that section 215 was merely given a trim and a clean. The original provision permitted the NSA to store call detail records (time, duration, the numbers communicating in a call, excluding the content of the call) and search them as required. Since the changes, such records are held by telephone companies; the agency can only request them via an order of the Foreign Intelligence Service Court.

The provision, according to Human Rights Watch, still permits the government to collect a staggering amount of data, in secret and without a warrant, on how people use their phones, chilling freedom of expression and association. Between 2015 and 2019, the program cost $10 million and could only boast one significant lead, a palpably poor return for even the most devout surveillance types.

The expiry of Section 215 powers in March 15, 2020 led to a merry legislative jig. The Senate passed the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act in May. The oversight measures proposed by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) made it through, expanding the role of independent advisers to the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Service Act of 1978. But in so doing, the Senate failed to adopt the amendment proposed by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Steve Daines (R-MT), which would have prevented the government conducting warrantless surveillance on internet browsing and search histories.

Wyden was more than a touch irritated at his colleagues. The legislation, he outlined in a statement, hands the government power for warrantless collection of Americans web browsing and internet searches, as well as other private information, without having to demonstrate that those Americans have done anything wrong.

The Senate also refused to prohibit the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and surveillance conducted under the Article II executive power against people in the United States or in proceedings against them, both ideas of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).

Privacy advocates were feeling a touch deflated. It took a decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down on September 2 to add a spring to their steps, if only after the fact. The decision in United States v Moalin was not bound to make them break out into a canter. The facts of the case covered the previous incarnation of bulk surveillance exposed by Snowden. The outcome was also a tad troubling. The four appellants, Somali immigrants convicted in 2013 for transferring $10,900 in support of the terrorist group al-Shabaab, had their convictions upheld.

The judges held that the government may have violated the Fourth Amendment [protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures] when it collected the telephony metadata of millions of Americans, including at least one of the defendants, pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Unfortunately for the defendants, the metadata collection, even if unconstitutional, did not taint the evidence introduced by the government at trial. The application for suppression of the evidence what were described by the defendants as the alleged fruits of the unlawful metadata collection, failed. Additionally, the FISA wiretap evidence was not held to be the fruit of the unlawful metadata collection.

Scattered through the judgment are a few sprinklings of hope for privacy advocates. Some of these are merely confirmations and recapitulations. Others are clarifications for the intelligence community. The government had, for instance, argued that ordinary criminal investigations should not be treated in the same context as those in a foreign intelligence context. The Fourth Amendment protections should be applied differently.

Not so, claimed the panel. The judges acknowledged that the Fourth Amendment required notice to be given to a defendant when the prosecution intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose information obtained or derived from the surveillance of that defendant conducted pursuant to the governments foreign intelligence authorities. As the Fourth Amendment did apply to foreign intelligence investigations, it followed that US criminal defendants against whom the government uses evidence obtained or derived from foreign intelligence may have Fourth Amendment rights to protect. The problem for the defendants here was that failure to provide notice by the government did not prejudice them.

The American Civil Liberties Unions Patrick Toomey saw the ruling as vindicating that the NSAs bulk collection of Americans records violated the Constitution. The mandatory notice requirement for authorities constituted an essential protection in a field of novel spying tools. The Snowden legacy continues to be harvested, if unevenly.

Read more:
Fruits of Illegality: The NSA, Bulk Collection and Warrantless Surveillance - CounterPunch

A few weeks ago this story was shared on the Facebook page of the American Humanist Association (AHA) to celebrate a preliminary injunction by a federal judge against Idahos backwards Fairness in Womens Sports Act. The comments thread quickly devolved into a malicious and transphobic free-for-all. Faced with an onslaught of posts that violated our social media guidelines, our social media coordinator brought the social justice department in to assist. It took nearly three hours for all of us to properly moderate the conversation, and were still actively monitoring the post because the vitriol hasnt stopped.

As a team, we did a post mortem: What could we have done differently to stem the harm early? Should we have taken the post down? What can we do better next time? But this exercise doesnt change the fact that our social media platforms, which are intended to be a positive space where humanists from all over the country can share perspectives and build community, fostered harm with that post.

So, while elsewhere were working on repairing that harm, Id like to use this space to lay out our perspective. To be clear, as a cisgender heterosexual woman, I am not writing on behalf of transgender athletes. And I encourage people who havent already taken in perspectives from transgender athletes to do so now. I also will not attempt to debunk every harmful, transphobic, and transmisogynist myth shared on our page about transgender athletes. Others have already done that more thoroughly than I could.

Instead, lets focus on the specifics of the Idaho lawthe Fairness in Womens Sports Actthat was scheduled to go into effect this summer alongside another new state law prohibiting people from changing the gender listed on their birth certificate (the latter, proposed under the guise of supporting accurate record keeping, was struck down).

The Fairness in Womens Sports Act would ban student athletes from participating in girls school sports if they do not meet specific criteria. Heres how the law would determine whether or not a student can participate:

A dispute regarding a students sex shall be resolved by the school or institution by requesting that the student provide a health examination and consent form or other statement signed by the students personal health care provider that shall verify the students biological sex. The health care provider may verify the students biological sex as part of a routine sports physical examination relying only on one (1) or more of the following: the students reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels. [Full text available here.]

Simply put, in order to participate in student athletics, women and girls would have to prove they are cisgender (and in effect possibly prove they are endosex by subjecting themselves to invasive exams and tests to assess their chromosomal makeup, external genitalia, and/or testosterone levels. These invasive assessments are founded on a scientifically debunked understanding of sex and gender. The law says nothing of mens and boys school sports. Whats more, its the only law of its kind in the US, though similar bills have been introduced in at least sixteen states. Opponents of the law claim its unconstitutional. In this view, it violates the Fourth Amendment protecting US citizens against unlawful search and seizure, and it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So those are the facts.

The AHA, along with our secular partners, opposed these anti-transbills in Idaho and celebrates this announcement from the court.

We also contend its no accident that anti-transactivists support the Fairness in Womens Sports Act under the guise of protecting women, even though this law would lead to traumatic and invasive experiences for transgender women, intersex women, and any student athlete participating in womens sports who appears too masculine, too strong, or even perhaps too successful. Thats a perverse form of paternalism if Ive ever seen one. So, I ask; Who is this law protecting?

There are so many gender issues that need to be addressed on the state level, but Idaho legislators chose this issue. Why might that be? If legislators want to get serious about protecting womens rights, I recommend they address real problems. In Idaho,20.8 percent of female students in Idaho have experienced sexual assaults(5 percent more than the US average) andLGBTQ girls are being led to suicide because of religious doctrine, alongside so many other longstanding forms of gender-based discrimination and violence.

But we also have to ask: What are we protecting students from? With the scientific evidence available, sporting bodies have determined that transgender athletes do not have an unfair advantage over cisgender athletes. The NCAA, for example, has had regulations inclusive of transgender athletes for at least the last ten years. And the Idaho High School Activities Association has clear guidelines that allow students to participate in athletic programs that are consistent with their gender identity. School athletics teach young people about teamwork, goal setting, self-esteem, and, yes, they also teach about healthy competition. Shouldnt all students get the opportunity to participate in that learning, and shouldnt they be able to do that authentically?

Lets not mince words. Laws that try to preventtransathletes from participating in sports or preventtransstudents from using the bathroom most suitable for them arent about protecting women and girls. Theyre about shaming and controllingtransgender bodies.Anti-transgender activists have lost the discriminatory fight for bathrooms and so have moved on to athletics.

Sports have always been a platform where rights are negotiated and fought for. And women having to prove their womanhood isnt new (see the history of the nude parade of women athletes).

As humanists, what kind of society do we want? I would hope its one guided by scientific evidence but founded on the dignity and worth of every human being. Personally, I was ashamed of how our community represented itself on Facebook that day. While Im sure a fair number of commenters were trolls, we also must consider that vitriolic and harmful comments also came from humanists. Thats something we will continue to reckon with.

For this humanist, and for the American Humanist Association as an organization, bone density and femur-to-hip anglesmajor points of contention from our Facebook commentsdo not make a person, do not make an athlete, and do not make a woman. Im encouraged that our sports and schools continue to evolve to be more inclusive. I hope humanists are open to doing the same.

See the original post here:
Trolling and Controlling: Harming Trans Athletes Is Not a Humanist Sport - The Humanist

Federal agents have begun to withdraw from Portland, Oregon, where they were stationed to protect federal property and personnel amid protests in the city, despite objection by local leaders. But, their authority to be there in the first place has deep roots.

Legislation passed just after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 designed to protect the U.S. from national security threats; and judicial expansion just after the Civil War designed to ensure southern states adhered to Reconstruction-era laws provide the framework for what we see today, says Northeastern law professor Michael Meltsner.

Michael Meltsner is the George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews distinguished university professor of law in the Northeastern University School of Law. Photo by Matthew Modoono/Northeastern University

Federal presence in Portland is both authorized and problematic, says Meltsner, who is the George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law.

Authorities in the Trump administration say that the federal agents, who were deployed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, are in Portland to protect federal property and personnel. The federal force is composed of officers from Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement who back up the Federal Protective Service, which is already responsible for protecting federal property, according to The New York Times.

On July 29, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced that the forces would begin withdrawing from the state beginning July 30.

The federal agents arrived after weeks of protests in the city against racial injusticeprotests that had already been met with aggressive tactics from local police that were criticized by local officials including the governor, speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, and some city councilors.

President Donald J. Trump has also threatened to send as many as 75,000 federal agents to other U.S. cities to quell protests there as well, even as local authorities in Portland, including Brown and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, have implored the agency to stand down, and the Oregon attorney general and the American Civil Liberties Union, a civil rights group, have sued.

But federal officials say they have clear authority. Representatives from Customs and Border Protection cited a section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, legislation passed after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

The act gives the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security the authority to protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the federal government and the persons on the property. The law was designed to protect the U.S. national security threats such as those perpetrated on 9/11, Meltsner says.

The agents in Oregon were there ostensibly, then, to protect federal propertyincluding the federal courthouse in downtown Portlandfrom protesters, he says.

To the extent that this is all they were doing, it would seem non-controversial, Meltsner says.

But news media reports from the city show what appear to be plain-clothes federal agents forcing protesters into unmarked vans.

If that were the case, Meltsner says, the agents would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects U.S. citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In that case, just because federal agents have nominal authority under a federal statute, it doesnt mean that they can violate peoples constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, Meltsner says. From what Ive read in the papers, it would appear that these federal agents are interfering with the liberty of the people without any cause.

A state official could decide to take a federal agent to court over an alleged violation. Often, however, such cases are not tried in a state courthouse, theyre removed to the federal court system to be triedor, as is often the case, dismissedthere, Meltsner says.

This act of removal is a judicial power that was created during the Reconstruction period in the U.S., roughly 1863 to 1875. During the years after the Civil War, progressive congressmen passed legislation that would ensure the rights of formerly enslaved people in the countryincluding the passage of the Fourteenth Amendmentand sent federal agents to various Southern states to enforce that legislation.

White officials in those Southern states, reluctant to apply the new legislation to formerly enslaved people in their states, tried to find ways to prosecute the federal agents enforcing the laws, Meltsner says. In order to protect the agents and the rights of Black people, Congress allowed cases that had begun in state courts to be taken out of them and tried in federal courts, where they were often dismissed, he says.

Now, Meltsner says, the same tactics may be used to protect the federal agents allegedly acting unlawfully in Oregon.

Basically, whats happening in Portland now could ultimately involve the same tactics used by the Justice Department to protect these federal agents during Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement, Meltsner says.

And, he adds, although the focus on federal intervention in the city is warranted, its just as important to examine the behavior of the city and state police before federal agents arrived.

Based on the news reports, it would appear that there was an incredible amount of First Amendment and Fourth Amendment violation from the Portland Police Department, Meltsner says. This is certainly an evolving situation, with a lot of questions to be answered about what, exactly, is going on.

For media inquiries, please contact Jessica Hair at j.hair@northeastern.edu or 617-373-5718.

Link:
How 9/11 and the US Civil War provided the framework for federal agents in Portland - News@Northeastern

To the Editor:

He has erected a multitude of new officers and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

These words were among the charges against tyrant King George III in declaring independence from England in 1776. History repeats itself. These charges have come alive today in the tyrannical actions of our would be king, Donald Trump.

To quote further from our Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.

No governor of any state or mayor of any city, has given consent to Trumps sending his storm troopers to invade their cities. These storm troopers have unlawfully beaten, gassed and detain demonstrators in Portland, Oregon, violating their constitutional rights.

To quote from the First Amendment to our Constitution: Congress shall make no laws .... abridging the right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Fourth Amendment states: The right of people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Donald Trumps use of storm troopers is in flagrant violation of our First and Fourth amendments. Please note Trump is only targeting states and cities with Democratic governors and mayors. His unidentified military force is creating urban warfare designed to convince Americans that Democrats are out-of-control rioters and anarchists. Trump is posturing as a law-and-order president. His use of this tactic is designed to sway voters to reelect him and his Republican supporters in November.

Do we still believe in the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? Our Founders fought and died in the Revolution to secure this government for future generations of Americans. At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked What kind of government do we have? Franklin replied, A republic, if we can keep it. This question has yet to be determined.

What would our Founding Fathers do?

Margaret Abel

Franklin

View original post here:
What would the Founding Fathers do? - Smoky Mountain News