• Dupont Withheld Toxic Test Results for 20 Years, EPA Alleges
  
• Doctors Recommend Mercury Fish Warnings Be Posted in Stores
  
• Reef Experts Object to U.S. Military Heliport Off Okinawa
  
• New Mexicans Choose Otero Mesa Aquifer Over Oil and Gas
  
• Lawsuit Threatened to Force EPA Action on Stormwater Runoff
  
• Montana Prepares for Public Hunt of Yellowstone Bison
  
• Land Conservation Ballot Measures Accessible in New Database
  
• 150 Year Database of Tropical Storms Now Online
  

Dupont Withheld Toxic Test Results for 20 Years, EPA Alleges

The EPA alleges that from June of 1981 through March of 2001, DuPont had but did not submit to the agency information regarding the synthetic chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

PFOA is used in the manufacturing of fluoropolymers, including some Teflon products, at DuPont's Washington Works facility in Washington, West Virginia.

In 1981, the company observed PFOA in blood samples taken from pregnant workers at the Washington Works facility and at least one woman had transferred the chemical to her fetus, the EPA said in its formal complaint.

DuPont detected the chemical in public water supplies as early as the mid-1980s in West Virginia and Ohio communities in the vicinity of the Washington Works facility, the agency said.

By 1991 DuPont had information that the chemical was in water supplies at a greater level than the company's exposure guidlelines indicated would be without any effect to members of the community, said the EPA.

In 1997, DuPont failed to provide the agency with all toxicological information the company had regarding PFOA, despite an EPA request for this information under the terms of a permit. An attorney working on a class action suit on behalf of citizens in Ohio and West Virginia brought this information to the EPA in 2001.

Based on these failures to report, the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said it is taking administrative action against DuPont for two violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act and one violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The EPA has not proposed a specific penalty, but the agency says it has the authority to seek a penalty of $25,000 per day for violations before January 30, 1997, and up to $27,500 per day for violations thereafter, for each day that DuPont failed to report the information.

Dupont said today that it would file a formal denial to the complaint within 30 days. "DuPont has provided substantial information to EPA supporting our conclusion that we have followed the law," said DuPont General Counsel Stacey Mobley.

"The evidence from over 50 years of experience and extensive scientific studies supports our conclusion that PFOA does not harm human health or the environment," Mobley said.

The EPA is working to complete a revised risk assessment for PFOA, which will be released later this year for public peer review by the EPA Science Advisory Board.

The EPA says DuPont's test results on PFOA over the 20 year period at issue would help in understanding the sources, exposure pathways and effects of PFOA for the risk assessment.

Since April 2003, EPA staffers have been working with DuPont, 3M, and other companies to better understand the chemical, which is an unregulated compound.

To read the complaint, visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/complaints/civil/mm/dupont-pfoa-complaint.pdf

For more on the risk assessment of PFOA visit: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pfoa/

Doctors Recommend Mercury Fish Warnings Be Posted in Stores

At its annual meeting June 12 to 16 in Chicago, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted resolutions warning that women who might become pregnant, are pregnant, or who are nursing should follow federal, state, and local advisories on fish consumption. "Because these advisories may differ, the most protective advisory should be followed," the doctors said.

Physicians should assist in educating patients about the relative mercury content of fish and shellfish products, the AMA decided; they should make patients aware of the advice in both national and regional consumer fish consumption advisories.

Testing of the mercury content of fish should be continued by appropriate agencies, the physicians said, and results should be publicly accessible and reported in a consumer friendly format.

"Given the limitations of national consumer fish consumption advisories, the [U.S.] Food and Drug Administration should consider the advisability of requiring that fish consumption advisories and results related to mercury testing be posted where fish, including canned tuna, are sold," the new AMA policy states.

"FDA recently warned pregnant women and children to limit albacore tuna consumption to one can per week," said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project. "Now it's time for FDA to thoroughly test seafood and follow AMA's recommendation to mandate mercury warnings wherever canned tuna and other seafood is sold."

Last year, Bender points out, California grocery chains - including Safeway, Whole Foods and Trader Joe's - began posting mercury warnings at fish counters advising women and children to not eat swordfish and shark, and to limit consumption of fresh tuna.

Last month, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit aimed at requiring the tuna industry and stores to label cans or post mercury warnings where canned tuna is sold.

The defendants include - Tri-Union Seafoods, maker of Chicken of the Sea; Del Monte, maker of Starkist; and Bumble Bee Seafoods, maker of Bumble Bee. Filed in San Francisco Superior Court, Lockyer's complaint alleges the companies have violated Proposition 65, a 1986 ballot initiative enacted by voters. The law requires businesses to provide "clear and reasonable" warnings before exposing people to known carcinogens or reproductive toxins.

"This is a crucial public health issue," said Lockyer. "Prenatal exposure to mercury can cause serious disabilities in infants and children. We're not trying to eliminate tuna from people's diets. We're trying to enforce the law and protect the health and safety of California women and children."

Mercury is a persistent, bio-accumulative toxin that poses a significant health risk. A potent neurotoxin, mercury exposures can affect the brain, kidneys and liver, and spinal chord, and cause developmental problems.

Recent findings by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate that one in every six of childbearing age has unsafe mercury blood levels.

In March, the EPA and FDA issued a joint notice advising pregnant and nursing women, women who may become pregnant and young children to limit their consumption of canned albacore tuna to six ounces per week, an amount equal to one average meal. The advisory said the same groups should eat no more than 12 ounces, or two average meals, of canned light tuna and other fish that are lower in mercury.

Reef Experts Object to U.S. Military Heliport Off Okinawa

New Mexicans Choose Otero Mesa Aquifer Over Oil and Gas

Only 47 percent of Republicans surveyed, who would be expected to support the Bush administration's plan, approved of the BLM drilling proposal.

The pivotal issue is water quality, as the proposed Otero Mesa drilling sites are over an aquifer that could supply drinking water to 800,000 state residents, roughly half of New Mexico's current population. Groundwater is vulnerable to contamination by oil and gas drilling.

About three out of five of respondents of all parties, 59 percent, see water as the state's top environmental issue, with 45 percent pointing specifically to the water shortage as the biggest concern and another 14 percent highlighting water conservation.

The survey was conducted by the Albuquerque based Research & Polling, Inc. (RPI), for the Campaign to Protect America's Lands (CPAL), which describes itself as "nonprofit and nonpartisan."

A greater percentage of those polled, 63 percent, support the counterproposal for Otero Mesa put forward by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat, which places tougher limits on drilling to protect the environment.

Three-quarters of Hispanic voters support the Richardson plan, which does more to protect the environment than would be the case under the more expansive BLM proposal. While 83 percent of Democrats prefer the governor's plan, just 47 percent of Republican voters favor the BLM approach.

Over three-fifths, 62 percent, of voters who hunt or fish regularly support the Richardson plan as do 56 percent of voters whose families are ranchers or farmers.

Research & Polling President Brian Sanderoff said, "The Richardson plan, which places stronger restrictions on drilling, is clearly preferred among state voters. New Mexico voter support for stronger environmental protections on Otero Mesa reflects the importance of the water supply in the state."

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance Executive Director Stephen Capra said, "The federal government's plan to endanger Otero Mesa is being directed from Washington at the expense of those of us that call New Mexico home. New Mexicans clearly understand that Otero Mesa and the drinking water beneath it are simply too valuable a resource to lose for a few days or weeks worth of oil or gas."

Covering some 1.2 million acres of Chihuahuan Desert grassland, Otero Mesa extends eastward from the Hueco Mountains to the Guadalupe Mountains and north from the Texas border into New Mexico. This vast grassland is inhabited by many species of wildlife, native plants and cattle grazed by local ranchers.

Capra and other conservationists say New Mexico should concentrate on developing clean, renewable sources of energy, to make the state an alternative energy leader and preserve Otero Mesa at the same time.

Campaign to Protect America's Lands Director Peter Altman said, "New Mexicans know a bad deal when they are offered one, and the BLM's plan to drill Otero Mesa is clearly a loser for New Mexico."

Altman said, "New Mexicans are being asked to accept threats to their groundwater, ruin habitat for a number of species and give up a huge rare natural grassland area, all so a special interest insider can get a few days worth of natural gas? People are smarter than that."

Lawsuit Threatened to Force EPA Action on Stormwater Runoff

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Waterkeeper Alliance charge that the EPA's "unwillingness" to control this pollution will lead to more beach closings, waterborne disease, flooding, fish kills and contaminated drinking water supplies.

They claim that the agency's inaction is illegal. The EPA now has 60 days to establish standards to avoid the lawsuit.

"The EPA isn't protecting our water, its protecting asphalt," said Nancy Stoner, director of the Clean Water Project at NRDC. "The parking lot lobby may be happy about that, but Americans who like to swim, fish, and drink clean water are out of luck."

Pollution from runoff from paved surfaces, such as parking lots, highways and rooftops, is the fastest growing source of water pollution across the country, according to a 2002 report by the Pew Oceans Commission.

NRDC and the Waterkeeper Alliance say EPA's failure to control urban stormwater pollution "will despoil the environment and threaten public health," particularly in coastal areas, where stormwater already is the largest source of water pollution and population is growing rapidly.

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists with more than one million members.

Waterkeeper Alliance is an international nonprofit organization that serves as an umbrella for 121 member programs throughout the United States, Canada, South America, Europe and Australia.

Montana Prepares for Public Hunt of Yellowstone Bison

The state agency has produced an environmental assessment that evaluates the proposed bison hunt. The 30 day public comment period on the hunt closed Thursday.

The 2003 Montana Legislature approved a bill that provides for a public hunt of the bison in southwestern Montana. The Yellowstone bison are controlled by a federal-state management program to keep them from passing the abortive disease brucellosis to Montana cattle, although no such transmission has ever been documented.

State and federal agencies now haze and kill the bison, male and female alike, although only females can transmit brucellosis.

"Public responses to our scoping document issued in February were evenly divided between respondents in favor of hunting, and those opposing hunting," said Kurt Alt, regional wildlife manager.

"At this point we would like to gather the public’s opinions of the four alternatives contained in the environmental assessment." The four alternatives include a no hunting alternative, and three other alternatives, all approving the hunt, that vary only in location, hunt periods, and number of permits.

The agency's preferred alternative is hunting in the late fall to early winter season November 15 to February 15, limited entry hunt with permits valid for the entire season, and hunting open in areas in which bison presence does not trigger agency management actions.

Bison from the Yellowstone herd were legally hunted in Montana in the early 1950s and late 1980s, the agency says.

In its environmental assessment, the agency dismissed many objections to the hunt. "Concerns about the impact of a limited hunt on YNP bison numbers, population viability, and genetic makeup were determined to be unjustified because of the low number of bison that would be harvested in a limited hunt. Questions about the ethics and humaneness of killing bison were judged to be best answered by individuals based on personal moral and behavioral codes," the agency said.

Respondents favoring hunting wanted to avoid the negative publicity that occurred during the bison hunts held in the 1980s, the agency explained. Their suggestions included opening as much land as possible to hunting to avoid concentrating hunters, and avoiding "firing line" situations on the ellowstone National Park boundaries.

Hunt proponents favored launching public relations or educational campaigns to give the public a more balanced view of the role of hunting in bison management, requiring hunters to demonstrate competence, limiting hunter numbers and providing long seasons to avoid concentrating hunters, and strict enforcement of laws related to hunting, harassment of hunters, and trespass on private property.

Opponents of hunting threatened an economic boycott of the state if hunting is allowed, protested use of tax money for hunting, and predicted that a bison hunt would lose money for the state.

The Buffalo Field Campaign, which puts activists on the ground to protect the bison, says that before a hunt is considered, "wild buffalo must be given the respect of being considered a recovered resident native wildlife species in Montana, where they are currently "managed" aggressively by the Department of Livestock as a 'nuisance animal in need of disease control.'"

Tribal consultation should be sought and treaty rights upheld before any hunt is considered, the Buffalo Field Campaign says.

Proponents of hunting noted that Wyoming receives $2 for each dollar it spends on bison hunting, that Montana could generate funds for wildlife management with a similar hunt structure, and that hunting is a major economic boost to many small towns in Montana.

The environmental assessment is online at: http://www.fwp.state.mt.us/publicnotices/show.aspx?id=605.

Land Conservation Ballot Measures Accessible in New Database

Called LandVote, the database compiles a five year, comprehensive history for all land conservation ballot measures that have been voted on since 1999.

"By comprehensively tracking ballot measures that create funds for land conservation, we see that Americans are consistently and strongly supporting measures to preserve natural lands and working farms and ranches, create neighborhood parks, and protect drinking water quality," said Will Rogers, TPL president.

Land conservation measures have a high likelihood of success once they are put to the voters. In 39 states, more than 78 percent of the conservation finance ballot measures put to voters were approved since 1999, the TPL database shows.

Funds approved range from a few hundred thousand dollars to several billion dollars and have supported parks and playgrounds, farmland preservation, watershed protection, trails and greenways, forests, and wildlife habitat.

"For the first time, government officials, conservation advocates, and members of the press will be able to see instantly how conservation funding proposals in their community compare to others in their state or nationally," said Ernest Cook, TPL director of conservation finance.

"For example, a county considering a sales tax for land conservation can find out that 38 county sales tax measures were on the ballot in the last five years, that 63 percent of them were successful, and that tax rates range from 0.10 percent to one percent."

Find the LandVote database online at: http://www.landvote.org

150 Year Database of Tropical Storms Now Online

"This website is an excellent example of how NOAA is marshaling the resources and combining the data it gathers to directly benefit the public," said Richard Spinrad, Ph.D., assistant administrator of the NOAA National Ocean Service.

"The sharing of observational data, such as hurricane historical tracks, is important to our resource planners, emergency management personnel and to the general public in their efforts to mitigate future impacts of coastal hazards such as hurricanes," Spinrad said.

Originally developed for the 2002 hurricane season by the NOAA Coastal Services Center in partnership with the NOAA National Hurricane Center, the site allows users to search for storms using such criteria as storm name, ZIP code, state, county or parish, or latitude and longitude.

The information is then displayed on a map of the area, showing the track of the storms, where they made landfall, and their changing intensity.

The site couples this hurricane strike information with coastal population data, making it the first NOAA site to provide both types of information side by side. Viewing this information together can help users determine how hurricanes might affect populations along the coast and to what extent emergency planners need to educate residents about preparing for hurricanes.

"As growth on our shores continues unabated, the need for people who live and work on or near the coast to be prepared for hurricanes and tropical storms becomes even more urgent," said Director of the NOAA National Weather Service David Johnson. "Information contained in this site can help emergency managers and other officials prepare hazard awareness campaigns, risk assessments, evacuation plans and other measures to protect lives."

The outlook this year is for an active hurricane season. NOAA’s 2004 Atlantic hurricane season outlook indicates a 50 percent probability of an above-normal hurricane season, a 40 percent probability of a near-normal season, and a 10 percent chance of a below-normal season, according to a consensus of scientists at NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, the Hurricane Research Division, and the National Hurricane Center.

Major hurricane activity has been relatively light in the past 40 years, while the population along the coast has increased in many areas, said Margaret Davidson, director of the NOAA Coastal Services Center. "Emergency planners and community leaders can use this information to gauge how much planning they need to do to get people ready for the next big storm," she said.

NOAA's Historical Hurricane Tracks website is found at: http://www.hurricane.csc.noaa.gov