Analyze

This supplementary legal document describes recommendations for storm- and waste-water management improvements for the Formosa petrochemical plant in Calhoun County, Texas. The text is a fairly standard drainage assessment. The author describes non-trivial discharge of pollutants out of the plant’s outfalls, which drain into local waters, and the inability of the plant’s systems to prevent flooding from even small storms. For some context on this, it is pretty standard to design a stormwater system to be able to drain the 100-year storm (that is, the storm with a 1% or less chance of occurring in any given year). Formosa’s Texas plant demonstrated the inability to convey even the 2-year storm.

Emphases are mine:

“Problem areas were identified based on the results from the outfall drainage studies provided by Formosa. Thus, all the results in the OPCC rely on those studies, uncertainities associated with those studies, and the assumptions made for those studies, some of which may or may not be appropriate as I pointed out in Supplement #2 [Page 4]” (3)

“The proposed improvements assume that the conveyance capacity of the problem areas is increased 100%, which would be able to handle twice as much flow that it currently does. The results from the Drainage Study are not conclusive as to what storm event Formosa’s system currently is capable of conveying. The report does mention that the system is not capable of conveying the 2-year storm, and “sometimes” not even the 1-year storm event.” (3)

“A 45% contingency is applied to the OPCC due to the uncertainties associated with underground utilities, likelihood of existence of low road crossings and need to replace those, groundwater impacts, other unknowns, and additional costs associated with engineering, etc. 45% is reasonable and in line with industry practices in my experience, especially given the large amount of unknown information available.” (4) 

“My opinion from my July 9, 2018 report that “there have been and are still pellets and/or plastic materials discharges above trace amounts through Outfall 001” is further supported by the deposition testimony of Lisa Vitale, as representative for Freese & Nichols, Inc, that she and her colleagues have seen floating white pellets or small plastic pieces in Lavaca Bay and in the area near outfall 001 as part of her work on the receiving water monitoring program for Formosa’s TPDES permit...Ms. Vitale also testified that she told John Hyak of Formosa about these sightings as well as has sent him water samples with the pellets about five or six times, including at least one time prior to 2010. This, along with the June 2010 EPA Report I cited in my July Report, demonstrates to me that Formosa was aware of problems related to discharges of plastics from its facility since at least in 2010.” (6)

1) "About 2,000 tons of asbestos and 424,000 tons of concrete were used to build the towers, and when they came crashing down they released dust laden with toxins."

2 "But as early as Sept. 13, Mrs. Whitman and the agency put out press releases saying that the air near ground zero was relatively safe and that there were "no significant levels" of asbestos dust in the air. They gave a green light for residents to return to their homes near the trade center site"

The article contains quotations attributed directly to the judge, so I would presume she was either present for the ruling or accessed the case brief. This would also be where Ms. Preston could obtain direct quotations from the plantiff's arguments. Additionally, the article includes statements from the EPA, public officials, and Senator Rodham Clinton; these would either be from official public releases or interviews by government personel. 

The article debriefs a ruling by Federal District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts on a class action lawsuit against the EPA. It details the claims made by the plantiffs' surrounding EPA officials' misconduct after 9/11. Specifically cited are Christie Whitman, who chaired the EPA  during the attacks, and several other EPA officials.

Judge Batts: Deborah A Batts, sitting judge of the Manhattan Federal District Court at the time of these proceedings. She handed down the ruling that allowed the pursuit of the class action lawsuit.

Christie Whitman: Former EPA "leader" (chair) at the time of the 9/11 attacks. She and several other officials (unnamed in this article) are accused of misleading the public about air quality surrounding the tower site.

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. Federal agency charged with matters pertaining to the environment, particularly those that concern public health. The EPA often aids in creating standards for environmental safety (including pollution and airborne particles).

The article's primary focus is the failure of a government agency in the wake of the 9/11. The EPA's inadequate response to air pollution and subsequent public misguidance led to a multitude of public health issues. While the article does not explicitly detail the issues stated in this lawsuit, it does mention the EPA's failure to properly formulate and enact a plan to clean up materials released into the air.

1) EPA: what are the exact duties and responsibilities of the EPA after a disaster? While we mostly consider it to focus on pollutants and environmental conservation, both this article and FEMA training seem to indicate it holds a much larger role in emergency situations.

2) Christie Whitman: a former governor of New Jersey and Administrator of the EPA from 2001-2003, Whitman served during the 9/11 attacks. Despite pointed personal criticism about her time in the EPA (including legal action), Whitman historical demonstrated a pattern of moderatism, often putting her at odds with the administration she served. It would be interesting to see where in the 9/11 lapse emerged-- whether it be from judgement, misinformation, or disinterest.

3) 9/11 Health Effects: The release of millions of asbestos and concrete particles into the air certainly increases the odds of chronic respiratory issues for NYC populations. I would be interested in whether any other chronic issues or epidemics have been noted as a result of pollution from the Towers' collapse

Preston's article mentions the EPA still had not formulated and enacted a plan for cleanup-- it should be noted the year of publication was 2006. She claims "After an expert panel failed last year to settle on a method for organizing an E.P.A. cleanup, the agency said it would proceed anyway with limited testing and cleaning". Moreover, in the 10 years since publication, several studies have indicated increased public health risks and chronic illness prevalence in populations near the disaster zone. It seems the approach of sit-and-wait did nothing but exacerbate the issue, leading me to believe this will serve as a symbol in any future pollutant-laden disasters.

“Mrs. Whitman and the agency put out press releases saying that the air near ground zero was relatively safe and that there were "no significant levels" of asbestos dust in the air. They gave a green light for residents to return to their homes near the trade center site”

“By these actions," Judge Batts wrote, Mrs. Whitman "increased, and may have in fact created, the danger" to people living and working near the trade center.”