Archive for April, 2008

Earth Day

Written by Mike Pisauro on April 22nd, 2008 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Today is Earth Day (just in case you haven’t looked at a calendar or talked to anybody). I certainly hope you were able to take some time to enjoy the day.

While today was a good day, I wish I can say that the last several weeks were as good for the environment. Recently, there has been a proposal from the Department of Community Affairs that it have the authority to review, modify or stop any DEP proposed regulation. DEP has instituted a task force to streamline the permitting process. DEP proposed at a joint hearing of the Senate Environment and Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee to outsource the review of site remediation. The recently released energy master plan (EMP) which took almost two years to draft was a disappointment. The EMP is very short of planning and is not visionary and will unlikely play much of role in meeting the State’s goals of reducing goal warming or meeting our energy needs without new fossil fuel plants. Lastly, a few legislators are discussing splitting DEP into two departments. The permitting programs will be moved with the State Planning Commission, Office of Smart Growth, etc. into a Department of Economic Development and Environment. The Fish and Wildlife, Open Space, Parks, etc. will be moved with the Department of Agriculture into a new Department of Agriculture and Conservation. Frankly, one of the complaints about DEP is that the various programs within the Department do not talk with each other. Can you imagine how good the communication when the people are not within the same building or departments.

On a more positive note, the harvesting of horseshoe crabs has been stopped giving the red knot a fighting chance. The coastal and ocean protection council has been passed (and awaiting appointments); the gobal warming response act was enacted; and at least there is discussion on how to fix site remediation. Last year the citizens of New Jersey told its government that we expected the government to protect open space and that we would pay for it. We are reducing fine particulate matter, which can lead to or exacerbate respiratory disease, from the buses that our children ride to and from school.

I hope that you take today and the next few days to enjoy mother nature. Also, please spend a few minutes to take one action to help improve the environment.

Talk about Drugs and Water

Written by Mike Pisauro on April 16th, 2008 in Clean Water | No Comments »

Within the last week or so the issue of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water has gather some more attention. On Tuesday, April 15th, the United States Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works held a hearing on the topic. David Pringle of New Jersey’s Environmental Federation testified before the committee. Somethings to note from that hearing are: that there are over 140 chemicals found in our drinking water including gasoline additivies, pesticides, and other chemicals. Some of these chemicals EPA believes to be cancer causing. Other chemicals we have no idea what the effects of the chemicals are.

EPA is over six years behind schedule in listing endocrine disrupting chemicals that it will test for. It has not established the testing protocols for some of those chemicals and it is not ready to require that these chemicals be monitored by the companies that provide our water. In response to a request from a committee member the EPA provided some information. Part of what they provided is very disturbing:

“while there is much information about the health effects of pharmaceutical products at the therapeutic doses provided in medication, there is still uncertainty about their potential effects on public health and aquatic life from long-term exposure to the low levels observed in water. In the absence of fully understanding the risks associated with low levels, it is difficult to move forward to require monitoring and/or treatment that carry significant cost . . .”

What a failure of government to do its basic job of protecting public health and safety. In the face of uncertainty the best course of action is to be proactive not wait until someone proves that these chemicals are doing harm. This is the basic tenant of the precautionary principle. Must we wait until its is proven without a shred of doubt that these chemicals singularly or in combination are causing an impact before we as a society decide to do something?

Hopefully the U.S. Congress will start to put the pressure of EPA to do its job. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has at least started to address the problem. DEP has issued a bulletin outling how to dispose of unused medication. The issue of drugs in our water also came up in yesterday’s NJ Senate Environment and Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Joint Committee meeting concerning site remediation. (Of which I will write about shortly.)

A little drugs with your drink?

Written by Mike Pisauro on April 1st, 2008 in Clean Water | No Comments »

A couple of weeks ago the news reported that pharmaceuticals in varying amounts can be found in our waterways and in the drinking water we consume.  This has actually been known for some time.  These pollutants are having negative effects on the fish (including feminized male fish) and other wildlife that rely on the streams, lakes, bays and other waters of our State.   While it is claimed that the amounts of drugs in our waters are minute and do not have an effect on people, can we really afford the risk that further studies will prove them wrong?

 

These chemicals are in the waterways and aquifers throughout the United States and other countries.  Under the Clean Water Act and New Jerseys Water Pollution Act, I believe these chemicals are pollutants and the discharge of these chemicals into the waterways should be restricted.  Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), it is unlawful to discharge any pollutant into the waters of the United States.  33 U.S.C. 1311.  

  In order for the CWA to be applicable there must be a finding that a pollutant is being added to a water of the United States from a point source. 

Are pharmaceuticals a pollutant?

 

Under the Clean Water Act, a pollutant is defined as:

 “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, . . . and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.”  33 U.S.C. 1262.    

 

Under the New Jersey’s Water Pollution Act, pollutant is defined very similar to that of the Clean Water Act but it is specifically noted to include both hazardous and nonhazardous pollutants.  Pharmaceuticals are clearly chemical or maybe in some cases biological materials.   Therefore, even though pharmaceuticals are intended to help us they are still a pollutant under both the CWA and NJ’s WPA.

  Are the pollutants being discharged from a point source?

These chemicals enter our waterways mainly through our toilets through our sewers, then to water treatment plants and are ultimately discharged into a stream or river.  We discharge these chemicals either when we “relieve ourselves” or when we flush unused medicines down the toilet.  Our bodies do not fully use the medicines we take and the excess is excreted.  Ultimately these chemicals enter our waterways through a point source- the publically owned treatment works. (POTW).  In its simplest terms follow the pipe from a water treatment plant to the nearest waterway and there is your point source.  Therefore, there is a discharge from a point source.

 

Once it has been determined that a point source needs to or is discharging a pollutant, that point source is required to obtain a permit from a governmental agency.  In the case of New Jersey that agency is the Department of Environmental Protection.  So far, DEP (nor is any agency) is not regulating this kind of discharge. There are no standards setting forth how much of each kind of drug is safe to discharge.   Also, most water treatment plants do not monitor or test for pharmaceuticals.  Even if a POTW is testing for the chemicals, removing pharmaceuticals from the water is difficult and expensive. 

 

Some areas are starting to look at one cause of the problem. For example, Puget Sound and Spokane have instituted a take back the drugs program which reduces or eliminates the flushing of drugs down the toilet.

 

It is somewhat sad to note that thirty-six years after then enactment of the Clean Water Act, we are finding more and more pollutants in our waterways, when the CWA provided, “it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985.”  33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1).  As a nation we must begin to reduce the amount of any substance that enters our waterways.   Those substances that do enter our waterways we treat and eliminate before that water is discharged into our waterways.