Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Post Categories

Map of Cheshire: toxic sites, underground plumes, and cancers (CT)

(For a larger, readable version of the map, click on it. Then click on it once more)


HEIGHT=50% WIDTH=50% HSPACE=20 VSPACE=20 src=”http://www.cancerincheshire.com/Cheshiremap.jpg” />

Key to the map:

  • Black arrows point to EPA ID’d hazardous waste sites.
  • Green circles represent areas around the sites where toxic plume
    migration may have occurred and where vapor intrusion may be a concern
    (Note: Obviously toxins don’t spread in perfect circles. This is not intended to portray the exact migration of Cheshire’s plumes.)
  • Red numbered circles represent areas where cancer reports rec’d
    through Cancerincheshire.com appear most greatly concentrated.

Video: Brain cancer stalks Pratt & Whitney workers (CT)

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has released a video about the brain cancer investigation/study of Pratt & Whitney workers in CT.

Though the video suggests various chemicals may have been at play, the investigation has focused on exposure to TCE.

See the video here. Also be sure to visit Worked to Death for more on the P & W investigation and study.

Annual family/public meeting – Pratt and Whitney brain tumor study (CT)

The following meeting announcement was recently posted to the Worked to Death website, a resource for information about the investigation/legal efforts and scientific study surrounding an outrageously high incidence of brain cancer (particularly glioblastoma multiforme) across Connecticut’s Pratt and Whitney Aircraft plants where trichloroethylene is one of the main toxins of concern.


WORKED TO DEATH ANNUAL MEETING NOTICE

BRAIN TUMOR CLUSTER STUDY

WHEN: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2006, 7:00 PM TO 10:00 PM

WHERE: THE CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL, 100 BERLIN ROAD,

CROMWELL CT (860-635-2000)

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PLEASE ATTEND

By way of background, the following introduction can be found on the recently updated Worked to Death website:


Hi, let us introduce ourselves, we are Carol Shea and Kate Greco, wives of John Shea and John Greco. Our husbands were friends and co-workers for over 30 years at Prattt and Whitney Aircraft. They both lost their lives within one month of each other to a VERY RARE form of brain cancer, GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME.

The Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) primary brain tumor is one of the most malignant and difficult brain tumors to treat. It is also a very rare type of tumor. According to the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, www.cbtrus.org, GBM’s strike an average of 2.96 people per 100,000 – less than .003 percent – every year. The State Health Department, in consultation with federal health and safety experts, is investigating the possibility of a brain tumor cluster at Pratt & Whitney’s Connecticut plants. We have, with the help of local newspapers and TV stations running our story, compiled a list of over 87 confirmed Glioblastoma cases, we have an additional 41 confirmed cases with other forms of brain tumors at Pratt & Whitney. THIS IS WELL BEYOND THE PERCENTAGES!!!!!!!

We hope to inform you and engage your support for our efforts to help clean up this toxicity which we feel caused our husbands and many other deaths. We hope you will read on to see what our efforts have uncovered. We are involved in the largest study of its type in history which is being undertaken by the Universities of Pittsburgh and Chicago, under the direction of Dr. Gary Marsh, Dr. Frank S. Lieberman, both of the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. N.A. Esmen of the University of Illinois at Chicago with the cooperation of the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health through William Gerrish its Director of Public Health Communications.

For more information and background on the Pratt and Whitney situation, please also see this series of articles by the New Haven Advocate, including the initial piece from which the families’ website takes it’s name: Worked to Death: Pratt and Whitney Leaves Behind a Trail of Cancer

TCE levels in a public drinking water supply system, 1978-2001 (Cheshire, CT)

From a 2003 South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority presentation:

NORTH Cheshire well data (click to enlarge)

SOUTH Cheshire well data (click to enlarge)

Cheshire still contaminated, local leaders refuse to act (CT)

Often I’m asked why I started the TCE Blog in the first place.

Part of the reason is that my former hometown had a TCE-contaminated public water supply. Since 80% of the town was served water from the TCE-contaminated public supply wells, tens of thousands of Cheshire citizens were exposed to dangerous levels of TCE via public water for decades. Residents and workers weren’t warned at the time except for a handful of families who were given bottled water to drink because of contaminated private water supply wells. To this day, polluters have never been held accountable.

When a public health assessment in 2004 finally revealed the truth about contamination and cancer, officials not only tried to stifle more inquiry, they refused to share with residents what was known about TCE and cancer. They also didn’t bother to mention the other VOC’s (PCE, Benzene, TCA) still migrating under the town.

Without help from the town or the state, citizens like me were left to find information on our own. Though there was plenty to be found on the web, three things became abundantly clear after months of additional, independent research:

1. There appeared to be no central place for finding information about TCE, its health affects, and the impact it has on communities. Information was/is scattered about.

2. Other communities across the country were struggling to find the same information and answer the very same questions as Cheshire…also without help from their local and state officials. Very few of these communities knew about one another.

3. We were amassing so much information about TCE and its impact on communities nationwide, this information just had to be consolidated, preserved, and shared.

From this, the TCE Blog was born.

Now, evidence suggests there is still significant VOC contamination underground in Cheshire. Astonishingly, state and local leaders/officials have refused to act.

See, I don’t just write about contaminated communities. I’m from one:


———- Forwarded message ———-

From: neil fischbein [fischbein@...]

Date: May 31, 2006 9:36 PM

Subject: When are we going to meet?

To*: [Town Manager, Town Council member, State representative]

cc*: [Senator Dodd's office, Senator Lieberman's office, Governor Rell's office, Representative Amann's office, local press, etc.]

D, M, A -

For the past several years, and after having reviewed ~16,000 pages of
Cheshire documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act request to
the EPA, I have shared with town officials evidence of multiple plumes
of cancer-causing toxins under Cheshire and the current risks they may
pose to workers and residents. As you know, these cancer-causing
toxins emanate from some of the 16 EPA-identified hazardous waste
sites
in Cheshire that have NEVER been fully cleaned-up. Some of
these toxic underground plumes are over 25 years old and have been
migrating all this time. As we’ve discussed many times, [state] officials
have lost track of (or simply failed to map) these toxic plumes and
have admitted to us they can’t rule out the newly understood risks
these toxins pose to human health. Now, as documented by state and
federal officials in 2004, Cheshire suffers from nation-leading cancer
rates.

These cancer-causing plumes must be found. Risks from them must be ruled out.

Do we need help from state representatives/legislators to move on this?

Do we need help from attorneys?

When are we going to finally meet to do something about this?

thanks, neil

* Actual names and email addresses have been removed to protect the innocent guilty innocent.

Connecticut vapor regulations: 5-160 times less protective (CT)

We are concerned that Connecticut applies significantly less stringent standards than EPA recommends when deciding to investigate vapor intrusion of trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Following is the disparity that concerns us:

EPA’s safety threshold for vapor intrusion investigation of TCE (set in 2002):

5 ppb (this includes residential and industrial settings)

CT DEP’s threshold (RSR) for vapor investigation of TCE (proposed in 2003):

Residental: 27 ppb (5X less protective than federal guidelines)

Industrial: 67 ppb (13X less protective)


EPA’s safety threshold for vapor intrusion investigation of PCE (set in 2002):

5 ppb (this includes residential and industrial settings)

CT DEP’s threshold (RSR) for vapor investigation of PCE (proposed in 2003):

Residental: 340 ppb (68X less protective than federal guidelines)

Industrial: 810 ppb (160X less protective)

Connectict’s current vapor intrusion guidelines (click image to enlarge)

According to these Connecticut regulations, before Connecticut will investigate the potential for TCE or PCE vapor intrusion, Connecticut’s residents and workers may be subjected to 5-160 times more TCE and PCE exposure than federal guidelines recommend.

Connecticut must revise these inadequate regulations and re-open old hazardous waste and contamination site investigations to rule-out vapor intrusion as dictated by (at least) current federal guidelines. More on this to come…

LA Times: TCE, Health, and Community Impact (Part II of II)

Here’s another important piece on TCE From the LA Times (CA) with national scope/importance. This was on Thursday’s front page:


Cancer Stalks a ‘Toxic Triangle’

Scientists disagree about the risks of TCE. But residents near a former air base are dead certain.

By Ralph Vartabedian

Times Staff Writer

March 30, 2006

SAN ANTONIO — On nearly every block surrounding the former Kelly Air Force Base, small purple crosses sprout from front lawns, marking the homes where cancer has struck.

The residents call their neighborhood the “toxic triangle,” alleging that the Air Force poisoned it with an industrial solvent, trichloroethylene, or TCE. It was casually dumped at the base for decades and spread for miles through a shallow aquifer under 22,000 nearby houses.

Texas health authorities have found elevated rates of liver cancer among residents, as well as higher-than-normal rates of birth defects. Though state health officials say it is impossible to prove that TCE causes the sickness here, this blue-collar community has little doubt about the connection.

“We are dying day by day,” said Robert Alvarado Sr., who has lived in a small clapboard home for 36 years that sits about 14 feet over the TCE plume. “I have kidney failure, my wife has thyroid cancer, my neighbor just died of breast cancer.”


Senators ask EPA to adopt interim rule for TCE vapors

Waste News has picked up the story

Letter to EPA from Senator Clinton et. al.


October 5, 2005

The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson

Administrator

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building – 1101A

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Mr. Johnson:

We are writing to urge the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish health-protective “interim standards” for vapor intrusion of trichloroethylene, better known as TCE. TCE is a widespread contaminant found in at least 325 of the 1,242 EPA-listed Superfund sites, and is known to cause cancer and damage the nervous and immune systems. Children and seniors are especially vulnerable to TCE’s toxic effects.

As you are aware, the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) published a TCE Health Risk Assessment report in August 2001, which included a reassessment of existing and recent scientific studies. This report, which was peer reviewed and lauded by the EPA’s own Science Advisory Board, found that TCE is considerably more harmful to human health than previously believed and proposed to increase protections against TCE. The EPA incorporated the Assessment’s findings into its Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air in November 2002. Unfortunately, the EPA appears to have abandoned the 2002 TCE Vapor Intrusion Guidance recommendations. Instead, the EPA is in the process of again reevaluating TCE’s toxicity through the National Academies of Science, which may take years.

Delaying a national standard is a major constraint in evaluating potential health concerns at toxic waste sites. Some current federal and state TCE standards are more than two orders of magnitude less protective than the EPA’s 2001 reassessment concluded was needed to protect human health. Today, thousands of Americans may be exposed to unhealthful levels of TCE.

We, therefore, strongly urge the EPA to adopt health-protective “interim standards,” or provisional screening levels set forth in the 2002 Draft Guidance and use technologies that detect TCE at such levels. The EPA should protect public health by eliminating TCE resulting from vapor intrusion in homes, as field experience suggests that the costs of mitigation and monitoring are comparable.

TCE is a widespread pollutant in the United States and vapor intrusion is known to be a significant pathway of exposure. Guidelines have been established to address this important environmental and health problem. The EPA needs to act now to establish safe, protective “interim standards” in order to ensure the health and safety of our children and our communities.

Thank you very much for your attention in this matter. We look forward to your response and action.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Barbara Boxer

Christopher J. Dodd

Frank Lautenberg

Joseph I. Lieberman

Gordon Smith

Ron Wyden

Clinton, six other senators urge EPA to issue more protective TCE standard

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 5, 2005

Contact: Press Office

202-224-2243

SENATOR CLINTON URGES EPA TO ISSUE PROTECTIVE STANDARD FOR TCE

Washington, DC—Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today calling on them to issue a health-protective “interim standard” for trichloroethylene (TCE) vapor intrusion in order to protect the health and well-being of our communities. Endicott, Hopewell Junction and Ithaca are known to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds where TCE is also known to be present.

In addition to Senator Clinton, six other senators signed onto this letter including Senators Barbara Boxer, Christopher Dodd, Frank Lautenberg, Joseph Lieberman, Gordon Smith, and Ron Wyden.

[Please see attached letter]

Failure to warn/notify; House Speaker calls for criminal probe (CT)

Though this news is several weeks old, it relates to our concern that Connecticut residents and workers are not being adequately protected by officials and agencies who have decided to keep quiet (and in some cases, threatened citizens who have inquired) about known TCE contamination and exposure risks.

As reported by the New Haven Register (CT):


Amann calls for criminal probe

Brian McCready , Milford Bureau Chief

MILFORD — State Speaker of the House James Amann, D-Milford, said Thursday he believes there are enough “unanswered questions” concerning Trichloroethylene contamination in the area near Shelland Road for a criminal probe to be launched.

Amann, who last week wrapped up a series of legislative hearings on the contamination issue, said he believes there are enough questions remaining that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the chief state’s attorney’s office investigate.

[...]

Blumenthal said late Thursday that while he had not yet received a request from Amann, he considers the speaker’s concerns “serious and significant.”

“We will respond as soon as possible with every and any action we can take to determine who is responsible and how they can be held accountable,” Blumenthal said.

Amann said that among unknowns is the origin of the contamination, and with whom responsibility for the pollution lies. Also, he said it’s vital that an entity with legal clout ascertains why Milford officials and workers were not made aware of the contamination when it was first discovered in 1999.

“The question is, were they understaffed, or was someone inept, or did someone look the other way?,” Amann said.

The DEP [Department of Environmental Protection] was lambasted after revelations that contamination was found in the late 1990s in the area of Milford Power Co., as city officials were not initially told about toxic chemicals at the site. DEP officials have routinely apologized to city officials, and blamed the lack of reporting on being understaffed.

[read more]

Funny. In a recent conversation with a DEP representative about failure to notify residents and workers of current contamination and risks in Cheshire, CT, the representative told me very directly “We never use lack of resources as an excuse [for not doing our jobs]“. It seems this representative was grossly misinformed (which I politely told her at the time).

Either way, we hope the criminal probe proceeds and extends to DEP and other agencies who have failed and are failing to protect CT residents and workers. There is simply no excuse for allowing people to remain exposed to toxins like TCE without any warnings when officials are aware of this risk.

As more develops, we’ll keep you posted.

Cheshire, CT: Still contaminated after all these years, II

What will it take to protect public health and safety in a town with nation-leading cancer rates, decades of confirmed townwide TCE exposure, and persistent decades-old contamination?

The second in a series.

When the ATSDR/DPH Public Health Assessment (PHA) was conducted, the report described several contaminated sites in Cheshire that were named as concerns by residents. Residents knew about these sites because they were on a list obtained from EPA. One of these sites was the Ball and Socket Lagoon/Manufacturing company.

What’s so strange is that the characterization of the site in the PHA seems to differ significantly from EPA’s own current site description and a 2005 EPA publication. What do you think?

From pg. 53 of Cheshire PHA (authored by Connecticut Department of Public Health, 2003/2004):


Ball and Socket Lagoon, which was purchased by Dalton Enterprises in 1996, is located on Willow Street in Cheshire. This site was used for disposal of untreated wastes from Ball and Socket Manufacturing Company from 1958-1970. Typical discharges included copper, zinc, iron, nickel, cyanide, and unknown VOC’s. In 1984, the CT DEP, Water Compliance Unit asked Ball and Socket to remove contaminated soils from the site. The excavation was completed in November 1984 and the soils were placed in the Cheshire Municipal landfill.Ball and Socket also implemented a groundwater recovery program (pump and treat) system to controll offsite migration of groundwater contaminants. Ball and Socket contracted a consulting company to do soil sampling and groundwater monitoring in 1983, which indicated levels of VOC’s above current drinking water standards and in soil above Connecticut Remedial Standard Regulations (CT RSR’s). Ball and Socket continued to monitor groundwater onsite until it was purchased by Dalton Enterprises in 1996. Dalton Enterprises continus to monitor groundwater from this site. Water sampling indicates that levels of VOC’s in the groundwater have continued to decline over time. In addition, in 1994, the EPA determined that a “no further action at this time” decision be made for his site. That means the site was not judged to be a potential National Priority List (NPL) or Superfund site. Off-site, nearby private residential well testing in 1994 of physical/chemical and metal parameters indicated that all analytical results did not exceed current drinking water standards. After 1994, residents in the nearby community were not exposed to the contaminated drinking water, but it is unknown whether the off-site residential private wells nearby were contaminated with VOC’s from this site from before that date. This site has no effect on the public water supply because it is in a different watershed from Cheshire’s public water supply well fields.

Let’s recap: Some contaminated soil removed to the municipal landfill (remember this, the landfill will come into play in future installments). Unknown whether off-site properties or private wells in the neighborhood were contaminated. No mention of air testing for vapor intrusion.

In spite of these and other similar revelations, officials declared “[these] were not remarkable findings warranting follow-up.

Fast forward to 2005.

Here’s what the EPA’s website says today:


“BALL & SOCKET

Cheshire, Connecticut

New Haven County

Street Address: 493 W. Main St

Zip Code: 06410

Congressional District(s): 05

EPA ID #: CTD001167493

Current Human Exposures Under Control = NO,

Groundwater Release Under Control = NO

… In 1997 EPA conducted an evaluation that determined that there
currently existed unacceptable exposures to humans from site
contaminants in groundwater, soils, surface water, etc. under current
site uses.”

Here’s what we learn today from an EPA online newsletter:


“…He was instrumental in securing Superfund funding at the Ball &
Socket site in Cheshire, CT, which should result in its achieving the
environmental indicators by the end of FY 2005. With help from legal
interns and a staff lawyer, Edgar drafted an innovative Section 3013
Order. The order utilizes the deadlines set out in the statute to
expeditiously characterize the facility and emphasizes actions that
will achieve the Human Health Environmental Indicator. Edgar plans on
using this facility to pilot electronic data transfer for the review
and interpretation of chemical and geological data.”

Hooray for Edgar. But seriously… Achieving Environmental Indicators by the end of 2005? Does that mean the target is to have human exposures and groundwater releases from the site under control by the end of this year? That’s a bit unsettling…

Why the discrepancy between the PHA’s data and the EPA’s? Is this a matter of actual conflicting data? Is it a communication issue? Is it a (gasp) truthfullness issue?

More importantly and more immediately, has anyone in Cheshire been warned about the site’s current risk level? Has neighborhood soil, groundwater, and air contamination/exposure been ruled out with certainty?

I intend to get answers to these questions. For the moment, without evidence to the contrary, I believe the answer to the last two questions is, “No.”

more to come…

Cheshire, CT: Still contaminated after all these years, I

What will it take to protect public health and safety in a town with nation-leading cancer rates, decades of townwide toxic exposure, and persistent decades-old contamination*?

The first in a series.

The following 2002 report on the EPA’s website describes an ongoing history of (undisclosed?) contamination at a Cheshire, CT business and nearby properties, some never-before identified as contaminated by the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Public Health, nor EPA.

The report reveals triple-digit TCE levels (nearly 80 times the federal safety threshold) and quadruple-digit PCE levels (nearly 400 times the federal safety threshold) detected in Cheshire soil and groundwater at least as recently as 2001. Both poisons were detected in soil gas tests. Contamination levels were on the rise at the time of sampling in 2001 (some perhaps due to a suspected, off-site and migrating plume that nobody seems to have mapped). The same monitoring wells and test locations detected similar contamination at least as early as 1987. In 1994, a sump well on site was detected with 20,000 ppb of TCE but appears never to have been sampled again.

The report confirms that soil, groundwater, and air (indoor/outdoor) in 2002 are contaminated above safety levels and that employees and construction workers are at risk of current exposure. The report also details a long history of contamination at this site and others (namely two nearby properties identified as being historically contaminated, but oddly don’t show up on DEP, DPH, nor EPA’s contaminated site lists; and places where TCE and PCE were coming out of “kitchen faucets” in the late 90’s…).

State DPH knows very little about this site. Without knowing much more, DEP reports that the site was referred to them as a hazard in 1998 and remains one to this day.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever been warned. Nor have these myriad plumes ever been mapped. Virtually no air in nearby buildings has been tested.

And somehow, none of this ever made it into the 2003/2004 Public Health Assessment *about which public health officials finally declared “[these] were not remarkable findings warranting follow-up.”

Microtech report, part 1

Microtech report, part 2

Microtech report, part 3

Microtech report, part 4

Microtech report, part 5

Microtech report, part 6

If your state representative wants to support better protections...

…to keep people safer from TCE, please encourage them to contact:

Jody Milanese (millaneese) in Congresswoman Sue Kelly’s office at 202-225-5441

Look who's talking

PRESS ADVISORY

COMMUNITIES CALL FOR PROTECTIVE TCE TOXIC STANDARD

A press conference – featuring representatives of impacted communities and cancer victims – will be held outside the National Academy of Sciences Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on Thursday, June 9, 12:00
noon.

The pervasive toxin, trichloroethylene (TCE), will be under discussion at the Beckman Center. A recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health assessment found TCE to be 65-times more toxic than previously
assumed. At the request of the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, EPA and NASA, a National Academy committee is reviewing the science underlying the 2001 study. (In 2002, an independent review
found
the EPA study to be sound.)

TCE pollutes the soil and groundwater at sites in many Southern California communities, including Irvine, Newport Beach, Norco, Maywood, South Gate, Lynwood, Torrance, Santa Susana, Pacoima, Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Sierra Madre, Baldwin Park, Redlands, San Bernardino, thousands of other sites across the country. “TCE polluters are looking for ways to escape their cleanup responsibilities, and they’re trying to use the National Academy to do their dirty work,” asserts Neil Fischbein of Cheshire, Connecticut – a community blighted with TCE in the drinking water and an alarmingly-high cancer rate. “People’s lives,” Mr. Fischbein continues, “must not be sacrificed just to save polluters money.” At the Thursday press conference, Mr. Fischbein, founder of TCE Blog, will release U.S. Air Force documents showing financial calculations as a major consideration in factoring a TCE cleanup standard.

“The polluters are attempting to distort the scientific process to avoid liability,” says Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles. “The National Academy must not
buckle to the overweening influence of the nation’s largest institutions – who also happen to be the worst TCE polluters.”

Event: Press Conference – Communities Call for Protective TCE Standard

Date/Time: Thursday, June 9 • 12:00 noon

Place: Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center • 100 Academy Drive, Irvine

Directions: The Center is located at the corner of University Dr. and California Ave.; entrance is on Academy.

Visuals: Large multi-panel photographic display of Beaverton, Oregon victims of TCE which shows adverse health affects experienced by over 300 workers and their children who over three decades drank water contaminated with TCE at 1670 parts-per-billion.

# # #

Contamination adds to difficulties closing Groton submarine base (CT)

From Environmental Valuation and Cost-Benefit News:


The Navy has already spent $57.6 million cleaning Groton, which also is a Superfund site. Officials have sealed landfills, cleaned acres of wetlands and hauled away tons of contaminated soil.

[...]

And while the Navy pledges $23.9 million [more] toward cleaning the base it opened in 1868, they said Wednesday that cleanup will only be to industrial standards. State officials fear the money won’t be nearly enough to make the land fit for waterfront homes, condominiums or recreational facilities.

“That’s not a redevelopment opportunity, that’s a minefield of contamination,” said Gina McCarthy, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection. “And that’s our dilemma.”