|
|
Last week’s Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL) reports:
During the last 20 years, Tallevast residents say dozens of their neighbors have died prematurely. Others are still fighting cancer and beryllium-related health issues.
But a draft Florida Department of Health report on the community blighted by more than 200 acres of polluted ground water found just four cases of cancer.
The report could hardly be more different from a survey by residents that showed about 90 cases of cancer or beryllium-related diseases in the mainly black community.
DOH officials who met with the neighborhood group FOCUS on Monday agreed that their numbers, based on a state database and figures from a local hospital, were wildly off the mark. They also admitted they had studied the wrong ZIP code.
Although Tallevast has a post office, most Tallevast residents live in a Sarasota ZIP code.
“That’s one of the problems of dealing with a statewide database,” said Randy Merchant, a DOH administrator. “It’s hard to get a handle on what is happening in so small an area.”
The results left community leaders upset that state officials had not worked more closely with them to ensure errors like this did not happen.
“We’re angry,” said Wanda Washington, vice president of FOCUS. “We’re just not sure what road to take. No one ever came into the community to do a study. If you are doing it from behind a desk, you’re going to miss a lot.”
FOCUS’ figures on incidences of cancer came from a door-to-door survey quizzing families about their medical histories.
The community of about 80 homes sits above more than 200 acres of polluted ground water left behind by the former American Beryllium Co., which built parts for nuclear warheads for the federal government for nearly 40 years.
State officials said they will likely get an epidemiologist to conduct a similar door-to-door survey.
The cost would be about $125,000, they said.
State Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, said if the DOH cannot fund it he will look for other funding sources.
“I’ve committed myself to help see that that happens so that the question can be answered and a more accurate picture developed,” Galvano said.
Residents in Tallevast have asked Lockheed Martin, the company responsible for the cleanup of the site, to pay for them to move. They have also filed several lawsuits against Lockheed and other companies that operated at the site seeking damages for health issues and falling property values.
Lockheed became the owner of the Tallevast site after the company acquired the former Loral company in 1996. It shut down the plant and sold the property, but not before discovering soil and ground-water pollution on and around the site.
In 2000, Lockheed notified county and state officials of the pollution, which included trichloroethylene, or TCE, a compound linked to liver and kidney cancer and other ailments.
Residents, who were not informed for almost four more years, continued to use well water. Their homes were switched to the county drinking water system in 2004.
FOCUS leaders said they would welcome state officials’ repeating their survey.
“We think the state will be better at it,” Washington said. “You need to put your feet on the ground and come out here and collect that information.”
Cancer Monthly posted a great feature entitled Cancer and the Presidential Candidates. We extracted the legislative efforts that we think most relevant for TCE-impacted individuals and communities:
Barak Obama has sponsored a bill to enable states to develop or expand activities to monitor exposure to environmental toxins and pollutants (S.1068);
Hilary Clinton has sponsored a bill that would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the health of susceptible populations from trichloroethylene (S.1911);
Both of them, along with John McCain, cosponsored a bill that would provide grants to better understand the environmental factors related to breast cancer (S.579).
Of course, this is just a glimpse of the candidates’ cancer-fighting credentials and only part of the feature. The rest of it is worth checking out, especially the part that leads Cancer Monthly to conclude:
And finally, beneath its public relations veneer as our protector, the FDA is an agency that reportedly lets drug company representatives make decisions for the country, approves dangerous drugs, and does not perform necessary follow-up on approved drugs.
Update: You know, we checked out the proposals that we blindly copied cited above. Of course we were already familiar with the TCE Reduction Act (S.1911), so we checked out the Obama and McCain-sponsored proposals. The McCain cosponsored proposal, (S.579), reads pretty much as Cancer Monthly advertises.
We’re not certain, however, that Cancer Monthly captured the full impact of Obama’s proposal. It seems to us that its scope is much broader than just expanding states monitoring capabilities. Seems to us like Obama is seeking accountability. Judge for yourself – here’s the full text:
‘A bill to promote healthy communities. ‘
Bill # S.1068
Original Sponsor:
Barack Obama (D-IL)
Healthy Communities Act of 2007 – Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish the Advisory Committee on Environmental Health to review environmental health data and studies to: (1) assess the impact of federal laws, policies, and practices on environmental health and justice; and (2) identify and recommend ways to change or ensure compliance with federal laws, address gaps in federal environmental health research, and prevent or mitigate harm from federal policies, programs, and practices that may adversely affect environmental health or justice. Requires the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prepare a biennial Environmental Health Report Card for the nation and for each state. Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish the Health Action Zone Program to award grants to at-risk communities for comprehensive environmental health improvement activities; and (2) expand and intensify environmental health research. Requires the Secretary, acting through the Director, to provide grants and technical assistance to enable states to develop or expand activities related to biomonitoring of exposure to environmental toxicants and pollutants. Requires the Secretary to: (1) promote translation and dissemination of findings; and (2) incorporate the data collected under this Act with existing data collection efforts. Requires the Director to expand training and educational activities relating to environmental health and justice for health professionals and public health practitioners.
We wanted to alert readers to a free online tool that allows ordinary folks to create custom Google maps. With it, users can easily plug-in street addresses, lat. and long. coordinates, or can navigate visually to a location by hand, and can add the digital equivalent of push-pins and labels. Though Map Builder is technically still in beta, we’ve recently used it and fell in love.
After free registration, users can create their very own, custom Google maps without having to know any code. Well, almost – if you want to add a map to your website, you will need to know how and where to copy/paste the code (all generated for you by Map Builder), but that’s about all.
We thought this was the perfect tool for activists, community representatives, or anyone who would like to communicate visually about contamination. Whether marking the location of contaminated water wells, plume boundaries, vapor intrusion detects, or disease occurrences, nearly every contaminated community can benefit from a custom map. Plus, we can’t tell you how many frustrated web-searchers have ended up at the TCE Blog in search of a contamination map, only to find the particular map they seek does not exist online at all.
We used Map Builder to create the following 2 simple maps as examples:
(For more context on these maps, see this post at The Cheshire Town Post)
Our only negative experience with Map Builder so far is with the map editing interface: It’s a little clunky when you start, but once you get used to it, it is a breeze.
Check out Map Builder. And consider making maps! If you do create and post them, please let us know.
Wanted to alert folks to a blog we’ve been reading for a few months which tracks contamination news of all sorts. It’s called Contaminated Nation and is run/edited by Jay Gaines. Jay is a capricorn, his zodiac year is the rooster (would we make this stuff up?), and he has this to say about his background and the blog’s purpose:
As an employee of a large environmental risk information company, I have unique insight into contamination issues in the U.S. The purpose of this blog is to share what I see and learn about the effects of contamination in our nation and our neighborhoods.
Be sure to check out all the latest contamination news at Contaminated Nation.
In researching a recent court decision in a TCE case (more on this later), we stumbled across this paper [PDF]
from the William Mitchell Law Review, Vol 32, Issue 3, 2006. Written as guidance for the Minnesota Supreme Court, it reviews the legal concept of medical monitoring and identifies states where this claim is allowed in absence of physical injury or illness:
In “toxic tort” lawsuits, or claims brought as a result of exposure to hazardous substances, a typical plaintiff “alleges he has developed a disease because of exposure to a toxic substance negligently released by the defendant.” In some cases, however, the plaintiffs “seek to recover the costs of long-term diagnostic testing and medical examinations, which they claim are necessary to detect latent diseases or ailments that might later develop as a result of toxic exposure.” This novel theory of recovery is frequently labeled “medical monitoring.” Plaintiffs bringing claims for medical monitoring “seek post-exposure, pre-symptom recovery for the expense of periodic medical examinations to detect the onset of physical harm.” Plaintiffs who bring actions seeking the establishment of a medical monitoring fund may not suffer any current physical injuries and often do not even exhibit symptoms of disease as a result of their alleged exposure.
States That Allow Medical Monitoring in the Absence of Present Physical Injury
| State |
Authority |
| Arizona |
Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp., 752 P.2d 28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987) |
| California |
Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 863 P.2d 795 (Cal. 1993) |
| Colorado |
Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 755 F. Supp. 1468 (D. Colo. 1991) |
| Connecticut |
Martin v. Shell Oil Co., 180 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Conn. 2002) |
| District of Columbia |
Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 746 F.2d 816 (D.C. Cir. 1984) |
| Florida |
Petito v. A.H. Robins Co., 750 So. 2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) |
| Guam |
Abuan v. Gen. Elec. Co., 3 F.3d 329 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1116 (1994) |
| Illinois |
Lewis v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, 793 N.E.2d 869 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) |
| Montana |
Lamping v. Am. Home Prods., Inc., No. DV-97-85786 (Mont. 4th Dist. Ct. Feb. 2, 2000) |
| New Jersey |
Ayers v. Twp. of Jackson, 525 A.2d 287 (N.J. 1987) |
| New York |
Patton v. Gen. Signal Corp., 984 F. Supp. 666 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) |
| Ohio |
Day v. NLO, 851 F. Supp. 869 (S.D. Ohio 1994) |
| Pennsylvania |
Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Army, 696 A.2d 137 (Pa. 1997) |
| Utah |
Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply, 858 P.2d 970 (Utah 1993) |
| West Virginia |
Bower v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 522 S.E.2d |
The article goes on to identify states where medical monitoring is not allowed absent a physical injury and also those states where the issue has not yet been decided (or where no test has been articulated).
Read more in Note: A Fifty-State Survey of Medical Monitoring and the Approach the Minnesota Supreme Court Should Take When Confronted with the Issue by D. Scott Aberson [PDF].
The Houston Chronicle (TX) reports:
A jury will resume deliberations Monday in a criminal air pollution case that accuses Citgo Petroleum Corp. of knowingly breaking federal air quality laws at its Corpus Christi refinery.
Lawyers presented final arguments on Friday after a grueling and technical trial that began May 18. Jurors deliberated Friday afternoon, then went home for the weekend.
The case specifically involves allegations that open-air storage tanks at Citgo’s East Plant refinery emitted illegal amounts of benzene, which research has linked to cancer. More broadly, however, the case tests criminal enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
Although other criminal indictments under the act have resulted in guilty pleas, the Citgo case is the first to go to trial alleging emissions violations, prosecutors said.
“The question is whether companies like Citgo, who blatantly violate the law over a period of time, will be held accountable,” said Justice Department lawyer Howard Stewart, lead prosecutor in the case.
The Sacramento Bee (CA) reports:
State health officials are considering a proposal that would have Rancho Cordova residents relying for the first time on treatment technologies to remove rocket fuel chemicals from their drinking water.
The proposed change in contaminant cleanup strategy comes as concentrations of chemicals are creeping up in several Rancho Cordova drinking-water wells.
The fixes, however, are expected to be completed before the contamination reaches unsafe levels, utility and state officials said.
[...]
The contaminants are perchlorate, an oxidizing component of solid rocket propellant known to cause thyroid disorders and NDMA — n-nitro-sodimethylamine — a “probable” cancer-causing combustion product of liquid rocket fuel, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The chemicals are linked to historic disposal practices at Aerojet. In the 1950s through 1970s, the defense contractor disposed of residual rocket fuel and metal-cleaning solvents in unlined open pits, allowing the wastes to seep through the soil and into the groundwater tapped for Rancho Cordova homes.
The most pervasive Aerojet pollutant is trichloroethylene (TCE), an industrial solvent that has been linked to brain damage, liver cancer, skin diseases and immune disorders.
Read the full story.
If investigative reporter Jon Goodman is right, the citizens of Pennsylvania have a disturbing public health problem on their hands.
We’ve learned that the solvents at issue in both the Williams and Hensley cases against CSX Railroad were trichloroethylene (TCE),
trichloroethane (TCA), perchloroethylene a.k.a. tetrachloroethylene (PCE), mineral spirits, and carbon tetrachloride.
Thanks to Ken Sales of the Sales and Slattery Group (attorneys for the plaintiffs in both cases) for this confirmation.
The Chattanoogan (TN), which was launched Sept. 1, 1999 and bills sitself as “as one of the first full-service web-only daily newspapers in the country”, provides this breaking news report:
A Hamilton County Circuit Court jury has returned a $5 million verdict for a former CSX Railroad employee.
The jury in the courtroom of Judge Jackie Schulten deliberated two and a half hours before bringing in the verdict in favor of Thurston Hensley, 67.
The jury found that Mr. Hensley had contracted both asbestosis and toxic encephalopathy through his work for 33 years as an electrician at the railroad yards at Corbin, Ky.
It was claimed that he had to handle both asbestos and was around dangerous solvents during his time with the railroad.
The plaintiff said he suffered lung damage from the asbestos and brain damage from the solvents.
He was represented by attorney Doug Nichol of Knoxville and attorney Joe Satterley of Louisville, Ky. The case was originally filed by attorneys from St. Louis, Mo.
The case was filed in January 2002.
Attorney Nichol said it was brought under the Federal Employees Liability Act, which allows for compensatory damages but not punitive damages.
He said that type suit can be brought either in federal or state court and in any place where the defendant railroad has a railyard.
Trial of the case lasted three weeks.
See the original article here. Thanks to Ken Sales of the Sales and Slattery Group for the tip.
Following on the heels of a study that recently confirmed consistent patterns of brain damage among solvent-exposed railroad workers, a jury in Kentucky has awarded a significant sum of money to a man whose brain damage was similarly attributed to solvent exposure:
A Jefferson Circuit Court jury has awarded a former railroad employee $1.8 million after he claimed exposure to cleaning solvent at work in Louisville and Corbin caused permanent brain damage.
Terry L. Williams, 59, of Corbin, had targeted his former employer, CSX Transportation, in the lawsuit. He declined to be interviewed.
CSX spokesman Gary Sease declined to comment. Sease has previously said that the company does not believe solvents sickened workers at CSX or companies that CSX acquired, such as the Louisville & Nashville Railroad.
But the 9-3 verdict in the two-week trial is the latest in a string of litigation in several states involving hundreds of railroad workers.
The Louisville jury awarded Williams $500,000 for medical expenses, $500,000 for loss of income, $500,000 for past mental and physical pain and suffering and $500,000 for future mental and physical pain and suffering, according to court documents filed Tuesday.
Because the jury attributed 10 percent of the negligence to Williams, CSX will be obligated to pay 90 percent of the award, or $1.8 million.
Kenneth Sales, senior partner in [The Sales and Slattery Group,] the law firm that handled Williams’ case, said Williams worked for the railroad 34 years, leaving in 2000 after having been diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy. Williams’ career as a machinist working on locomotives started at the L&N’s old South Louisville shops and ended at a maintenance facility in Corbin.
Read the rest of the story in The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
Note: We are in the process of trying to chase down more info on this case. Specifically, what were the actual solvents to which Mr. Williams was exposed and to which his brain damage was attributed? Published reports do not seem to mention this detail. We have one lead that suggests 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) may have been the main contaminant of concern (Thanks K.P.), but we are trying to confirm it. As such, we’re attempting to reach the law firm that represented Mr. Williams as well as the author of the story above. If or as we learn any more, we’ll post an update here.
This recent article in Mining Journal may be of interest to some readers:
Compared to traditional surface geochemical techniques, amplified geochemical imaging incorporates the combined advantages of improved sampler design, higher sensitivity, robust data set, and multivariate statistical interpretation.
This technique has proven its value for over a decade in a number of applications including environmental pollution mapping, pipeline leak assessment, petroleum exploration, and mineral exploration.
[...]
Because many polluted sites have supported multiple industries over the years, unknown sources often exist which will complicate monitoring and remediation.
In one case, the use of amplified geochemical imaging found an unknown TCE separator at a military site that, once identified, reduced the remediation time using soil vapour extraction by dozens of years and reduced costs by several million dollars (LaPlant, 2002).
This tool has been used successfully on industrial sites, airports, gas stations, dry cleaners, landfills, pipelines and terminals, and manufactured gas plants.
Amplified geochemical imaging using a passive soil-gas survey will not only accurately map intensity of pollution but will also screen for indicators of natural attenuation pointing toward potential low-cost remediation solutions.
This accurate map can in turn focus subsequent soil and water matrix sampling, monitoring well placement, layout, and design of remediation chemical injection, and monitoring and verification of site clean-up. In all cases using this tool to generate a an enhanced view saves costs in the overall programme.
Read more.
Recently received a nice note from Lizzie Grossman, author of High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health. She sent the following invitation for TCE Blog readers:
What: A reading and discussion of “High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health,” my new book about the environmental and health impacts of the entire life-cycle of high tech electronics, just out from Island Press. (see http://www.islandpress.org)
C-Span Book TV will be coming to film, so here’s your chance to reach an audience of thousands when you ask that important question! Seriously, this is a great opportunity to help promote understanding of these issues, so come prepared to have a lively conversation.
Where & When: August 15, 7 pm, at Book Passage in San Francisco, in the Ferry Building on the Embarcadero — (415) 835-1020 for directions
According to this press release, reporters are able to obtain a copy of the upcoming NAS report on TCE one day in advance of its public release.
REPORTERS: Obtain a copy by contacting the Office of News and Public Information; tel. 202-334-2138 or e-mail
news@nas.edu. Advance copies will be available to reporters only
beginning at noon EDT on July 26. THE REPORT IS EMBARGOED AND NOT FOR
PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE 4 P.M. EDT ON JULY 27.
Despite our formal requests by email and by phone for a press copy today, no copy was provided to reporters from the TCE Blog. Harumph.
Victims of TCE Exposure (VOTE) are hosting a punk rock circus (as a fundraiser) this Saturday:
PRESS RELEASE —————————————————
A FUNDRAISER CONCERT FOR VICTIMS OF TCE EXPOSURE:
SCOTT KELLOGG’S BIG
PUNK ROCK CIRCUS
SATURDAY 22 JULY 2006, 8 PM
THE TONIC LOUNGE
3100 NE SANDY BLVD
PORTLAND [OR] 97232
8 BANDS FOR 8 BUCKS!!
THE BANDS:
THE NEINS – 8 FOOT TENDER – DIRTY LOWDOWNS – MS 45 – MUDDY RIVER NIGHTMARE BAND – SK AND THE PUNKASS BITCHES – THE LEGEND OF DUTCH SAVAGE – HOWIE AND THE HOTKNIIVES
A FUNDRAISER CONCERT FOR VICTIMS OF TCE EXPOSURE … A LASTING LEGACY
A 501(c)3 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION COMMITTED TO HELPING WORKERS AND
FAMILIES GET THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT, MEDICAL INFORMATION, AND LEGAL
INFORMATION THEY NEED TO COPE WITH THE ENORMOUS ADVERSE HEALTH RISKS
OF LONG-TERM TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) EXPOSURE SUFFERED IN THE HOME OR
AT THE WORKPLACE.
CONTACT:
Amanda Evans
tcein3d@yahoo.com , (503) 615-5963
VICTIMSOFTCEEXPOSURE.ORG
Walter Mugdan is a Director in EPA’s Division of Environmental Planning and Protection (EPA Region 2). He has recently written an important paper on vapor intrusion. Not only does it provide a helpful summary of things we already know, but it also fills in some gaps in our knowledge and updates/invalidates some old, errant assumptions based on recent groundwater contamination investigations (e.g. the Endicott/IBM TCE investigation is featured prominently and appears to be the basis for many of the updated assumptions).
The recently-published paper, entitled Vapor Intrusion: The Next Big Thing, is part of an online library of materials from the American Law Institute and American Bar Association’s (ALI/ABA) Direct-to-Desktop CLE (continuing legal education) program. Seemingly intended for attorneys, the 12-page paper provides important information and insights for anyone learning about or dealing with vapor intrusion. It is also a must read for anyone who discounts the possibility and/or risks of vapor intrusion from groundwater contamination investigations that were conducted years ago and closed.
Topics in the paper include:
- What Is Vapor Intrusion?
- Why Does Vapor Intrusion Occur?
- Why Is Vapor Intrusion A Concern?
- What’s New About This?
- Implications Of The New Findings
- EPA Guidance
- Human Exposures
- Sampling For Vapor Intrusion
- Vapor Intrusion In The Workplace
- …and more.
Highlights from the paper include:
Introduction
During the past few years, it has become apparent that intrusion of toxic vapors into occupied buildings is a serious and potentially widespread problem associated with contaminated sites—specifically, sites at which soil and groundwater are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”). The phenomenon has long been understood, but it was generally and erroneously believed that it was rare for vapor intrusion in buildings to reach levels that presented health concerns, especially at sites where groundwater contamination had been satisfactorily addressed. We are now learning that the problem is more common, more persistent, and more severe than had been imagined as recently as three or four years ago.
Why Does Vapor Intrusion Occur?
When there is lower pressure inside than outside, soil vapor can enter buildings through cracks and openings in slab foundations or basement floors and walls. This intrusion is very similar to how radon gas seeps into buildings…
The chemicals associated with vapor intrusion problems are VOCs. Among these, some of the most common and the most dangerous are chlorinated compounds such as trichloroethylene (“TCE”), trichloroethane (“TCA”), and tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene, “PCE” or “Perc”)…
When VOCs contaminate groundwater aquifers, they can readily volatilize near the water table and pass into the soil pores above. Pressure gradients drive vapors up through the soil toward the surface. [V]apors may accumulate, or move laterally, or continue to move upward through cracks or openings in the obstacle. When the obstacle is a building foundation, and the vapors find a pathway through it, the result is the intrusion of vapors into the interior living or working space.
As noted, it is a difference in pressure above and below foundations that can drive vapors indoors. Such differences can be induced by a variety of common phenomena, including…
Why Is Vapor Intrusion A Concern?
Many common groundwater contaminants are volatile. In their vapor phase they can move readily through soil and into structures. These vapors can be hazardous, even in low concentrations. Chlorinated VOCs like TCE and PCE, when inhaled, are carcinogenic and can cause a variety of other illnesses…
What’s New About This?
Vapor intrusion is not a new phenomenon. We have been concerned about radon gas intrusion for decades, and we have long understood that toxic chemicals volatilizing off contaminated groundwater can similarly migrate up through soil and into buildings…
However, our understanding of the vapor intrusion process has evolved rapidly during the past few years…we have begun to recognize that many old assumptions are invalid or must be modified substantially.
Groundwater As A Source
Old Assumption: Very high concentrations of volatile chemicals would need to be present in groundwater for there to be a potential for indoor air problems.
New Findings: Indoor air problems may occur even when levels of groundwater contamination are quite low. Moreover, the model most commonly used to make predictions about vapor intrusion, the “Johnson-Ettinger” Model, has been found to significantly under-predict indoor air vapor levels in a variety of situations…
Soil Vapor Levels As Predictor
Old Assumption: Soil vapor samples collected near a building, at foundation depth, are representative of soil vapor conditions beneath the building’s foundation, and can therefore be used for screening.
New Findings: At Endicott and elsewhere, it has been found that vapor levels beneath the foundation may be more than a hundred times greater than in samples collected near the building. The foundation can act as “confining layer” beneath which vapors accumulate and concentrate.
Attenuation (Or Dilution) Factor
Old Assumption: The ratio of vapor levels in soil to those inside a building is high… The foundation was assumed to be effective at blocking most of the vapors from entering the building, and those vapors that do get in become diluted in the ambient indoor air. Thus, indoor vapor levels are assumed to be many times lower than the soil vapor levels outside…
New Findings: Attenuation factors or ratios actually vary widely, and are often much lower than previously expected…
Implications Of The New Findings
One of the important implications of the new findings superseding the old assumptions is that groundwater VOC contamination sites which were considered to have been adequately addressed may require further investigation and remedial work…
The major implication of the new findings is, of course, that human exposures at potentially dangerous levels may have occurred for years or decades, even after a site was recognized and (as we thought), satisfactorily addressed. We may presume that our relative ignorance in this arena will unfortunately have contributed to some number of additional cancers or other illnesses that could have been prevented.
A related implication is that there is the potential for significant toxic tort liability for responsible parties…
Human Exposures
A growing body of evidence suggests, however, that a thorough risk assessment should include sampling of the vapors that may have accumulated immediately below the foundation or concrete slab of the building (sub-slab sampling). These levels are likely to be higher than current indoor levels, but nevertheless represent the potential (or possible future) exposure to the occupants…
Sampling For Vapor Intrusion
Based on the new findings replacing the old assumptions, best professional judgment may suggest that sampling for vapor intrusion should be performed in many more situations than would formerly have been thought necessary. Sampling may well be indicated where groundwater is contaminated with even comparatively low levels of volatile hazardous chemicals, the contaminated aquifer is located under or near occupied buildings, and the local geology is conducive to soil vapor movement…
[C]urrent evidence suggests that less reliance should be placed on outside soil vapor sampling; instead, sampling should more frequently proceed to indoor and sub-slab sampling, to assess both current and potential future risks…
Vapor Intrusion In The Workplace
There are existing federal regulatory standards governing occupational exposures— the Permissible Exposure Limits (“PELs”) set by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). The PELs for some of the common contaminants of concern are, however, seriously outdated, and are
almost without question not protective. For example, the PEL for TCE, established in 1967, is 537,000 micrograms per cubic meter, an incredible seven orders of magnitude less protective than the lowest figures in use today…
A full copy of the paper (all 12 pages) costs approx. $15 and can be downloaded here.
Thanks to CPEO for this tip.
According to this Dayton Daily News (OH) report:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will begin testing for a likely carcinogen in the basements of homes, schools, churches and businesses in what could be the largest case in Ohio.
Randy Waterworth of the state EPA said Thursday the federal effort would start with three schools — Forest and Van Cleve elementaries and St. Patrick School — in about 20 square blocks east of downtown.
Steve Renninger of the federal EPA in Cincinnati said the testing should start in the next two weeks.
[...]
Officials have known for a number of years that soil in the area was contaminated with tetrachloroethelyne (PCE) in two plumes. One plume may have originated from a former dry-cleaning site near the southeast quadrant of the Public Square. The second appears to have originated near Spinnaker Coating and Hobart Cabinet.
PCE is a dry-cleaning solvent and a metal degreaser. Exposure to PCE over 30 or more years is thought to cause cancer in humans, based on animal testing.
Only in the past two or three years have scientists discovered that PCE often turns to vapor in the soil and can work its way into basements. City tests of 11 basements in April showed PCE vapor readings from twice to 189 times the recommended level.
Read more here.
Lizzie Grossman tells us scary things about the environmental and public health impact of computers.
From the Denver Post (CO):
For the past three decades, our environmental protection system of federal laws and state enforcement has made great progress – our air is cleaner, hundreds of contaminated sites have been cleaned up, hazardous and solid waste is well managed and water quality has been improved.
But, as we look to the future, there are major changes that need to be considered if we are to continue to make progress.
[...]
In many cases, EPA oversight is based on outdated measures of what constitutes environmental success. Our national laws need to be updated to recognize this problem and reward innovation and improved performance by states.
[...]
Environmental policy is often decided in an overly politicized atmosphere through the legislative process and in appointed commissions. Industry is powerful in these forums, and typically environmental advocates are seriously under-represented. The best public policy results from good balance among the competing interests.
Read more.
News Blaze reports:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to modify the plan to clean up the Solvent Savers Superfund Site in Chenango County, New York, originally finalized in 1990. EPA is proposing to change the cleanup plans for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) based on a drastic reduction in volatile organic compounds in the soil over the past 11 years.
[...]
Solvent Savers Inc. operated as a chemical waste recovery operation, where industrial solvents and other wastes were reprocessed or disposed of from about 1967 to 1974. The company recovered solvents for reuse, reconditioned drums, and buried liquids, solids, sludge, and drums in several areas at the site.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) discovered the site and first investigated contamination there in 1981. They confirmed that groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soil were all contaminated with PCBs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). Based upon these findings and a subsequent investigation EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in 1983. The Agency took actions to address the most pressing issues and developed a detailed plan to handle the more complex long-term cleanup of the site. The plan was finalized in 1990. It called for the extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater, excavation of the PCB- and VOC-contaminated soil, which would then be treated first on the site to remove VOCs and taken off the site for further treatment to remove PCBs. Under the proposed change, the plan would include excavation and off-site treatment and/or disposal. To date, more than 130,000 cubic yards of soils have been treated for VOCs and removed from the site. Results of 302 samples taken recently on the remaining soil at the site show that it now meets NYSDEC’s new standards for VOCs. Only 8 of 302 soil samples in two localized areas were above the target levels.
EPA will host a public information session at Lincklaen Town Hall, Lincklaen, NY on July 10th at 7:00 pm to discuss the proposed changes to the cleanup plan and will accept public comments. Comments received at the public meeting, as well as written comments will be considered before finalizing the new plan and the Agency will summarize its response to any comments it received in a document that will be included in the final cleanup plan. The comment period is currently open until July 20th.
|
|