|
|
Why is Pennsylvania DEP allowing families in TCE-polluted Tomstown, PA to regularly bathe in and wash with TCE polluted water coming out of the tap between 6ppb-24ppb?
This decision was quietly made public in The Pennsylvania Bulletin on February 10, 2007:
Bottled Water, was initiated on January 1, 2007, for residences with
water supply contamination levels greater than 5 ppb of TCE but less
than 25 ppb.
Point-of-Entry Water Treatment Systems will be provided for residences
that have TCE levels greater than 25 ppb TCE in their water supply.
The Department has determined by risk analysis that this level
presents an unacceptable inhalation threat in addition to the
ingestion threat.
So…DEP is providing bottled water to families in Tomstown whose tap water is contaminated above the federal MCL (5ppb), but has no plans to filter the water unless it tests higher than 24ppb.
This means that families who have up to 24ppb coming from their taps are left with a poisoned water supply in their homes, to bathe in, to wash with, to flush, and to inhale. To date, we have found no evidence that these families have been warned of the dangers of such uses.
On the contrary, we’ve been advised by a contact in Tomstown that not only are the DEP-provided bottles of water designated by DEP for drinking and cooking only, but reportedly DEP has called any other use of the contaminated tap water “harmless.” We hope this report is based on a misunderstanding, but we’re still awaiting DEP’s reply to our email requesting clarification of their policy here.
In response to our first email, a DEP spokesperson was kind enough to let us know they are indeed on the case:
The articles that you have posted on your blog are accurate. The state is investigating groundwater contamination and the state is supplying bottled water or installing carbon filtration on wells. A vapor intrusion study will be done when the contamination plume has been identified.
As we suspected, it appears no vapor intrusion investigation has been initiated. We’re also informed by locals that there has been no warning to residents about the dangers of breathing toxic indoor air.
Meantime, we’ve been advised that the federal MCL for TCE (5ppb) applies to drinking water in a strict, literal sense, therefore allowing families to bathe in higher concentrations of TCE may not be illegal.
Still, it seems awfully dangerous for PA DEP to continue to allow these ongoing exposures above the MCL without clearly warning the families of the consequences.
Given that there’s no telling for how many years these families have been bathing, washing, flushing, and inhaling vapors from the contaminated water – not to mention drinking and cooking with it – prior to DEP’s discovery of it in 2006, this is all pretty scary stuff from where we sit.
As we learn more, we’ll keep you posted.
New York Newsday reports:
Nassau County has warned the 47 water districts it monitors that they need to immediately report any excessive level of contaminants in their water supply.
The warning was issued about a month after the Nassau County Health Department said it learned that the Village of Hempstead had failed to report that one of its wells had contamination from an industrial solvent at twice the allowable levels.
[...]
Water from the affected well had 11.8 parts per billion of trichloroethylene, or TCE, when it was tested on April 3, more than a week after a routine quarterly test showed a level of 10.1 parts per billion, twice the allowable limit of 5 parts per billion, according to a notice sent to village residents last week.
The 11.8 reading was “the highest ever seen in this well,” the village said, but the source of the contamination still was unknown, according to the notice.
Neither state nor federal environmental agencies have been able to identify the source of the contamination, although village officials suspect it might be a federal superfund site at the Old Roosevelt Field in Garden City.
Read more here.
This was published over a year ago. We thought it relevant again given recent news and activity:
We just received the following reader question by email:
I have read several recent newspaper articles that state DOD has identified 1,400 DOD sites that are contaminated with TCE. Do you happen to have a copy of or know where I can obtain the underlying documentation for that statement?
Yes. The documentation is available here (as we first reported in March 2005). If you follow the link, download the powerpoint presentation, and find slide # 10, here’s what you’ll see (click slide to enlarge):
Update: You may also recall, this is the same presentation in which the Air Force calculates DOD’s current cost of TCE clean-up at $5 billion. They speculate that this cost could increase by over $5 billion more if TCE is officially declared more dangerous than previously thought or regulated any further because of it. Air Force would bear $1.25 billion of this cost increase. Here’s what those slides looks like:
A friend of the blog gave us a state-by-state list of U.S. EPA Superfund sites where trichloroethylene (TCE) is a contaminant of concern. We have made the list available for public download.
Note: We attempted to post a summary table as we did with the RCRA sites, but it was not formatting correctly, so we temporarily removed it. Meantime, here’s a high level summary of the data (when we can fix the table glitch, we’ll re-post it):
- 76% of the Superfund sites have TCE contamination (432 of 566)
- 17% of Superfund sites with TCE contamination are DoD facilities (75 of 432), 20% are some sort of federal facility (89 of 432)
- 83% of federal facility superfund sites are contaminated with TCE (89 of 106), 84% of these are DOD sites (75 of 106)
- Source: CERCLIS3/Superfund Reporting Center 06/13/2006
A friend of the blog gave us a list of U.S. EPA RCRA sites where trichloroethylene (TCE) is a major contaminant. We have made the list available for public download.
| Summary Chart |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Region |
2008 Baseline
Facilities |
2008 Baseline
facilities reported to have TCE |
2008 Baseline
facilities reported to have TCE: DoD |
2008 Baseline
facilities reported to have TCE: non-DoD federal facility |
2008 Baseline
facilities reported to have TCE: total federal facilities |
|
| 1 |
190 |
132 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| 2 |
x:num>164 |
x:num>103 |
x:num>6 |
x:num>0 |
x:num>6 |
|
| 3 |
x:num>289 |
x:num>92 |
x:num>0 |
x:num>1 |
x:num>1 |
|
| 4 |
x:num>308 |
x:num>181 |
x:num>30 |
x:num>4 |
x:num>34 |
|
| 5 |
x:num>399 |
x:num>148 |
x:num>13 |
x:num>2 |
x:num>15 |
|
| 6 |
x:num>233 |
x:num>40 |
x:num>18 |
x:num>6 |
x:num>24 |
|
| 7 |
x:num>109 |
x:num>61 |
x:num>4 |
x:num>1 |
x:num>5 |
|
| 8 |
x:num>60 |
x:num>21 |
x:num>5 |
x:num>3 |
x:num>8 |
|
| 9 |
x:num>164 |
x:num>83 |
x:num>22 |
x:num>1 |
x:num>23 |
|
| 10 |
x:num>52 |
x:num>17 |
x:num>0 |
x:num>1 |
x:num>1 |
|
| Total |
x:fmla=”=SUM(B4:B13)”>1968 |
x:fmla=”=SUM(C4:C13)”>878 |
x:fmla=”=SUM(D4:D13)”>98 |
x:fmla=”=SUM(E4:E13)”>19 |
x:fmla=”=SUM(F4:F13)”>117 |
|
|
|
45%
of the 2008 Corrective Action Baseline has TCE contamination (878 of 1968) |
|
|
84%
of the DoD facilities on the Corrective Action Baseline have TCE
contamination (98 of 116) |
|
11%
of the 2008 Baseline facilities with TCE contamination are DoD facilities,
13% are some sort of federal facility |
|
|
|
|
x:str=”This list was developed through a survey of the EPA Regional offices and is based “>This
list was developed through a survey of the EPA Regional offices and is
based |
|
|
on
the Regions’ and states’ current knowledge of the 2008 RCRA GPRA baseline
high priority |
|
facilities.
style=’mso-spacerun:yes’> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Thursday’s Press & Sun-Bulletin (Binghamton, NY):
State lawmakers on Wednesday again passed a bill that would require landlords leasing polluted property to disclose the property’s status to prospective tenants.
A similar measure was vetoed by Gov. George E. Pataki in August.
The bill’s authors, Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo, D-Endwell, and Sen. Thomas W. Libous, R-Binghamton, expect Gov. Eliot Spitzer to sign it.
The bill would inform renters about problems such as vapor intrusion — a process in which underground pollution forms gases that seep into buildings. The problem affects hundreds of properties in Endicott and other Southern Tier communities polluted with trichloroethylene (TCE) and similar solvents.
In his rejection note, Pataki stated the requirement was “overly broad” because it required landlords to inform renters about sites even after they had been closed.
Libous said Wednesday that Pataki must have been acting on misinformation from an adviser about the nature of the bill, which would not require landlords to detail the scope and nature of pollution after the site was cleaned, although it would require them to note the status as a closed site.
“I’m convinced that the advice the governor got from his counsel was flawed,” Libous said Wednesday.
The lawmakers introduced an identical bill early last year after a Press & Sun-Bulletin story revealed that some owners of buildings in a polluted area of Endicott had not notified tenants that a subterranean plume of TCE vapors had tainted indoor air.
According to the Pottstown Mercury (PA), the following Pennsylvania lawmakers have joined the fight to apply EPA’s new solvent emissions regulations to the narrow tube industry (all have written letters criticizing the exemption, all were reportedly on a conference call with EPA pressing this issue on Friday):
This was announced just last Friday on the PR Newswire:
Governor Edward G.
Rendell announced today that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection has filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the Environmental
Protection Agency’s National Air Emissions Standards on hazardous air
pollutants halogenated solvent cleaning[sic].
[...]
“I believe the EPA did not adequately consider public health risks when establishing new air emissions standards for TCE, nor did they take into account the reasonable, economically-feasible and expedient measures that are available to the narrow tube industry to reduce emissions,” said Governor Rendell, noting his reason for directing DEP to challenge this action. “Exempting these industries from more stringent emission standards fails to protect the well-being of our people, our communities and our economy.”
[...]
“Contrary to the argument that reductions in TCE emissions will place an unfair burden on the narrow tube industry, we are seeing voluntary reductions by manufacturers in Montgomery County that can be realized within a year,” said Governor Rendell. “That calls into question the EPA’s evaluation of the facts about this industry. For the sake of our residents, I am asking the EPA to act quickly in reviewing our objections and reverse this decision.”
The question Rendell raises is an interesting one: Should voluntary efforts by a few undermine regulatory exemptions for an entire industry? We wonder what impact, if any, Rendell’s argument may have on those organizations considering or undertaking such voluntary TCE reduction efforts (beware the law of unintended consequences).
At the same time, we wonder if perhaps Rendell is avoiding a more obvious question: Why have ANY exemptions from health-protective standards like these? It just seems like obvious nonsense to us that any organization, let alone the most powerful polluters in the world, should get a free pass from keeping people safer because it is hard or expensive for their business. More on this another time…
For now, bravo to Governor Rendell for taking action to keep his citizens safe.
Back in April, the EPA promulgated new, more stringent emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants. Trichloroethylene (TCE) was one of the pollutants impacted by these new standards*.
At the same time, EPA carved out exemptions in the new standards allowing certain industries to simply opt out of compliance because of “technological challenges and high costs.” The narrow tube industry was one of these industries**. Hence, the narrow tube industry was exempted from reducing its TCE emissions.
This exemption did not sit well with the Board of Supervisors in Lower Providence, Pennsylvania. Lower Providence includes the towns of Collegeville and Trappe, both ranked as having higher TCE levels in their ambient air than most towns in the state…and both happen to be home to narrow tube manufacturers who emit lots of TCE. Today, in a strong rebuke, the Board unanimously passed a resolution opposing the EPA’s exemption.
At this time, it is unclear what impact this will have on the narrow tube manufacturers TCE emissions in Collegeville and Trappe.
–
* We owe readers more detail on this. As with other things we’re backed up on, it’s coming. Swear.
** EPA received significant comments on the proposed standards from four industry sectors: the aerospace manufacture and maintenance industry, the narrow tubing manufacturing industry, industries that use continuous web cleaning machines, and a major military equipment maintenance facility. These industries commented that they would face serious technological challenges and high costs if the proposal were finalized. All four were granted exemptions.
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
From Stories that Matter regarding the National Academies’ TCE report:
EPA Vindicated on Deadly Widespread Contaminant
Written by Mike Magner
Thursday, 27 July 2006
The National Research Council has vindicated victims of one of the
Defense Department’s worst environmental problems. An expert panel of
NRC scientists reported that trichloroethylene, the most common water
contaminant in America, is more dangerous than earlier thought.
Today’s report warned that the powerful solvent is a serious public
health threat that needs stronger regulation from the Environmental
Protection Agency.
“We need a new drinking water standard now, with no more delays,” said
Jerry Ensminger, a retired Marine drill instructor whose 9-year-old
daughter Janey [pictured in original article] died of leukemia in 1985 after
exposure to TCE in the water at Camp Lejeune.
[...]
The question now is whether the EPA will adopt the NRC recommendations
and issue a final risk assessment for TCE, the first step toward
tightening the drinking water limit for the chemical.
“I am skeptical about what this administration will do with these
recommendations,” said retired Marine Ensminger.
He told the NRC panel last year that it made no sense that the DOD,
with more than 1,400 sites tainted by TCE, was allowed by the White
House to challenge EPA’s risk assessment.
“Here we have the EPA that was created by the government to protect
our environment and our citizens from pollution being second-guessed
by the world’s largest polluter, the U.S. Department of Defense!” he
told the panel.
Read the full story here.
The Washington Post and Associated Press have picked up the story on the NAS TCE report:
Study: Water Contaminant Can Cause Cancer
By JOHN HEILPRIN
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 27, 2006; 8:42 PM
WASHINGTON — Growing scientific evidence suggests the most widespread industrial contaminant in drinking water – a solvent used in adhesives, paint and spot removers – can cause cancer in people.
The National Academy of Sciences reported Thursday that a lot more is known about the cancer risks and other health hazards from exposure to trichloroethylene than there was five years ago when the Environmental Protection Agency took steps to regulate it more strictly.
“Armed with the results from the NAS review, EPA will aggressively move forward” on a new risk assessment of TCE, spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said Thursday. “EPA will determine whether or not to address the drinking water standard once the risk assessment is complete.”
Read the full story here.
The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council has released its findings from its 18-month project, Assessing the Human Health Risks of Trichloroethylene: Key Scientific Issues. The full report is expected to be available here at the National Academies’
TCE project page. Update: You can download the full report here [PDF, 2.95MB]
In addition you can currently download the following from the National Academies Press website:
- Full report [this link takes you to NAP webpage for full download]
- Executive Summary, 28 pages [PDF, 660K]
- Report in Brief, 4 pages [PDF, 1.4MB]
We have not had a chance to review these documents, but look forward to doing so. Once we’ve poured through them, we’ll be back…
In the meantime, if you have any thoughts you’d be willing to share on the recent report (including press coverage by the LA Times), please use the comments feature above or email us directly.
The Los Angeles Times’ Ralph Vartabedian, author of an important series of articles on the politics and health impact of trichloroethylene (TCE), got his hands on an advanced copy of the National Academies’ TCE health risks report (slated for official release later today). He writes:
After a detailed study of the most widespread industrial contaminant in U.S. drinking water, the National Research Council will report today that evidence is growing stronger that the chemical causes cancer and other human health problems.
The 379-page report clears a path for federal regulators to formally raise the risk assessment of trichloroethylene, known as TCE, a step that has been tied up by infighting between scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Defense Department.
If you recall, in 2001, EPA’s Draft Health Risk Assessment for Trichloroethylene found TCE to be more toxic than previously thought and characterized TCE as “highly likely to produce cancer in humans”. According to the Department of Defense, these findings were to be the basis for more stringent clean-up standards at thousands of TCE-contaminated sites across the country and were likely to cost billions of dollars for DOD, the world’s largest and most powerful TCE polluter.
The EPA attempted to issue a risk assessment in 2001 that found TCE to be two to 40 times more carcinogenic than previously thought, but that action was opposed by the Defense Department, the Energy Department and NASA. The Pentagon has 1,400 properties contaminated with TCE.
The Bush administration sent the matter to the National Research Council for study, based on military assertions that the EPA had overblown the risks. But the new report does not support that criticism.
“The committee found that the evidence on carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from exposure to trichloroethylene has strengthened since 2001,” the report said.
The report urged federal agencies to complete their assessment of TCE risks as soon as possible “with currently available data,” meaning they should not wait for additional basic research, as suggested by the Defense Department.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) was part of the congressional briefing on Wednesday where the NAS presented their findings. In Hinchey’s district, where widespread TCE contamination has impacted the air inside people’s homes, a health study found that rates of kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and birth defects were elevated with statistical significance. On the Academies’ report, Hinchey says:
“It is the strongest report on TCE that we have had,” said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), whose district includes hundreds of homes that have air filtration systems to eliminate TCE vapors from the ground. “The fact that we have this TCE-laden drinking water used by millions of people is abominable.”
Reached for comment by the Times, the National Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) Gina Solomon offers:
“That is a very strong statement, a ringing endorsement of the EPA’s 2001 draft risk assessment,” said Solomon, an associate clinical professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Solomon said the report also rejected a key position of the chemical industry and Pentagon environmental experts that TCE was not dangerous at low levels of exposure.
Jerry Ensminger has been engaged in a 9-year battle with the federal government over a community’s exposure to TCE at Camp Lejeune, NC. He was reached for comment by the Times:
“We can’t afford any more delays,” said Jerry Ensminger, a former Marine drill sergeant who served at Camp Lejuene, where drinking water supplies were tainted. His daughter died at age 9 in 1976 from leukemia, which Ensminger blamed on TCE exposure.
Ensminger said he was heartened by the report’s conclusions, but remained concerned about whether the government would move quickly to deal with the chemical contamination.
“I want to know why the Bush administration does not err on the side of life when it comes to the environment,” he said.
The report becomes available to the public at 4 pm EDT today. It will be posted to the National Academies website and linked here as soon as we can get to it. For the full LA Times story, see here.
Excerpted from “A History of the Production and Use of Carbon Tetrachloride, Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in the United States,” by Richard E Doherty, from the Journal of Environmental Forensics (June, 2000):
1980-1990. The 1980s saw tightening environmental regulations and an average decline of 6% per year in TCE production (USDHHS, 1975). Beginning in 1980, TCE wastes were regulated as hazardous waste, as spent solvents (F001/F002) and as discarded commercial products (U228). Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) was proposed for TCE in November 1985, finalized in July 1987 and became effective January 1989 (Pontius, 1990). In 1989, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration lowered its Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) from 100 to 50 parts per million, further increasing pressure on employers to seek alternative solvents (Kroschwitz and Howe-Grant, 1991).
Several manufacturers ceased TCE production in the 1980s, including Occidental Petroleum in 1980 and Ethyl Corporation in October 1982. By February 1983, only Dow and PPG Industries remained as TCE producers. TCE’s use in the automotive and metal industries decreased in the early 1980s due to economic recession, resulting in excess supply in the market (Chem. Mktg. Rep., 1983). Significant new uses for TCE did not materialize in the 1980s. Between 1980 and 1985, strength of the United States dollar helped TCE imports rise from 8 to 40 million pounds, while exports decreased from 60 to 18 million pounds. As of 1985, it was estimated that 80% of TCE was used in cleaning and degreasing, 5% in chemical production,5% in other uses and 10% was exported (Chem. Mktg. Rep., 1986).
1990-2000. During the 1990s, TCE use increased as it became a suggested replacement for other solvents banned under the 1990 CAA amendments, such as TCA and CFC-113. TCE also saw increased use as a feedstock for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) replacements such as HFC-134a. The increase in TCE use is demonstrated in part by Dow Chemical’s 1994 conversion of its 220 million pound per year TCA plant in Stade, Germany to TCE production (Kirschner, 1994). Although production data are not available from the United States International Trade Commission, United States consumption of TCE reportedly rose approximately 10% per year between 1993 and 1996 (Leder, 1999).
As of approximately 1991, TCE’s use in metal cleaning and degreasing was estimated at 90% of production (Chem. Mktg. Rep., 1992). By 1995, this figure had decreased to about 55%, with 41% being used as a chemical intermediate (HSIA, 1996). As of 1998, TCE’s largest end use was as a replacement solvent for TCA (Leder, 1999). As of 1997, Dow was expanding TCE production at its Freeport, Texas facility. Dow and PPG remained the only United States producers (Chem. Mktg. Rep., 1997).
Excerpted from “A History of the Production and Use of Carbon Tetrachloride, Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in the United States”, by Richard E Doherty, from the Journal of Environmental Forensics (June, 2000):
1970-1980. The use of TCE in the United States peaked in 1970, and thereafter began a significant decline due to a combination of several regulatory and economic factors. The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) controlled TCE as a VOC due to its suspected contribution to ozone and smog formation. As a result, limitations on TCE emissions were placed on users in ozone nonattainment areas. TCE use was also negatively affected by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) March 1975 finding that TCE caused cancerous tumor growths in mice livers (NCI, 1976). This finding probably influenced the EPA to include TCE on its Hazardous Substance List in 1976. As a result of NCI’s finding, the General Foods Corporation announced in July 1975 that it would cease the use of TCE in the decaffeination of its Sanka2 and Brim2 brands, and would begin using methylene chloride as a substitute (C&EN, 1975a). Outright bans on TCE in states such as Rhode Island affected consumption, and led some manufacturers to promote the use of PCE and TCA as alternative solvents (Chem. Mktg. Rep., 1975). In late 1977, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the direct or indirect use of TCE in food, bringing an end to TCE’s uses in hop extraction, coffee decaffeination, and spice oleoresin isolation (Kroschwitz and Howe-Grant, 1991).
In 1971, PPG Industries announced plans to triple the capacity of its Louisiana PCE/TCE production facility (C&EN, 1971). Between 1971 and 1978, the rising cost of acetylene caused a series of shutdowns of TCE plants using the acetylene production process. The shutdown of Du Pont’s Niagara Falls facility, discussed in part 1 of this paper, became eective in 1972. As part of Du Pont’s 1970 agreement related to the closing of the Niagara Falls plant, Diamond Shamrock adopted Du Pont’s “Triclene” trade name for TCE (C&EN, 1970b). Hooker Chemical shut down the last acetylene-based PCE/TCE plant in 1978. The plant shutdowns led to shortages and a doubling in price between 1972 and 1976. Despite the increased prices, chemical manufacturers were reluctant to provide new capacity because of TCE’s uncertain future under existing and proposed pollution control regulations (Lowenheim and Moran, 1975). The price of TCE also doubled between 1975 and 1985 (Kroschwitz and Howe-Grant, 1991). These factors combined to lead to the popularity of TCA as a TCE substitute.
Major producers of TCE as of 1974 included Dow Chemical, Ethyl Corporation, Occidental Petroleum (successor of Hooker Chemical), PPG Industries, and Diamond Shamrock (USDHHS, 1975; Kroschwitz and Howe-Grant, 1991). Together, Dow and PPG provided approximately 70% of total output (Seltzer, 1975). In the early 1970s, approximately 87% of TCE produced in the United States was used in vapor degreasing, 3% as an extraction solvent, and 8% was exported (Lowenheim and Moran, 1975). By about 1974, the percentage used in degreasing had dropped to 80%. Due largely to the growth in TCA usage, TCE’s share of the vapor degreasing market dropped from 82 to 42% between 1970 and 1976 (Grayson and Eckroth, 1979).
From: Martel, Susan
Date: Jul 20, 2006 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: Congressional briefing re: TCE report?
To: neil fischbein
Neil,
The report will be released on July 27 at 4:00 pm EDT. It will be
posted to the National Academies’ website at that time.
Susan
The report should be available here in one week from today. Of course, upon its release, we’ll post an announcement with a link…and provide any analysis/insight that seems appropriate once we’ve reviewed it.
We’ve also received word from a source that NAS will be briefing Congress on the TCE report on Wednesday, July 26 at 2:00 pm EDT. We have been unable to confirm this with NAS.
Update: This has recently been confirmed:
Briefing for Congressional Staff Only
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
B-308 Rayburn House Office Bldg. – 2:00 p.m.
[...]
Should you have any questions about this briefing, please contact Jim
Jensen of the National Academies’ Office of Congressional and Government
Affairs at 202-334-1601 or email him at jjensen@nas.edu.
Excerpted from “A History of the Production and Use of Carbon Tetrachloride, Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in the United States”, by Richard E Doherty, from the Journal of Environmental Forensics (June, 2000):
1960-1970. During the 1960s, TCE’s combination of price and performance made it the most popular vapor degreasing solvent in the United States. This led to efforts to expand domestic production capacity and increase imports, primarily from Great Britain and Italy (C&EN, 1964a). In 1963, Pittsburgh Plate Glass announced plans to build a new PCE/TCE production facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana (C&EN, 1963). Hooker Chemical was adding TCE production capacity in Taft, Louisiana as of 1966 (C&EN, 1966a). After three years of marketing TCE produced by others, the Ethyl Corporation began production in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1967 and expanded the facility three years later (C&EN, 1967a, 1970a). Also in 1967, Diamond Alkali announced plans to build a TCE plant in Deer Park, Texas, with an approximate capacity of 50 million pounds (C&EN, 1967b, 1967c). Despite the increased production, TCE was again in short supply as of 1966 due to increased military demand associated with the Vietnam War, and reduction in imports caused by increased demand in Europe (C&EN, 1966a).
For TCE, the era of environmental regulation began early. In November 1965, the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) proposed Rule 66, a regulation to limit solvent emissions from industrial facilities. The proposed rule, the first of its kind in the country, included a list of solvents to be regulated based on their role in promoting smog formation. The proposal provoked a storm of controversy, with industry representatives claiming that the rule would be impractical and costly. The controversy was resolved in what was generally viewed to a model cooperative effort between regulators and industry. The APCD, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and industry representatives collaborated to review existing data and the results of additional tests conducted on selected chemicals. The resulting modified rule was enacted into law without dissent in August 1966 (C&EN, 1966b, 1966c, 1966d).
Rule 66 exempted all chlorinated solvents except TCE. Implementation of Rule 66 therefore caused many users of TCE in Los Angeles County, such as the aerospace industry, to switch to PCE or TCA (C&EN, 1966b). TCE consumption in Los Angeles County, estimated at 40 million pounds per year, plummeted after the adoption of the rule (C&EN, 1969a). Effective dates ranged from July 1, 1967, for sources emitting greater than 500 pounds per day to March 1, 1968, for 86 R. Doherty sources emitting between 15 and 100 pounds per day (C&EN, 1966d).
Excerpted from “A History of the Production and Use of Carbon Tetrachloride, Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in the United States,” by Richard E Doherty, from the Journal of Environmental Forensics (June, 2000):
1930-1940. Beginning in approximately 1930, TCE was one of the first chlorinated solvents (along with CTC) to be used in dry-cleaning as a substitute for the ammable petroleum distillates (Chem. Tr. J. Chem.Eng., 1933). TCE saw increased use in dry-cleaning of clothes as the decade progressed (Kroschwitz and Howe-Grant, 1991), and it was gaining market share from CTC in solvent applications (Thorpe and Whitely, 1938). In the mid-1930s, leading manufacturers of ferrous and non-ferrous metals began to use solvent degreasing equipment, including vapor, spray, and immersion degreasers. Stabilized forms of TCE were considered the best solvents for use in these degreasers (Davidson, 1938).
Although TCE was termed the “ideal cleansing liquid,” evidence of its toxicity was mounting in the early- and mid-1930s (Thomas, 1934). Major producers as of 1934 included Carbide and Carbon Chemicals, Westvaco Chlorine, and Du Pont, who acquired the Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Company and its Niagara Falls TCE facility in 1930 (United States Tariff Commission, 1934). Total United States production capacity as of the early 1930s was estimated at 15 million pounds per year (Chem. Week, 1953). The use of TCE as a general anesthetic on humans was first reported in 1935 (Striker et al., 1935).
1940-1960. By approximately 1940, TCE was reported to have replaced CTC as a solvent “to some extent,” due to its lack of corrosivity, ease of recovery and lower toxicity (Gabriel, 1941). TCE continued to be very widely accepted for metal degreasing, and it was reported to be rapidly replacing other solvents at this time (Byers, 1943). However, TCE’s use in dry-cleaning decreased significantly when it was found to attack certain cellulose acetate dyes (Chem. Week, 1953). The net effect of these trends was that TCE’s largest use in the 1940s became vapor degreasing of metals (Kirk and Othmer, 1949).
During World War II, TCE saw significantly increased use in degreasing metal machinery parts (Lowenheim and Moran, 1975). Supplies of TCE and other solvents were controlled so that military demands could be met. Manufacturers of TCE during the war years included Dow, Du Pont and Westvaco Chlorine (United States Tariff Commission, 1941-1945). In contrast to the aftermath ofWorldWar I, the post-WW II years saw continued growth in chemical demand, promoting the further expansion of production capacity. In 1947, Hooker-Detrex began TCE production in Tacoma, Washington to satisfy West Coast demand. To supply the eastern United States market, the company completed construction of a new TCE production facility in Ashtabula, Ohio in mid-1950, with a capacity of 40 million pounds per year (Chem. Ind., 1949a; C&EN, 1950a). Niagara Alkali Company was completing construction of a new TCE production plant in Niagara Falls, New York as of 1949 (Chem. Ind., 1949b).
Despite the increased production capacity, supplies of TCE remained scarce in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Several TCE plants operated far below capacity due to shortages of chlorine. Makers of degreasing equipment offered to help users increase equipment effciency as a means of decreasing TCE consumption, and offered to reclaim any used TCE shipped back to them by customers (C&EN, 1951a, 1951b). However, by the late 1950s, economic slowdown and increased imports shifted the TCE supply/demand balance toward oversupply. As of 1960, domestic PCE plants were operating at about 70% of capacity, and imports reached 60 million pounds (Chem. Eng., 1961). In a recurrence of the cattle poisonings of the early 1920s, hemorrhagic diseases in cattle in the early 1950s were traced to animal feed containing TCE-extracted soybean meal. This finding caused most United States manufacturers to voluntarily withdraw soybean oil meals defatted with TCE in 1952 (Chem. Week., 1953; Huff, 1971).
In 1954, neutral inhibitor systems (described above) were developed to provide improved stabilization of TCE, helping to retain TCE’s hold on the degreasing market (Lowenheim and Moran, 1975). In 1958, Dow added a neutral grade of TCE to its product line (C&EN, 1958).
As of 1952, about 92% of TCE was consumed in vapor degreasing. The remainder was used in dry-cleaning, fat and oil extraction, other cleaning applications, and as a heat exchange fluid (Chem. Week, 1953). The 1958 usage of TCE as an analgesic and anesthetic was estimated at 112 000 pounds (Hu, 1971). As of 1959±1960, the major producer of TCE was Du Pont, whose Niagara Falls facility accounted for about half the total United States production capacity of 485 million pounds. Other producers included Dow (70 million pound annual capacity); Hooker Chemical (70 million pounds); Detrex Chemical Industries, formerly Hooker-Detrex (75 million pounds); and the Columbia-Southern division of Pittsburgh Plate Glass (45 million pounds) (United States Tari Commission, 1959; C&EN, 1960a; Chem. Eng., 1961).
Excerpted from “A History of the Production and Use of Carbon Tetrachloride, Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in the United States,” by Richard E Doherty, from the Journal of Environmental Forensics (June, 2000):
History of use
E. Fischer first prepared TCE in 1864 by the reductive dehalogenation of hexachloroethane (Fischer, 1864). However, little attention was given to TCE’s use as a commercial chemical product until the early 1900s. The first TCE plant reportedly became operational in 1908 in Yugoslavia (Gerhartz, 1986). Production in Germany began in 1910 (Mellan, 1957). In 1912 England’s Chemical Trade Journal announced the introduction of a “new chlorinated carbon derivative”. The new compound, TCE, was produced in two forms: one for laundries, and one for textiles and varnishes (Chem. Tr. J. Chem. Eng., 1912). One of TCE’s other early uses was as an extraction agent for fats. TCE was thought to be ideal for this application because its low boiling point and narrow boiling range allowed nearly complete solvent removal from the resulting food products. However, as early as 1916, animal feeds containing soybean meal defatted with TCE were identifed as the source of cattle poisoning. Extensive losses of cattle in Europe occurred between 1923 and 1925 from ingestion of TCE-defatted soybean meal (Hu, 1971).
1920-1930. In 1921, the production of TCE via the oxidation of acetylene in the presence of a mercuric catalyst was among a number of processes referred to as a field of “promising future development” (United States Tari Commission, 1921). Although some sources cite 1923 or 1925 as the year when United States manufacturing of TCE began (USDHHS, 1975; Kroschwitz and Howe-Grant, 1991), the United States Census of Dyes and Synthetic Organic Chemicals indicates that Dow Chemical and the Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation were manufacturing TCE as of 1921 and 1922, respectively (United States Tari Commission, 1921-22). In 1925, The Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Company (R&H), previously a major importer of TCE, began domestic production at Niagara Falls, New York (Haynes, 1948).
Despite the existence of manufacturing capacity, TCE use was not industrially signifcant until the later 1920s. Earliest applications included use in boot polishes and printing ink dryers. The demand for TCE as a degreasing solvent was stimulated later in the 1920s by improvements in the metal degreasing process. As of 1927, the food processing industry was using TCE in “large and ever-increasing quantities” as an extraction solvent for natural fats and palm, coconut and soybean oils (Kroschwitz and Howe-Grant, 1991; Ind. Chemist, 1927). Medical use of TCE began in approximately 1928 with the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia (Oljenik, 1928).
|
|
