|
|
Earlier this month, The Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky) reported:
Researchers studying railroad workers have documented that cleaning solvents used in their jobs caused brain damage, shrinking the vital bridge that helps one side of the brain communicate with the other.
The results of the study by researchers from West Virginia University, the University of Pittsburgh and Johns Hopkins University, which was funded by the federal government, bolster evidence that powerful degreasers can damage the brain.
[...]
“We were able to identify a change to the structure of the brain,” said lead author Marc Haut, a professor in the departments of behavioral medicine and psychiatry, neurology and radiology at the West Virginia University School of Medicine in Morgantown.
He said they found a correlation between brain loss and workers’ performance on tests that evaluate such mental performance as processing speed, attention and concentration.
The new report is the first connected with the nation’s first large, independently funded study that seeks to explain how railroad workers may have been affected by solvents like 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene and perchlorethylene. Workers who participated in the study came from railroad shops in Cumberland, Md., and Huntington, W.Va.
“It is no surprise to me,” Deanna Bowerman said of the study’s findings.
Her late husband, Dale, was a CSX railroad machinist in Louisville and Corbin, Ky., and was diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy — characterized by chronic depression, loss of short-term memory and hair-trigger temper.
[...]
In a 10-month investigation in 2000 and 2001, The Courier-Journal learned that Bowerman and more than 600 other U.S. railroad employees had been diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy after spending years in workplaces where solvents were widely used with little or no protection.
The newspaper found that the debate within the medical community about whether exposure to solvents in the workplace caused brain damage had diminished in the 1990s.
But studies of railroad workers were less common, and some that were funded by CSX Transportation had found no link between solvent exposure and the illness. The newspaper found that CSX, the railroad company with the largest number of claims, had paid out nearly $35 million to more than 460 current or former workers diagnosed with the illness.
Railroads began phasing the chemicals out of their shops in the early 1990s.
CSX has both won and lost jury verdicts in chemical exposure cases that have gone to trial. It has argued that its workers’ problems could be explained by other factors, such as drinking alcohol, side effects from prescribed medication, or illnesses such as depression or diabetes.
Gary Sease, a spokesman for CSX, said the company continues to believe there is no credible and conclusive scientific basis to support claims that solvent exposure harmed company workers.
Joe Satterley, a Louisville attorney who represents railroad workers, said he’s aware of at least 100 pending lawsuits in Kentucky and elsewhere that were filed in the last few years.
The study, he said, “substantiates everything we’ve been saying all along.”
The findings of eight researchers were published in June in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. They are based on comparing images of the brains of 31 railroad workers who were exposed to solvents over a period of at least 10 years to 31 people who were not.
Any workers involved in pending litigation with the railroad were excluded, as were those with current substance abuse, a history of serious medical illness, or a diagnosis of mental illness before solvent exposure, Haut said. The researchers also factored out potential effects from high blood pressure and diabetes, which can cause the brain to shrink.
With funding from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the researchers found that the size of the corpus callosum — a bridge between the left and right hemispheres of the brain that allows communication between the sides — was significantly smaller in the railroad workers.
And the part most affected, they found, was the genu, a section of the corpus callosum that connects the frontal lobes, which are associated with decision making, problem solving and emotions.
The researchers also concluded that psychiatric conditions, such as depression, could not have caused the physical changes in workers’ brains.
We believe this is an important finding (and an important article) for a number of reasons:
- Countless railroad workers across the country have been severely injured by exposure to toxins on the job. Hundreds, if not thousands, of these injured workers have filed personal injury lawsuits alleging that on-the-job solvent-exposure caused their injuries. This study helps support many of these claims.
- Though CSX spokesperson Gary Sease seems to have a copy of the polluter handbook for denying responsibility and manufacturing uncertainty, CSX has been the subject of at least one previously-published paper about TCE-exposed railroad workers entitled Building Toys and Working on the Railroad. In that paper, the author, Elle McKay, refers to the finding that “Over 600 railroaders across the southeastern United States have been diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy- a form of permanent brain damage caused by long-term exposure to toxic degreasing solvents such as TCE.” She tells us:
Many railroad lines in the [southeastern U.S.], including those under CSX, used TCE as a locomotive cleanser from the 1960’s through the mid-1980’s. Diesel locomotive repairmen were the primary users of the solvent. Other workers, such as electricians, pipefitters, machinists and general laborers used TCE by the 55-gallon drum to remove oil and grease from engines and other locomotive parts. Some soaked rags directly in the drums, while others used pressurized tanks to spray the chemical. In order to clean large parts, they would be lowered into vats of heated solvent vapors. When workers got filthy maintaining and rebuilding the diesel locomotives, it wasn’t unheard of for them to wash their hands, arms, and clothing in the same solvent they used to clean the parts.
[...]
Dr. Douglas Linz, medical director for TriHealth Corporate Health Services in Cincinnati, Ohio, who has twenty years of experience treating workers exposed to industrial solvents, stated, ‘The [railroad] workers clearly show the fingerprint of solvent toxicity. These individuals have…emotional or physical issues…irritability, short-term memory loss, depression. And they have neuropsychological problems: difficulties with ordered reasoning, with higher-level cognitive functioning, with memory, with following directions
- Other TCE exposed populations, like the citizens in Cheshire, CT and the workers at UTC/Pratt and Whitney in CT (to name just two), have suffered from elevated rates of brain cancer. We believe the damage to the brain described above must bear some relationship to cancers suffered by these and other TCE- and solvent-exposed populations.
- Since there are literally thousands of TCE-contaminated sites across the country and, according to EPA’s Walter Mugdan, “human exposures at potentially dangerous levels may have occurred for years or decades, even after a [TCE contaminated] site was recognized and (as we thought), satisfactorily addressed,” we can assume that exposure to TCE may have caused and may still be causing significant brain damage to exposed children, residents, and workers across the country. Something more needs to be done to stop this.
Get the full story here in The Courier-Journal.
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.
“We don’t completely understand combined exposure risks from multiple pathways (of TCE exposure)…Historic air exposures should be considered in the feasibility of performing an in-depth health study.”
[see it in context]
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):
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).
The Journal of Environmental Forensics (June, 2000) contains the most comprehensive history of trichloroethylene (TCE) that we have encountered yet. In a heavily footnoted document, 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, covers the following topics:
- Uses
- History of production and major producers/manufacturers
- History of use and science/regulation
Over the course of the next few days/posts, we will feature parts of the section on history of use and regulation of TCE. For the entire article, see here.
Abstract:
Carbon tetrachloride (CTC), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) were four of the most widely used cleaning and degreasing solvents in the United States. These compounds were also used in a wide variety of other applications. The history of the production and use of these four compounds is linked to the development and growth of the United States’ synthetic organic chemical industry, and historical events that affected the development and use of chlorinated solvents in general. Part 1 of this article includes a discussion of the historical background common to each of the four solvents, followed by discussion on the history of CTC and PCE. In the early years of the 20th century, CTC became the first of the four solvents to come into widespread use. CTC was used as a replacement for petroleum distillates in the dry-cleaning industry, but was later replaced by PCE. In the 1990s, CTC was phased out under the Montreal Protocol due to its role in stratospheric ozone depletion.
[...]
Part 2 of this article describes the history of TCE and TCA. TCE production in the United States began in the early 1920s. TCE was used as a replacement for petroleum distillates in the dry-cleaning industry, and became the solvent of choice for vapor degreasing in the 1930s. TCE’s use as a degreaser decreased in the 1960s due to toxicity concerns and the increasing popularity of TCA. Significant TCA use began in the 1950s with the development of suitable stabilizer formulations. In the 1990s, TCA was phased out under the Montreal Protocol due to its role in stratospheric ozone depletion.
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.
Lenny Siegel, Director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO), recently inquired about the release of the NAS report on trichloroethylene (TCE). NAS’s Susan Martel, Responsible Staff Officer for the project, replied:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: When?
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:23:17 -0400
From: Martel, Susan
Dear Mr. Siegel:
We are estimating release in mid- to late-July. We are not planning a
press release for this report.
Regards,
Susan
Stay tuned…
Lab and field tests hint that dairy whey, a lactose-rich by- product of the dairy industry, could be used to clean up underground water supplies tainted with the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE), an industrial degreaser.
Read more in Red Orbit.
[Thanks, D, and to The Few, The Proud, The Forgotten, for these details]
We recently pointed readers to an earlier article, claiming that this amendment included health care provisions for impacted families. By way of TFTPTF, we learn from Malcolm D. Woolf, Minority Counsel to Senator James M. Jeffords, that the health care benefits provision was in a separate amendment and did NOT pass the Senate.
Meanwhile, the text of the second amendment, which DID pass and which includes study and widespread notification requirements follows:
SEC. 352. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY ON HUMAN EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED DRINKING WATER AT CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA.
(a) STUDY REQUIRED.
(1) IN GENERAL. Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Navy shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the available scientific and medical evidence regarding associations between pre-natal, child, and adult exposure to drinking water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) at Camp Lejeune North Carolina, as well as other pre-natal, child, and adult exposures to levels of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene similar to those experienced at Camp Lejeune, and birth defects or diseases and any other adverse health effects.
(2) ELEMENTS. In conducting the review and evaluation, the Academy shall review ,and summarize the scientific and medical evidence and assess the strength of that evidence in establishing a link or association between exposure to trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene and each birth defect or disease suspected to be associated with such exposure. For each birth defect or disease reviewed, the Academy shall determine, to the extent practicable with available scientific and medical data, whether—
(A) a statistical association with such contaminant exposures exists; and
(B) there exist plausible biological mechanisms or other evidence of a causal relationship between contaminant exposures and the defect or disease.
(3) SCOPE OF REVIEW. In conducting the review and evaluation, the Academy shall include a review and evaluation of–
(A) the toxicologic and epidemiologic literature on adverse health effects of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene, including epidemiologic and risk assessment reports government agencies;
(B) recent literature reviews by the National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, and other groups;
(C) the completed and on-going Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR) studies on potential trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene exposure at Camp Lejeune; and
(D) published meta-analyses,
(4) PEER REVIEW. The Academy shall obtain the peer review of the report prepared as a result of the review and evaluation under applicable Academy procedures.
(5) SUBMITTAL The Academy shall submit the report prepared as a result of the review and evaluation to the Secretary and Congress not later than 18 months after entering into the agreement for the review and evaluation under paragraph (1).
(b) NOTICE ON EXPOSURE
(1) NOTICE REQUIRED. Upon completion of the current epidemiological study by the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, known as the Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water and Specific Birth Defects and Childhood Cancers, United States Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune North Carolina, the Commandant of the Marine Corps shall take appropriate actions, including the use of national media such as newspapers, television, and the Internet, to notify former Camp Lejeune residents and employees who may have been exposed to drinking water impacted by trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene of the results of the study.
(2) ELEMENTS. The information provided by the Commandant of the Marine Corps under paragraph (1) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry and shall include a description of sources of additional information relating to such exposure, including, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) A description of the events resulting in exposure to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejuene.
(B) A description of the duration and extent of the contamination of drinking water at Camp Lejeune.
(C) The known and suspected health effects of exposure to the drinking water impacted by trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene at Camp Lejeune.
The Chicago Daily Herald (IL) tells us of a 2005 report that was just released by the Illinois Department of Public Health:
A state report on the relationship between cancer cases in Lisle and Downers Grove and groundwater contamination found no significant disease clusters.
The study was the result of two separate pollution problems in areas of south Lisle and west Downers Grove.
In Lisle, hundreds of private wells were tainted with the solvent trichlorethylene, or TCE, due to spills at the Lockformer Co. plant on Ogden Avenue.
In Downers Grove, TCE and a related chemical, tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, were detected in the groundwater in several homes. The toxins came from the Ellsworth Industrial Park, authorities concluded.
Illinois Department of Public Health scientists compared countywide data with cancer cases in the neighborhoods where the wells were tested for toxins using statistics from the Illinois State Cancer Registry.
The study looks at 19,093 cancer cases reported between 1998 and 2002 in DuPage County. Fifty-three cases were found in neighborhoods with tainted wells.
Researchers concluded “no significant elevation of cancer incidence was found in the target area and no correlation was suggested between TCE or PCE contamination in well water and increase of cancer incidence.”
Read more here. Or download the report here.
This news just came across our plate (Thanks D.). Though we have several days of news to catch you up on, we’re starting here. Following is Senator Jim Jefford’s press statement:
Dole, Jeffords’ Camp Lejeune Amendment Passes Senate in DOD Bill
WASHINGTON, DC — An amendment to support military families who were potentially exposed to highly contaminated water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina was approved today as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Act, which passed the Senate 96-0. The amendment was authored by Senators Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., and Jim Jeffords, I-Vt.
The amendment will help those exposed to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune Marine base, which closed the contaminated wells in 1985. The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has found that at least 100 babies exposed in utero to the contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune suffered birth defects and cancers, including spina bifida, leukemia and cleft palates.
The Dole-Jeffords amendment requires a comprehensive National Academy of Sciences study to be completed within 18 months to evaluate the strength of the link between TCE and PCE exposure and adverse health impacts for pre-natal, childhood and adult exposures at Camp Lejeune. In 2004, Jeffords called for an investigation of the contamination, and for full notification of those affected.
The amendment also requires the Marine Corps to notify those potentially affected by the contamination so they can learn what happened, how it may have affected them, and what steps they may consider taking now to minimize the potential health impacts.
“I am hopeful that this study will provide the information these families need to answer questions that have lingered for far too long,” said Jeffords, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “This is the minimum that our government should be doing to address the grievous failure on the part of the Marine Corps to adequately protect its service members and their families.”
According to this earlier article, the amendment also extends veterans health-care benefits to children whose mothers were exposed while pregnant to the TCE and PCE-contaminated water.
Congratulations to all who helped make this happen.
The Press & Sun-Bulletin reports that the ATSDR has done a follow-up to its initial study and confirmed that diseases and birth defects are elevated:
The document [PDF, 1.3 MB], published by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry with the state Department of Health, is an update of a study in August that found high rates of testicular and kidney cancers, birth defects of the heart and low birth weights in areas polluted with industrial solvents, including trichloroethylene (TCE).
They’ve ruled out a number of other possible causes, but aren’t yet willing to say that residential exposure to toxins has resulted in these diseases:
The updated study, dated May 26 [...] took into consideration additional factors that could explain poor birth outcomes, including the mother’s age, education, race, number of previous live births, and the amount of prenatal care she received. But they didn’t influence the findings.
[...]
“It (poor birth outcomes) isn’t explained by prenatal care or these other factors,” said Karolina Schabses, an epidemiologist with the state Department of Health.
But there are other possibilities still being considered, mainly exposure to factory emissions or chemical gases seeping in the ground, or occupational exposure. They seem like logical suspects, but they are difficult to pin down.
“You work through the steps and you try to come to a conclusion. There is a huge realm of possibility of the things we are dealing with,” Schabses said.
It sounds to us as if the the DOH is either trying to keep expectations very low or laying the foundation for a politically palatable finding of inconclusive causation.
Come to think of it, isn’t it strange that Departments of Health are so quick to emphasize the uncertainty? It almost sounds like a known and popular polluter ploy. You never see Departments of Health out there declaring “There is a cause here, dammit, and we’re going to find it.” Wonder why that is?
Meantime, it seems like whatever NY DOH’s goal, the approach is having its intended effect:
To the layman, it seems like a matter of common sense: Toxic chemicals cause illness. But waiting for years of detailed study to determine exactly who was exposed to what, at what levels, for how long and to what effect have proven frustrating for community members, said Frank Roma, a member of the Western Broome Environmental Stakeholders Coalition.
“Every time I talk to anybody, it’s on people’s minds,” he said.
Will they ever find an answer?
“I’m hoping for it. It seems to be out of reach,” he said.
The following note was posted on the National Academy of Sciences TCE review project web page (Thanks to Impact Analysis for the tip):
NOTE: The project duration has been extended and the report is expected to be issued by summer 2006. [emphasis added]
There was some expectation that a report from the NAS would be forthcoming in June, based on an initial 18 month project scope. Now it appears we’ll be waiting a bit longer.
Over a year ago, TCE clean-up efforts at Idaho National Laboratory were paused to observe progress. Now, the Associated Press reports:
A naturally occurring bacteria is being used to clean up a hazardous waste plume [of TCE] in the aquifer under the Idaho National Laboratory.
[...]
Bacteria native to the underground basalt in the area is breaking down the organic solvent and turning it into harmless byproducts, scientists say. Scientists are considering other areas where the bacteria could help.
“The natural bacteria are solving the problem,” Ron Crawford, a University of Idaho professor who is studying the bacteria, told the Post Register.
The DOE has plans to clean up other areas with the bacteria that can break down TCE, and use a method that makes the bacteria “breathe” TCE when oxygen is removed.
Read more here
|
|
