The TCE Blog
Trichloroethylene is everywhere. It causes cancer and other serious health problems. People deserve better protection.

HOME ABOUT ARCHIVES CONTACT

Tuesday, April 4, 2006

TCE at Montgomery Zoo (AL)
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
WSFA TV in Montgomery (AL) reports:
City officials say they found a chemical known as TCE while testing ground water recently at the Montgomery Zoo. They had hoped to use the water in the zoo's new elephant exhibit, but the discovery forced a change in plans.

The underground wells in question are no longer in use. Instead, the water surrounding the elephant exhibit is coming from city pipes.

TCE is the same substance found in 2001 under several nearby subdivisions. The state department of transportation admitted to dumping the chemical years ago.

[...]

"We are monitoring the health of the elephants on a regular basis," said city spokesman Michael Briddell. But he admits the elephants never came in direct contact with the chemical. Even if they had, Briddell says the concentration level would not have harmed them.

"You and I can go swimming in water that's 500 parts (of TCE) per billion. We can eat fish in water that's 70 parts per billion," Briddell explained. "The water that came from the well was 40 parts per billion and it dissipated in concentration once it hit the atmosphere."
This might be the most bizarre statement on TCE we've ever heard from a public official.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

LA Times: TCE, Health, and Community Impact (Part II of II)
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, March 30, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Here's another important piece on TCE From the LA Times (CA) with national scope/importance. This was on Thursday's front page:
Cancer Stalks a 'Toxic Triangle'
Scientists disagree about the risks of TCE. But residents near a former air base are dead certain.
By Ralph Vartabedian
Times Staff Writer

March 30, 2006

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

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

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

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

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. San Gabriel Valley a Hotbed of TCE Contamination (CA)
  2. LA Times: TCE, Health, and Community Impact (Part II of II)
  3. LA Times: The politics of TCE (Part I of II)

Thursday, June 16, 2005

If your state representative wants to support better protections...
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, June 16, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
...to keep people safer from TCE, please encourage them to contact:



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





Saturday, March 26, 2005

State by state: Contaminated sites awaiting an EPA decision, not on Superfund list
by Neil Fischbein on Saturday, March 26, 2005 [Permalink] [1 Comments]
More from the GAO Report, as promised. Please bear in mind:
· 85% of the sites below were discovered 15 yrs ago or more
· over 60% of the potentially eligible sites and over 35% of all sites below report no clean-up activities
---
Table IV.1: Sites Classified as Awaiting an NPL Decision in Each State, by Eligibility for Listing and Status of Cleanup Progress
+
Table VI.1: State Officials’ Assessments of States’ Financial Capabilities to Clean Up Potentially Eligible Sites

State Number of sites classified as awaiting an NPL decision Number of sites unlikely to become eligible for the NPL Number of potentially eligible sites with some cleanup activities Number of potentially eligible sites with no reported cleanup activities Number of sites for which no surveys were received State officials’ assessment of state’s financial capability to clean up potentially eligible sites
Alabama 25 10 7 8 0Very poor
Alaska 28 14 8 6 0Excellent
Arizona 34 16 10 8 0Excellent
Arkansas 4 3 0 1 0Good
California a 189 64 51 74 0Fair
Colorado 30 12 10 6 2Very poor
Connecticut 290 74 98 118 0Poor
Delaware 1 1 0 0 0Excellent
District of Columbia a 1 0 0 1 0
Florida 269 74 85 110 0Fair
Georgia 74 39 8 27 0Poor
Guam 2 2 0 0 0
Hawaii 17 12 4 1 0Fair
Idaho 16 5 5 6 0*
Illinois 207 95 43 69 0Fair
Indiana 54 21 15 18 0Very poor
Iowa 3329 4 0 0Very poor
Kansas 37 28 4 5 0Very poor
Kentucky 20 15 2 3 0Good
Louisiana 10 6 4 0 0Poor
Maine 56 28 17 11 0Poor
Maryland 20 8 4 8 0Other b
Massachusetts a 201 11 19 1710Fair
Michigan 50 22 18 10 0Excellent
Midway Island 1 1 0 0 0
Minnesota 17 6 6 5 0Good
Mississippi 9 4 1 2 2Very poor
Missouri 91 73 7 11 0*
Montana 11 2 7 2 0Very poor
Navajo Nation 14 0 0 14 0
Nebraska a 36 16 4 15 1Very poor
Nevada 12 8 3 1 0Poor
New Hampshire 42 24 9 9 0Poor
New Jersey 172 60 49 63 0Good
New Mexico 15 7 6 2 0Very poor
New York a 192 135 15 41 1*
North Carolina 57 18 21 18 0Poor
North Dakota 4 2 1 1 0Poor
Northern Mariana Islands 1 0 1 0 0
Ohio 79 25 23 31 0Very poor
Oklahoma 7 4 1 2 0Very poor
Oregon 29 7 6 16 0Fair
Pennsylvania 73 35 18 20 0Excellent
Puerto Rico 16 3 4 9 0
Rhode Island 121 14 23 84 0Poor
South Carolina 45 32 8 5 0Good
South Dakota 8 6 2 0 0Other b
Tennessee 102 51 19 32 0Poor
Texas 21 18 1 2 0Poor
Utah 48 17 8 16 7*
Vermont 30 16 5 9 0Poor
Virginia 22 8 2 12 0*
Washington 28 11 8 9 0Fair
West Virginia 11 7 4 0 0Other b
Wisconsin53 34 8 11 0Excellent
Wyoming 1 1 0 0 0
Total 3,036 1,234 686 1,103 13

a California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Nebraska did not respond to surveys. For these states, the data in table IV.1 are based on EPA’s survey responses alone and, for that reason, may be less reliable than for states having responses from both EPA and states. New York provided responses to only a few questions in our survey.

b “Other” indicates that the respondent was uncertain about the state’s financial capability.

* State officials in Idaho, New York, Missouri, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming declined to participate in [the] telephone survey.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. State by state: Contaminated sites awaiting an EPA decision, not on Superfund list
  2. Waiting for clean-up: Unaddressed risks at potential Superfund sites

Wednesday, March 2, 2005

Local industrial development board files suit over contamination (AL)
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 [Permalink] [1 Comments]
The Cullman Times reports:
Three years after Americold closed its doors for good, the Cullman Industrial Development Board filed suit in Cullman County Circuit Court alleging that not only did Electrolux Home Products, Inc., the parent company, have knowledge that environmental contaminants had been released into the soil and ground water at the Cullman plant over a period of many years, that the company also illegally disposed of barrels containing chemicals, solvents and hazardous substances on the property.

Those chemical substances, the lawsuit states, include solvents such as trichloroethane (TCA) and trichloroethene (TCE). One environmental engineering firm that conducted tests at the site in the summer of 2003 on behalf of Dynasty Boats reported contaminants exceeded allowable levels by more than 1,000 times in soil and groundwater samples.

These chemical products have been shown to be toxic to animals when exposed in moderate amounts over a period of time, but local officials say there is no evidence to suggest that the amount of contamination at the Americold facility presents any health risks to humans and therefore, they say area residents have no cause for alarm.

The presence of the contaminants represents a "breach of contract," according to plaintiffs, who allege the company agreed in writing to return the property to the city "in as good condition as at the commencement of the lease."

Local officials say the contamination has rendered the 69-acre tract "unmarketable," and they are therefore seeking compensation from Electrolux and co-defendants Golder Associates, Inc.; Site Environmental and Acquisition Services, Inc.; Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation and Robert C. "Bob" Burns, a former Americold employee and current manager of the Cullman Airport.

Burns, who managed Americold's wastewater treatment facility during a two-year period in the 1990s, declined comment about the lawsuit Tuesday.
You can read the full story here.

Update: In case of interest:

The lawsuit, filed Monday, seeks judgment against the defendants for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. The suit also alleges the parties engaged in a breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent suppression, conspiracy, negligence, wantoness, nuisance and waste.

To read earlier posts in this category (if there are any), please see our archives below: