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

HOME ABOUT ARCHIVES CONTACT

Friday, March 30, 2007

Map of Cheshire: toxic sites, underground plumes, and cancers (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, March 30, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
(For a larger, readable version of the map, click on it. Then click on it once more)
Key to the map:
  • Black arrows point to EPA ID'd hazardous waste sites.

  • Green circles represent areas around the sites where toxic plume migration may have occurred and where vapor intrusion may be a concern (Note: Obviously toxins don't spread in perfect circles. This is not intended to portray the exact migration of Cheshire's plumes.)

  • Red numbered circles represent areas where cancer reports rec'd through Cancerincheshire.com appear most greatly concentrated.

Saturday, October 7, 2006

Video: Brain cancer stalks Pratt & Whitney workers (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Saturday, October 7, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has released a video about the brain cancer investigation/study of Pratt & Whitney workers in CT.

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

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

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Video: Brain cancer stalks Pratt & Whitney workers (CT)
  2. Annual family/public meeting - Pratt and Whitney brain tumor study (CT)

Wednesday, October 4, 2006

Annual family/public meeting - Pratt and Whitney brain tumor study (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The following meeting announcement was recently posted to the Worked to Death website, a resource for information about the investigation/legal efforts and scientific study surrounding an outrageously high incidence of brain cancer (particularly glioblastoma multiforme) across Connecticut's Pratt and Whitney Aircraft plants where trichloroethylene is one of the main toxins of concern.
WORKED TO DEATH ANNUAL MEETING NOTICE

BRAIN TUMOR CLUSTER STUDY


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

WHERE: THE CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL, 100 BERLIN ROAD,

CROMWELL CT (860-635-2000)

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PLEASE ATTEND
By way of background, the following introduction can be found on the recently updated Worked to Death website:
Hi, let us introduce ourselves, we are Carol Shea and Kate Greco, wives of John Shea and John Greco. Our husbands were friends and co-workers for over 30 years at Prattt and Whitney Aircraft. They both lost their lives within one month of each other to a VERY RARE form of brain cancer, GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME.

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

We hope to inform you and engage your support for our efforts to help clean up this toxicity which we feel caused our husbands and many other deaths. We hope you will read on to see what our efforts have uncovered. We are involved in the largest study of its type in history which is being undertaken by the Universities of Pittsburgh and Chicago, under the direction of Dr. Gary Marsh, Dr. Frank S. Lieberman, both of the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. N.A. Esmen of the University of Illinois at Chicago with the cooperation of the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health through William Gerrish its Director of Public Health Communications.
For more information and background on the Pratt and Whitney situation, please also see this series of articles by the New Haven Advocate, including the initial piece from which the families' website takes it's name: Worked to Death: Pratt and Whitney Leaves Behind a Trail of Cancer

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Video: Brain cancer stalks Pratt & Whitney workers (CT)
  2. Annual family/public meeting - Pratt and Whitney brain tumor study (CT)

Friday, June 9, 2006

TCE levels in a public drinking water supply system, 1978-2001 (Cheshire, CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, June 9, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
From a 2003 South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority presentation:

NORTH Cheshire well data (click to enlarge)
SOUTH Cheshire well data (click to enlarge)

Thursday, June 1, 2006

Cheshire still contaminated, local leaders refuse to act (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, June 1, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Often I'm asked why I started the TCE Blog in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From this, the TCE Blog was born.

--

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

See, I don't just write about contaminated communities. I'm from one:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: neil fischbein [fischbein@...]
Date: May 31, 2006 9:36 PM
Subject: When are we going to meet?
To*: [Town Manager, Town Council member, State representative]
cc*: [Senator Dodd's office, Senator Lieberman's office, Governor Rell's office, Representative Amann's office, local press, etc.]

D, M, A -

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

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

Do we need help from state representatives/legislators to move on this?
Do we need help from attorneys?
When are we going to finally meet to do something about this?

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

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Connecticut vapor regulations: 5-160 times less protective (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Saturday, April 29, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
We are concerned that Connecticut applies significantly less stringent standards than EPA recommends when deciding to investigate vapor intrusion of trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Following is the disparity that concerns us:
EPA's safety threshold for vapor intrusion investigation of TCE (set in 2002):
5 ppb (this includes residential and industrial settings)

CT DEP's threshold (RSR) for vapor investigation of TCE (proposed in 2003):
Residental: 27 ppb (5X less protective than federal guidelines)
Industrial: 67 ppb (13X less protective)



EPA's safety threshold for vapor intrusion investigation of PCE (set in 2002):
5 ppb (this includes residential and industrial settings)

CT DEP's threshold (RSR) for vapor investigation of PCE (proposed in 2003):
Residental: 340 ppb (68X less protective than federal guidelines)
Industrial: 810 ppb (160X less protective)


Connectict's current vapor intrusion guidelines (click image to enlarge)
According to these Connecticut regulations, before Connecticut will investigate the potential for TCE or PCE vapor intrusion, Connecticut's residents and workers may be subjected to 5-160 times more TCE and PCE exposure than federal guidelines recommend.

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

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)

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Senators ask EPA to adopt interim rule for TCE vapors
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Waste News has picked up the story

Wednesday, October 5, 2005

Letter to EPA from Senator Clinton et. al.
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
October 5, 2005

The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building - 1101A
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460


Dear Mr. Johnson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Barbara Boxer
Christopher J. Dodd
Frank Lautenberg
Joseph I. Lieberman
Gordon Smith
Ron Wyden

Clinton, six other senators urge EPA to issue more protective TCE standard
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 5, 2005

Contact: Press Office
202-224-2243

SENATOR CLINTON URGES EPA TO ISSUE PROTECTIVE STANDARD FOR TCE

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

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

[Please see attached letter]

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Senators ask EPA to adopt interim rule for TCE vapors
  2. Letter to EPA from Senator Clinton et. al.
  3. Clinton, six other senators urge EPA to issue more protective TCE standard

Friday, September 9, 2005

Failure to warn/notify; House Speaker calls for criminal probe (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, September 9, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Though this news is several weeks old, it relates to our concern that Connecticut residents and workers are not being adequately protected by officials and agencies who have decided to keep quiet (and in some cases, threatened citizens who have inquired) about known TCE contamination and exposure risks.

As reported by the New Haven Register (CT):
Amann calls for criminal probe
Brian McCready , Milford Bureau Chief

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As more develops, we'll keep you posted.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Failure to warn/notify; House Speaker calls for criminal probe (CT)
  2. Milford contamination news round-up (CT)
  3. Opinion: Milford should act to speed soil tests (CT)

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Cheshire, CT: Still contaminated after all these years, II
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, July 14, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
What will it take to protect public health and safety in a town with nation-leading cancer rates, decades of confirmed townwide TCE exposure, and persistent decades-old contamination?

The second in a series.

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

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

From pg. 53 of Cheshire PHA (authored by Connecticut Department of Public Health, 2003/2004):
Ball and Socket Lagoon, which was purchased by Dalton Enterprises in 1996, is located on Willow Street in Cheshire. This site was used for disposal of untreated wastes from Ball and Socket Manufacturing Company from 1958-1970. Typical discharges included copper, zinc, iron, nickel, cyanide, and unknown VOC's. In 1984, the CT DEP, Water Compliance Unit asked Ball and Socket to remove contaminated soils from the site. The excavation was completed in November 1984 and the soils were placed in the Cheshire Municipal landfill.Ball and Socket also implemented a groundwater recovery program (pump and treat) system to controll offsite migration of groundwater contaminants. Ball and Socket contracted a consulting company to do soil sampling and groundwater monitoring in 1983, which indicated levels of VOC's above current drinking water standards and in soil above Connecticut Remedial Standard Regulations (CT RSR's). Ball and Socket continued to monitor groundwater onsite until it was purchased by Dalton Enterprises in 1996. Dalton Enterprises continus to monitor groundwater from this site. Water sampling indicates that levels of VOC's in the groundwater have continued to decline over time. In addition, in 1994, the EPA determined that a "no further action at this time" decision be made for his site. That means the site was not judged to be a potential National Priority List (NPL) or Superfund site. Off-site, nearby private residential well testing in 1994 of physical/chemical and metal parameters indicated that all analytical results did not exceed current drinking water standards. After 1994, residents in the nearby community were not exposed to the contaminated drinking water, but it is unknown whether the off-site residential private wells nearby were contaminated with VOC's from this site from before that date. This site has no effect on the public water supply because it is in a different watershed from Cheshire's public water supply well fields.
Let's recap: Some contaminated soil removed to the municipal landfill (remember this, the landfill will come into play in future installments). Unknown whether off-site properties or private wells in the neighborhood were contaminated. No mention of air testing for vapor intrusion.

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

Fast forward to 2005.

Here's what the EPA's website says today:
"BALL & SOCKET
Cheshire, Connecticut
New Haven County
Street Address: 493 W. Main St
Zip Code: 06410
Congressional District(s): 05
EPA ID #: CTD001167493

Current Human Exposures Under Control = NO,
Groundwater Release Under Control = NO

... In 1997 EPA conducted an evaluation that determined that there currently existed unacceptable exposures to humans from site contaminants in groundwater, soils, surface water, etc. under current site uses."
Here's what we learn today from an EPA online newsletter:
"...He was instrumental in securing Superfund funding at the Ball & Socket site in Cheshire, CT, which should result in its achieving the environmental indicators by the end of FY 2005. With help from legal interns and a staff lawyer, Edgar drafted an innovative Section 3013 Order. The order utilizes the deadlines set out in the statute to expeditiously characterize the facility and emphasizes actions that will achieve the Human Health Environmental Indicator. Edgar plans on using this facility to pilot electronic data transfer for the review and interpretation of chemical and geological data."
Hooray for Edgar. But seriously... Achieving Environmental Indicators by the end of 2005? Does that mean the target is to have human exposures and groundwater releases from the site under control by the end of this year? That's a bit unsettling...

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

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

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

more to come...

Friday, July 8, 2005

Cheshire, CT: Still contaminated after all these years, I
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, July 8, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
What will it take to protect public health and safety in a town with nation-leading cancer rates, decades of townwide toxic exposure, and persistent decades-old contamination*?

The first in a series.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Microtech report, part 1
Microtech report, part 2
Microtech report, part 3
Microtech report, part 4
Microtech report, part 5
Microtech report, part 6

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





Tuesday, June 7, 2005

Look who's talking
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
PRESS ADVISORY

COMMUNITIES CALL FOR PROTECTIVE TCE TOXIC STANDARD


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

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

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

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

Event: Press Conference - Communities Call for Protective TCE Standard

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

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

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

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

Saturday, June 4, 2005

Contamination adds to difficulties closing Groton submarine base (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Saturday, June 4, 2005 [Permalink] [1 Comments]
From Environmental Valuation and Cost-Benefit News:
The Navy has already spent $57.6 million cleaning Groton, which also is a Superfund site. Officials have sealed landfills, cleaned acres of wetlands and hauled away tons of contaminated soil.

[...]

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

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

Friday, May 20, 2005

Private wells in CT. Every man for himself. Since 1980 (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, May 20, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
If you have a private well that supplies water to your home in the town of Cheshire, CT - a town with:
- a population of approximately 30,000 people,
- public water supply serving 80% of the town,
- private water supply serving the others,
- a confirmed history of ongoing TCE contamination throughout it's entire public water supply for 2-3 decades...at times, at levels north of 200 ppb (40 times the national safety standard),
- TCE (and other VOC) contamination found in the town's private water supply in multiple wells over past 20 yrs,
- 1 official Superfund site,
- 16 other EPA ID'd contamination sites (many of which have been waiting for an NPL decision for 20 years),
- a 35+ year contamination history,
- and elevated cancer rates over time, some with increasing trends, of (at least) the following types: breast cancer, brain cancer, non-hodgkins lymphoma, pediatric cancers, and "all female invasive cancers"
- there is no formal program of recommendation, reminder or advice to help private-well users protect their water supply, even though cancer-causing, industrial contaminants have been discovered nearly all across the town.

We wish we could report this was a new problem. Or that it was isolated to Cheshire. But this appears to be a Connecticut problem. Remember CT? The state that leads the country in hazardous waste sites discovered by the EPA before 1985 but still haven't been cleaned up? The one that leads the country in breast cancer rates and ranks 3rd nationwide for non-hodgkins lymphoma and bladder cancers? Yep. That's the one. Well, it appears CT has been living with a deficiency in its public health protection policy for quite some time.

From a 1980 New York Times article:
June 15, 1980, Sunday, Late City Final Edition
SECTION: Section 11; Connecticut; Page 1, Column 4; Connecticut Weekly Desk
LENGTH: 1552 words
HEADLINE: TESTS OF PRIVATE WELLS: EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF
BYLINE: By ANDREE BROOKS

[...]

Today about 500,000 people, representing 20 percent of the households around the state, are served by private on-site wells, according to Richard Woodhull, chief of the water-supply section of the State Health Department. Though water pollution has been much in the news lately, officials agree that little has been done to protect or educate the thousands of householders dependent on their wells.

''Except for the initial test when the house is built, it's every man for himself,'' said Alan Smith, director of environmental services for the Aspetuck Valley Health District.

While all the wells and reservoirs serving the municipal water supplies are now regularly checked by state and local officials for industrial pollutants - which include such suspected carcinogens as trichloroethylene (known commonly as TCE) and benzene, in addition to more traditional contaminants - there is still no regulation governing even the basic monitoring of private systems.

There is no formal program of recommendation, reminder or advice to help private-well users protect their supply. The 1979 study conducted by the Connecticut Water Quality Managing Board, with headquarters in Middletown, identifying approximately 100 major water supplies, focused only on the protection of public sources, according to Peter Alagna, assistant director of the board.

Jack Graham, a retired geologist who lives in Weston, said: ''Most people don't even know they have a problem until they become ill or the water starts to look or smell different.''

Mr. Graham is in the forefront of a movement seeking a regular program in Weston to monitor wells for the traditional pollutants as well as the more recently recognized industrial wastes suspected of causing cancer
25 years and multiple superfund/hazardous waste sites later, and nothing has changed in CT. In a recent email, a representative of the CT Department of Public Health confirmed emphatically, "the private well is the responsibility of the home owner."

And all the while, unknowing residents remain at risk.

Friday, April 1, 2005

TCE-contaminated showers
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, April 1, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
I'm stuck on this topic somehow. How many unsuspecting TCE-contaminated showers have you taken?

Me? I estimate about 7,000. Minimum.

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Running out of money for site clean-up in Stratford (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, March 31, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The Stratford Star (via Zwire) brings us this report about 2 separate sites in Stratford (CT) dealing with trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination and vapor intrusion:
Town officials may soon have to make decisions involving Stratford's two toxic waste headaches - the Raymark waste that contaminates many properties in the South End of town and the solvents and metals that pollute the Army Engine Plant. The two environmental problems are the biggest factors stalling the growth of the town's Grand List through economic development.

In separate briefings on March 23 and 28, the Town Council learned that Stratford would soon arrive at crucial points requiring important decisions.

The federal Superfund program funding appropriated for the Raymark clean up has only $13 million left, which is not enough to clean up all the soil and ground water contamination that remains. So it is important to spend the balance of the funds the most effectively.

Meanwhile, legal and environmental experts working for the town's developer said negotiations with the U.S. Army have never looked more promising for getting the money needed to clean up the Army Engine Plant, considered the keystone for the town's economic development prospects.

In both cases, the Town Council learned, legal liability is the big issue.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Running out of money for site clean-up in Stratford (CT)
  2. Public Health Assessment: Raymark Industries, Stratford (CT)

Public Health Assessment: Raymark Industries, Stratford (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, March 31, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Much of this borrowed from the EPA's NPL summary:
Raymark Industries, Inc. (Raymark) was a manufacturer of automotive brakes, clutch parts, and other friction components, primarily for the automotive industry. Raymark and its predecessors were located on a 34-acre parcel at 75 East Main Street in Stratford, CT. Raymark operated at this location from 1919 until 1989 when operations ceased. Raymark's manufacturing waste was historically disposed of as fill at 75 East Main Street, at a minimum of 46 residential properties, and at numerous commercial and municipal properties in Stratford. In addition, several wetland areas in close proximity to the Housatonic River were also filled in with Raymark's manufacturing waste. The contaminants in Raymark's waste consists of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, semi-volatile and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), asbestos, and metals. Extensive testing of soil, groundwater, soil gas, indoor air, and sediments throughout the Stratford community has been conducted by the EPA and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP).
In 1996, the CT Department of Public Health (DPH), in conjunction with the ATSDR, performed a Public Health Assessment. They found the site presented both a past and current Public Health Hazard. They also noted that townwide, the incidence of bladder cancer was 14% higher than Connecticut rates. Mesothelioma was slightly elevated and cancer among persons less than 25 years of age was 22% higher than state rates.

In 2000, the CT Department of Public Health detected (17KB PDF) significant trichloroethylene (TCE) elevations in air tests in several nearby residences. By the Fall of 2004, 100 Stratford homes had been outfitted with sub-slab ventilation systems.

As of 2005, the site is still significantly contaminated and Stratford learns it may be running short on funds to clean it up. Update: The Town of Stratford's Health Department has an entire section of their website devoted to Raymark.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Running out of money for site clean-up in Stratford (CT)
  2. Public Health Assessment: Raymark Industries, Stratford (CT)

Public Health Assessment: Risdon Corporation, Danbury (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, March 31, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Here is a link to the 2003 Public Health Assessment for Risdon Corporation in Danbury, CT. Like the Cheshire PHA, this one was conducted by the ATSDR and the CT Department of Public Health.

While we encourage you to read the PHA for yourself, here are the general conclusions:
Based on the data at or near the two residential properties, DPH has concluded that the vapor intrusion pathway is complete from groundwater to soil gas, and to indoor air. Residents of both homes have been and are being exposed to TCE in indoor air at concentrations in excess of the comparison value (Connecticut's proposed Target Air Concentration).

Based on conservative estimates of exposure, CT DPH estimated cancer and non-cancer risks to residents living in homes with elevated VOCs in indoor air (Attachment B). The estimates represent a low to moderate added risk above the de minimus level. In addition, there is some concern among scientists that children may have increased risks of cancer when exposure to carcinogens occurs during early life. These factors have prompted CT DPH to conclude that a public health hazard exists and requires action (Attachment C).

If action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposures to VOCs migrating from groundwater to indoor air, then the public health hazard will no longer exist. However, as comparison values represent exposures that are highly likely to be below the threshold for toxic effect (Table 4), CTDPH believes that it is very unlikely that present-day exposures could result in cancer or other adverse health effects. Consequently, CTDPH has categorized these TCE exposures as Tier 2 (Table 3), meaning that mitigation is needed; but, urgent action is not necessary.

In the previous Risdon Health Consultation, CTDPH stated that consideration will be given to sampling the commercial addresses if subsequent sampling of residential indoor air indicates that a public health hazard is present. Because the present-day extent of TCE intrusion is low, CTDPH does not conclude that sampling of the indoor air at commercial addresses is needed.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Off-topic: States sue EPA for failure to protect
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
From the Environmental News Network:
Nine states filed a lawsuit against the federal government Tuesday, challenging new regulations they say fail to protect children and expectant mothers from dangers posed by mercury emissions from power plants.

..."EPA's emissions trading plan will allow some power plants to actually increase mercury emissions, creating hot spots of mercury deposition and threatening communities," said Attorney General Peter Harvey of New Jersey, lead plaintiff in the case. "It's an anti-human health position. The EPA is putting private profit ahead of public health, and it's a mistake."

...The eight other states involved in the suit are California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York and Vermont.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Milford contamination news round-up (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
08/23/03: State Rep calls for investigation into contaminated water
08/28/03: DEP Commissioner calls for environmental investigations at four Milford companies
09/02/03: Four milford companies ordered to conduct environmental investigations
12/03/03: Internal review (189KB PDF) of DEP actions at the Milford Power Company site
12/04/03: DEP Commisioner testifies why Milford wasn't informed of toxic contamination
04/12/04: Senator Smith and Representative Jim Amann to chair Milford contamination legislative hearing
04/16/04: Hearing into contamination concerns
05/14/04: DEP to have venting systems installed at the Housatonic wastewater treatment plant in Milford
07/06/04: Contamination at condo complex in Milford
07/09/04: DEP moves Milford site investigations forward
12/10/04: Milford condos cleanup hits $750,000
Please also see extensive coverage here by the Connecticut Post

Opinion: Milford should act to speed soil tests (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
From The Connecticut Post Online:
Six years after contaminated soil was first found in north Milford, the state Department of Environmental Protection and five local companies have finally begun the process of drilling and sampling the area's groundwater and soil.

...Considering there are allegations by the families of two men who died from rare cancers their families believe they contracted while working to build the Milford Power Co. plant, one would think the testing of the land in Milford would be an extremely high priority. Founded or not, it's in the best interest of everyone involved to put these allegations to rest.

Especially since a chemical solvent that is a suspected carcinogen, trichloroethylene, was found in 1999 by the DEP but not reported until 2003. The carcinogen was found at four other businesses, two private wells and at a luxury condominium complex, all within the immediate proximity of the power plant.

Six years before any real testing of the suspect soil is too long. If there is trichloroethylene in the soil or water in north Milford, it needs to be cleaned up post haste. It's the only way the public's minds can truly be put at ease.
You can read the rest of the opinion here.

If only this writer knew how bad CT's track record really is. In my CT hometown, toxic TCE contamination was known to authorities by 1980 (if not earlier). TCE contaminated the town's entire public water supply for 20-30 years with no disclosure of this fact to residents. Not only were residents never told (more than 20,000 townspeople annually drank/showered-in toxic TCE-contaminated public water provided by CT for at least 20-30 years), it has still not been cleaned up to this day.

Last year, the ATSDR and CT DPH confirmed that the entire public water supply was indeed contaminated and that multiple cancer rates are elevated in my town. Despite acknowledgement in the literature that TCE has been related to several of these cancer types, both the ATSDR and CT DPH failed to disclose this fact. But surely CT rushed to deal with the clean-up after this finding, right? Ha.

I don't mean to rain on Milford's parade. It's just that, as we've also previously reported, speed is far from CT's forte when it comes to dealing with likely toxic contamination.

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