Pierre city well shut down due to TCE, PCE and MBTE (SD)
Read the story in the Capital Journal (Pierre, SD)
Thursday, June 16, 2005
If your state representative wants to support better protections...
...to keep people safer from TCE, please encourage them to contact:
Jody Milanese (millaneese) in Congresswoman Sue Kelly's office at 202-225-5441
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Final list of reps and letter to the EPA
- Representative Pallone joins the Kelly gang (NJ)
- If your state representative wants to support better protections...
- Congresswoman Katherine Harris makes it a bi-partisan appeal for protection (FL)...
- Senator Boxer writes to National Academy regarding TCE concerns (CA)
- Congresswoman to EPA: We need better protection against TCE, now; invites colleagues to join
- Congressman acts to protect the public from TCE dangers (NY)
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Closure will not effect cleanup at Ellsworth AFB (SD)
The Department of Defense says it will continue an environmental cleanup of jet fuel, solvents and other contaminants at Ellsworth Air Force Base, even if the base is closed, as the department has recommended.Read more.
Ellsworth is a Superfund site, and the cleanup ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency has cost the Air Force $61 million during the past 10 years.
The cleanup is necessary to redevelop the base for almost any purpose, should it close. Ellsworth supporters vow to do all they can but acknowledge that the odds of keeping the base open aren't in their favor.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
State by state: Contaminated sites awaiting an EPA decision, not on Superfund list
More from the GAO Report, as promised. Please bear in mind:
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
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.
· 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 | 0 | Very poor |
| Alaska | 28 | 14 | 8 | 6 | 0 | Excellent |
| Arizona | 34 | 16 | 10 | 8 | 0 | Excellent |
| Arkansas | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Good |
| California | a 189 | 64 | 51 | 74 | 0 | Fair |
| Colorado | 30 | 12 | 10 | 6 | 2 | Very poor |
| Connecticut | 290 | 74 | 98 | 118 | 0 | Poor |
| Delaware | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Excellent |
| District of Columbia | a 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Florida | 269 | 74 | 85 | 110 | 0 | Fair |
| Georgia | 74 | 39 | 8 | 27 | 0 | Poor |
| Guam | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Hawaii | 17 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 0 | Fair |
| Idaho | 16 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 0 | * |
| Illinois | 207 | 95 | 43 | 69 | 0 | Fair |
| Indiana | 54 | 21 | 15 | 18 | 0 | Very poor |
| Iowa | 33 | 29 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Very poor |
| Kansas | 37 | 28 | 4 | 5 | 0 | Very poor |
| Kentucky | 20 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 0 | Good |
| Louisiana | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Poor |
| Maine | 56 | 28 | 17 | 11 | 0 | Poor |
| Maryland | 20 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 0 | Other b |
| Massachusetts | a 201 | 11 | 19 | 171 | 0 | Fair |
| Michigan | 50 | 22 | 18 | 10 | 0 | Excellent |
| Midway Island | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Minnesota | 17 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 0 | Good |
| Mississippi | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Very poor |
| Missouri | 91 | 73 | 7 | 11 | 0 | * |
| Montana | 11 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 | Very poor |
| Navajo Nation | 14 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | |
| Nebraska | a 36 | 16 | 4 | 15 | 1 | Very poor |
| Nevada | 12 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Poor |
| New Hampshire | 42 | 24 | 9 | 9 | 0 | Poor |
| New Jersey | 172 | 60 | 49 | 63 | 0 | Good |
| New Mexico | 15 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 0 | Very poor |
| New York | a 192 | 135 | 15 | 41 | 1 | * |
| North Carolina | 57 | 18 | 21 | 18 | 0 | Poor |
| North Dakota | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Poor |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Ohio | 79 | 25 | 23 | 31 | 0 | Very poor |
| Oklahoma | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Very poor |
| Oregon | 29 | 7 | 6 | 16 | 0 | Fair |
| Pennsylvania | 73 | 35 | 18 | 20 | 0 | Excellent |
| Puerto Rico | 16 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 0 | |
| Rhode Island | 121 | 14 | 23 | 84 | 0 | Poor |
| South Carolina | 45 | 32 | 8 | 5 | 0 | Good |
| South Dakota | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Other b |
| Tennessee | 102 | 51 | 19 | 32 | 0 | Poor |
| Texas | 21 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Poor |
| Utah | 48 | 17 | 8 | 16 | 7 | * |
| Vermont | 30 | 16 | 5 | 9 | 0 | Poor |
| Virginia | 22 | 8 | 2 | 12 | 0 | * |
| Washington | 28 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 0 | Fair |
| West Virginia | 11 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Other b |
| Wisconsin | 53 | 34 | 8 | 11 | 0 | Excellent |
| 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):
- State by state: Contaminated sites awaiting an EPA decision, not on Superfund list
- Waiting for clean-up: Unaddressed risks at potential Superfund sites
Friday, March 25, 2005
EPA Region 8: TCE inhalation toxicity values and risk based indoor air concentrations
EPA Region 8 serves Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. In January of 2005, they published these guidelines (1.5MB PDF):
The purpose of this document is to provide a synopsis of trichloroethylene (TCE) inhalation toxicity values and provide the corresponding risk-based indoor air concentrations for use in vapor intrusion assessment. Table 1 summarizes the toxicity values and risk-based concentrations. Figure 1 provides a graphic comparison of the ranges of concentrations corresponding to each of the toxicity values.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- EPA Region 8: TCE inhalation toxicity values and risk based indoor air concentrations
- EPA Region 9's air standards for TCE
- On the appeal for stricter standards (NY)...
- Guide to Indoor Air Sampling in Massachusetts (MA)
- Regulation standards for TCE (WI)
- Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of New York (NY)