The following letter to the editor appeared in The Capital Times (Madison, WI) a few days ago. We reprint it here in full with the author's permission (thanks Laura):

Dear Editor: Even though levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) in groundwater are at an all-time high in a monitoring well on the far west side of the Badger Army Ammunition Plant (adjacent to the Bluffview Community in the town of Sumpter), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources remains unwilling to ask the Army to investigate the problem.

From September 2002 to December 2005, levels have risen from 0.7 parts per billion to 25 ppb, far exceeding the safe drinking water standard of 5 ppb. When unsafe levels of the carcinogenic solvent were detected in groundwater monitoring well BGM-9103 last spring, the DNR asked the Army to test six residential wells located on Maple Park Drive, Maple Park Road, County C, and Old Bluff Trail Road near U.S. 12. TCE was not detected in any of the wells.

Because the source of the contamination, groundwater flow direction and potential contamination problems at depth are still unknown, Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger has been asking for an investigation for more than a year.

When TCE levels rose to 14.4 ppb, nearly three times the safe standard, last summer, the DNR wrote to CSWAB: "Given the relatively low concentrations in that well, at this point I am not going to ask the Army to complete additional investigation into possible sources, but will require them to continue sampling the well. I think Army resources can be better used on other projects at the plant. However, if the concentrations rise dramatically, then I may change this position and require more efforts by the Army on this matter." So far, the DNR hasn't done so.

"If the nearby drinking water well owners have water quality questions or concerns, we here at the department encourage them to contact us," DNR representative Hank Kuehling wrote to us. His phone number is 608-275-3286, or e-mail Harlan.Kuehling@dnr.state.wi.us.

Please take a few moments and call or e-mail the DNR. Together, we can make a difference.

Laura Olah, Executive Director
Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger
E12629 Weigand's Bay South
Merrimac, WI 53561
Phone: (608) 643-3124
Email: info@cswab.org
Website: www.cswab.org

...to keep people safer from TCE, please encourage them to contact:



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

Channel 27 News (WKOW) from Madison, Wisconsin reports:

The Badger Restoration Advisory Board is worried about groundwater on the far west side of the Sauk County plant.

A recent report by Army consultants shows un-safe levels of a cancer-causing solvent called TCE have shown up in well samples since 2002.

Board members want the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to take action ensure the drinking wells near the plant are safe.

Inactive since 1976, the plant was used to make propellants for cannons, rockets and small arms.

In a related story from a few weeks back, Laura Olah, executive director of Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger, said "the town needs to go to the county state and federal officials to insist the Army finish cleaning up the mess they made."

The American dream has turned into a nightmare for Green and Glenda Jackson after the couple learned that the site where they built their first home is contaminated with a chemical believed to be linked to cancer.

In its former life, the property - in the 1600 block of W. Galena St. - was a gas station and leather tannery. Traces of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a solvent sometimes used to degrease metal parts, has been found in the soil underneath the Jacksons' home.

"Someone should have known this," said Glenda Jackson, whose property formerly belonged to the City of Milwaukee. "We are very angry that the city allowed us to stay in this house with all of the known health risk. I don't want us to end up with cancer."

Read the full story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI).

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	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.

From the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services chemical fact sheet for Trichloroethylene:

DO STANDARDS EXIST FOR REGULATING TRICHLOROETHYLENE?

Water: The state and federal drinking water standards for TCE are both set at 5 parts per billion. We suggest you stop drinking water containing more than the standard. If levels of TCE are very high in your water (greater than 300 parts per billion), you may also need to avoid washing, bathing, or using the water for other purposes.

Air: No standards exist for the amount of TCE allowed in the air of homes. However, there are workplace limits. We use a formula to convert workplace limits to home limits. Based on the formula, we recommend levels of TCE in air be no higher than 1 part per million (ppm). You can smell TCE when the level reaches 25 ppm. If you can smell the chemical, the level is too high to be safe.

Note: We'll be featuring various state health department fact sheets and regulations for TCE. Wisconsin just happens to be first. If you'd like to recommend others, please contact us.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

A Waukesha firm will pay $67,000 in fines after reaching a settlement with the state in a lawsuit over air pollution violations at its plant.

H.O. Bostrom Co. Inc. also will install air pollution control equipment costing an estimated $250,000 by July to avoid paying additional fines, according to the settlement reached with the state Department of Justice in Waukesha County Circuit Court.

The lawsuit filed in December charged that the manufacturer has been polluting the air "for more than six years" by not having required emission control systems on some of its equipment. The lawsuit also contended that representatives of the company lied by claiming that it had two systems in place to limit trichloroethylene emissions.

..."Bostrom's agreement to replace its solvent-based degreasing line with an aqueous system will result in cleaner air in Waukesha County," Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager said in a prepared statement Wednesday. "Being in compliance with Wisconsin's clean air standards is not only a matter of public health and environmental protection, it is required under penalty of law."

Read the full story here (note: brief/free registration required)