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

HOME ABOUT ARCHIVES CONTACT

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Army Corps of Engineers and TCE in Cheyenne (WY)
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The Wyoming Tribune-Eagle reports that the Army Corps of Engineers has agreed to take over clean-up of TCE resulting from a FUDS (Formerly Used Defense Site):
The Army Corps of Engineers will apparently “do the right thing” when it comes to taking responsibility for treating one source of Cheyenne’s drinking water for trichloroethylene, or TCE, which is a result of Cold War-era nuclear missile maintenance east of Cheyenne.

Paul Johnston, public affairs officer for the Omaha district of the Army Corps of Engineers, said the Corps is charged by the Department of Defense to administer the FUDS (formerly used defense sites) program.

That means taking care of a range of sites, “from missile sites to old training grounds to WWI and WWII bombing ranges and old munitions storage; the whole gamut,” Johnston said.

But right now, the city is paying the $20,000 a year it takes to remove the TCE from the water before it arrives at residents’ taps.

It also paid $600,000 for the aeration basin that removes the chemical when it was first found in 1998, Jane Francis, geological supervisor at the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, said.

“Our first priority is safe drinking water,” Bud Spillman, manager of the water treatment division of the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities, said in a news release. “We can remove the TCE at the treatment plant and do not allow any water contaminated with TCE to be piped to town.”

But before the water from the newly-acquired Belvoir Ranch can be sent to Cheyenne, the aeration basin at the treatment plant will need to be increased, according to a BOPU news release.

“The cost to increase capacity at the aeration basin is a cost that Cheyenne’s residents shouldn’t have to pay,” Spillman said in the release.

[...]

The Army Corps has been studying the contamination in Cheyenne for the last seven years, Francis said.

They’re making slow progress in trying to find out how long the contamination plume is, she added. It is the position of the department that there is one large plume of TCE that is a result of the chemical being used at the Atlas No. 4 missile site.

Johnston said there are two areas of contamination. One is obviously because of the work at the missile site.

The Army Corps is taking full responsibility for that site, he said, and taking steps to clean it up.

But there is a 2- to 3-mile stretch where there is no contamination, and the TCE picks up again about 10 miles from the missile site. The source of the contamination at that site isn’t clear to the Army Corps, Johnston said.

Working with the Environmental Protection Agency and BOPU, “all of us cannot find a firm link between the two contaminated areas,” he said.

That’s as of yet, anyway. In June, Johnston said the Army Corps plans to have more people out in the field doing studies to determine the source of contamination for the second plume.

If it is found that the water is also contaminated because of the missile maintenance, the Army Corps will take full responsibility and clean it up, he said.
Read the full story here.

Wednesday, October 5, 2005

Conference to focus on keeping groundwater safe (NY)
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
With about 60 percent of Dutchess County residents getting their water supply from groundwater — interest in keeping it clean and abundant, especially with increased pollution, is important to many residents.

On Oct. 29, the Groundwater 2005 Conference will be held at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Eleven geologists, environmental consultants, hazardous waste engineers, research scientists, state officials and other speakers will present information. The conference is intended for the public, politicians, developers and members of planning and zoning boards.
Read more in the Poughkeepsie Journal

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

Friday, March 25, 2005

EPA Region 8: TCE inhalation toxicity values and risk based indoor air concentrations
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, March 25, 2005 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
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.

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