|
 |
|
Coordinated nationally by the Institute for Children's Environmental Health |
To join the Partnership for Children's Health and the Environment (PCHE) and receive this bulletin, please complete the form at http://www.partnersforchildren.org/members.html#member.
April 19 - 20, 2006
10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.
New York, New York
at the United Nations Headquarters, Conference Room 2
The theme is "Living with Radiation in the Modern World Commemorating Chornobyl -- Remembering Hiroshima/Nagasaki."
Website: http://www.worldinfo.org/
Contact: WIT at 212-686-1996 or wit1986@aol.com
April 19 - 20, 2006
Seattle, Washington
CleanMed is a national conference for environmental leaders in health care. The agenda for 2006 includes preconference workshop on green building, design and operation of green buildings, environmentally preferable products for health care, reducing waste and toxicity, and healthy food in health care. The keynote speakers for CleanMed 2006 are leaders in defining emerging environmental problems and promoting safer alternatives. Tyrone B. Hayes, PhD, and Paul Hawken will be presenting.
Website: http://www.cleanmed.org/
submitted to this bulletin by Ralph Scott, Alliance for Healthy Homes
The deadline for comments on the EPA's proposed lead-safe remodeling and renovation rule is next week. During the past two months, work groups composed of researchers, advocates, and others have worked on comments on four major topics of concern in EPA's proposed renovation and remodeling regulation: capacity building, clearance/cleaning verification, dangerous work practices, and enforcement. We have now posted the reports on the Alliance for Healthy Homes website at http://www.afhh.org/aa/aa_hh_policy_national_policy_eparandr.htm. The advocacy community owes our thanks to all who participated in these workgroups. Any updates or additional guidance materials will be posted next week at the same URL.
As advocates and others work on comments, all are welcome to use material from these documents. Comments are due April 10, 2006. To submit a comment online go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/custom/jsp/search/searchresult/documentSearchResult.jsp?__dmfRequestId=__client10~~3&__dmfRender=true&Reload=1143578254829# and look for docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-0049.
by Beth Daley, Boston Globe
April 3, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/03/mercury_down_32_in_fish_near_mass_incinerators/
Seven years after Massachusetts enacted the nation's toughest mercury emission laws for incinerators, amounts of the toxic metal have declined by 32 percent in a signature freshwater fish caught near some of those facilities. A significant amount of the state's inland fish remain unsafe for a large portion of the population, but state officials and environmental advocates say they are stunned by the dramatic turnaround in yellow perch from lakes near a cluster of incinerators in the northeast corner of the state. State officials now estimate the improvement in yellow perch is about half of that needed to make the fish safe to eat. And good news for perch -- used as an indicator species because it accumulates high levels of mercury -- also means good news for other lake fish across Massachusetts.
However, state officials said much more needs to be done. They could not estimate when it will be OK to lift a strict warning for women of childbearing age and children about eating fish from the state's lakes and streams. "We weren't expecting to see such drastic reductions in such a short time frame," said Arleen O'Donnell, deputy commissioner for the state Department of Environmental Protection. "This is really significant because this is a cumulative toxin -- the thought was it took a long time to get this high in the environment and it was going to take a long time to reverse it." The 32 percent average decrease in mercury occurred in nine lakes in the northeast corner of Massachusetts, home to a cluster of incinerators. Yellow perch from lakes elsewhere in the state recorded a 15 percent drop on average.
Mercury, a naturally occurring element, can cause severe neurological damage in children and fetuses. It is released into the air from incinerators and coal-burning power plants and then falls to the ground, where much of it winds up in waterways. The metal eventually builds up in larger fish at the top of the food chain, including yellow perch and largemouth bass in freshwater, and tuna and swordfish in the ocean. Federal officials in recent years have estimated up to 600,000 children may be born in the United States each year with neurological problems stemming from mercury exposure in the womb.
New England has long been a hot spot for mercury contamination because of its many power plants and incinerators, and its location downwind from plants in the Midwest. But it is the northeast corner of Massachusetts that has long been one of the most mercury-contaminated regions in New England, brought on by pollution during the Industrial Revolution and the more recent construction of numerous incinerators. In the past, some fish in the region's lakes had mercury readings five times higher than levels considered safe to eat by the federal government. However, some residents in the region regularly fish in the lakes to supplement their diet, despite warning signs posted in many places.
The mercury decline appears to stem from two efforts that began in 1998. First, the Department of Environmental Protection began requiring the state's nine trash incinerators to scrub or remove 85 percent of the mercury emitted from their smokestacks. Old batteries, thermostats, thermometers, and fluorescent lights all contribute to the emissions. Today, only seven incinerators remain, and they scrub about 90 percent of the mercury. Incinerators continue to operate in North Andover, Haverhill, Saugus, Rochester, Millbury, Springfield, and Pittsfield. (Fall River and Lawrence incinerators have closed.)
Second, the state once had 240 medical waste incinerators that burned items such as mercury thermometers, but those incinerators began closing at a greater rate as federal and state rules tightened. The last one closed in 2003.
The Department of Environmental Protection, which has been testing mercury in freshwater fish since 1984, picked 17 lakes to monitor, choosing about half in Northeast Massachusetts. The department examined yellow perch and largemouth bass, both of which accumulate mercury and are fished recreationally. While the average was 32 percent in Northeast waterways, in Baldpate Pond in Boxford yellow perch mercury levels declined 61 percent. Less dramatic yet significant changes also were recorded for largemouth bass, with fish in 11 Northeast lakes recording a 25 percent decrease in mercury on average and bass from the rest of the state showing a 19 percent decrease.
The state's mercury news is likely to get even better as strict rules for power plant mercury emission are phased in. Last week, the state Senate followed the House's lead in passing a bill to phase out mercury in thermostats, autos, and electrical switches. The bill is expected to go before Governor Mitt Romney later this year. And later this month, a law goes into effect that requires dentists to capture mercury leftover from patients' fillings.
Today, only about one-third of the mercury deposited in Massachusetts comes from in-state sources; the rest travels here on air currents from power plants and other sources both in the United States and around the world. That may be changing, too. Frustrated by new federal mercury emission rules critics say don't go far enough to protect public health, at least nine states are considering legislation to more strictly control mercury.
The US Environmental Protection Agency allows dirtier power plants to buy air pollution credits from cleaner ones, a mechanism intended to use market incentives to reduce mercury pollution 69 percent by 2018. Critics say that technology exists to reduce mercury even more at a low cost -- and that the trading scheme will cause hot spots of mercury contamination near power plants that pay for the right to pollute.
Some EPA critics said the Massachusetts fish data, along with similar research in Ohio and Florida that shows high levels of mercury in the environment near smokestacks, support their hot-spots argument. Massachusetts has joined 10 other states suing the federal government over the rules, saying they violate the federal Clean Air Act. "What's interesting is that these results undermine the whole assumption of the federal mercury control program," said Paul Miller, deputy director of the Northeast States For Coordinated Air Use Management, a nonprofit association of state air quality agencies. "It shows local controls have local impacts."
An EPA spokesman said last week the agency had not seen Massachusetts' results and needed to study the issue more. If hot spots were occurring, he said, the trading problem would solve the issue because it provides a financial incentive for the dirtiest power plants, which would probably be contributing the most to any local problems, to reduce the pollutant.
In Massachusetts, state officials say many more years of data need to be gathered before it is safe for pregnant women and children to eat freshwater fish. And they say the problem with seafood, where mercury can build to alarming levels in popular fish, won't be solved by state or federal regulations. Much of that pollution comes from global sources that have few, if any, limits on emissions. "This is a milestone because it says mercury contamination is a solvable problem," said Michael Bender of the Vermont-based Mercury Policy Project, which works to reduce mercury in the environment. "But we have a long way to go."
by Paul Brinkmann, Green Bay Press Gazette
April 2, 2006
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060402/GPG0101/604020628/1206/GPGnews
DE PERE -- The Fox River sparkled in the sun while Bryan Becks fished at Voyageur Park. Becks, 18, knows the fish are contaminated. But he doesn't know he might be in his mid-50s before most fish in the river are safe to eat again. Biologists think it might take up to 40 years for fish populations to fully recover from PCB pollution in the river -- if a $400 million cleanup moves ahead without a hitch. "Yeah, that is quite a few years," Becks said, shaking his head.
State officials are trying to cut down that recovery time by attacking hot spots of PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls. The next target is a big clump of the toxic chemicals along the west shore below the De Pere dam. That's right across the river from the area's most popular springtime fishing spot at Voyageur Park. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is in the middle of private negotiations with two local paper companies to hammer out a plan for removing the De Pere hot spot. An agreement is expected this spring, and dredging could begin in 2007.
Walleyes and waste
It's purely a coincidence that the best spot for walleye fishing on the lower Fox River is next to the worst spot for PCB toxic waste. When the river flows over the dam, it slows down and widens out. That means PCBs in the water fall to the bottom. So do nutrients that fish eat. Walleyes swimming up the river from Green Bay stop just below the dam to spawn in the springtime. That's why hundreds of boats are on the water at this time of year, and why Becks fishes for walleye from Voyageur Park. "PCBs coming over the dam get deposited just because it's a low-flow area," said Greg Hill, DNR chief of sediments management.
PCBs were used to make carbonless copy paper until the government banned them in 1979. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the chemical pollution probably causes cancer in humans and can also cause reduced ability to fight infections, low birth weights, and learning problems.
Long, slow process
Seven paper companies along the river were tabbed for the PCB cleanup by the state and federal government in 2002. The companies agreed to voluntarily coordinate the cleanup to avoid being forced into the federal Superfund program. The companies took thousands of soil samples along the river bottom. Using the test results, the state created a map of the PCB pollution. The map of the De Pere dam area shows a big red splotch where PCBs accumulated along the shore. With more than 7 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments identified, it's the largest environmental river cleanup ever attempted in North America. Officials with the DNR and EPA estimated the cleanup would take 10 years.
Hot-spot opportunity
The De Pere hot spot represents an opportunity. It contains 10 to 15 percent of the total PCBs in the lower river. As long as it's there, a mother lode of pollution can be removed with relatively little effort. But if a flood occurs and spreads the pollution, cleanup could be far more expensive. The first phase of dredging is in its second year in Little Lake Butte Des Morts near Menasha. Previously, another hot spot in the lower Fox River -- next to Georgia-Pacific's plant on Broadway -- was removed in a 1999 pilot project.
The spot near Georgia-Pacific contained PCB concentrations up to 50 parts per million. The De Pere dam hot spot has concentrations far exceeding that amount -- up to 3,000 parts per million. The goal of the cleanup is to leave soil with no more than 1 part per million concentration. "We're trying to move this forward to the next step, designing and removing this hot spot, to accelerate the whole cleanup," Hill said.
An image problem
Fishermen like Tom Gatzke of Merrill come to Green Bay for the walleye fishing in the Fox River. "From my perspective, Green Bay is probably one of the top five walleye waters in the U.S.," said Gatzke, who fishes in professional walleye tournaments. "Guys come to the Fox River because it opens first, but you hear people talking about the pollution. They make jokes about tires and trash, and it's not even that kind of pollution, but it affects the whole image of the place." The image of a polluted river may affect fishermen, but tourists may not worry about it much when deciding whether to see a Green Bay Packers game or spend a weekend here, said Paul Jadin, president of the Chamber of Commerce.
"Having a totally clean river certainly would do wonders for the area, but I think our biggest concern is keeping it off the Superfund list. It has a stigma now, but the Superfund would further stigmatize it," Jadin said. "The other side of the coin is, Green Bay has lived with the image of a polluted river since the 1920s and never apologized for it. It's part of what helped build our economy."
Costs of disposal
State officials said the cost of cleaning up the De Pere hot spot has not been determined. A major problem is where to put the contaminated material. The high level of PCBs would classify it as highly toxic under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act. Any soil removed from the De Pere hot spot would require transport to a special facility licensed for toxic waste. The closest is in the Detroit area.
The cost of the cleanup is a burden for the paper companies. Over the past two years, they've attempted to have state laws rewritten so their insurance companies must pay for the cleanup up front. That effort failed after both industries spent thousands on lobbying efforts. The DNR has declined to reveal which two paper companies are negotiating over the cleanup at the De Pere dam hot spot. Al Toma, an executive with Georgia-Pacific, said his company is not involved because its discharges of PCBs occurred well below the dam. Toma said he thinks the overall cleanup plans are progressing well.
Scientists have found some evidence that PCBs cause illness or death in large marine life, but the DNR's local studies have found little adverse impact on walleye populations.
A clean river
Local fishermen describe a sense of hopelessness about the river's pollution. Many anglers don't remember when people ate fish from the river without worries. But reports of people eating the fish are still common. Andrew Janssen, 17, of De Pere said he's seen fishermen grilling fish right on the dock wall at Voyageur Park. While it's still considered safe to eat limited amounts of smaller fish, Janssen said he's seen people taking home large, fat, bottom-feeding fish. "I can't imagine why they do it. I wouldn't," Janssen said. "They should clean it up," said Ryoji Chang, a car salesman from Allouez who fishes at Voyageur Park almost daily. "If the river was clean, I'd eat the fish and swim here, but I wouldn't even keep a trophy fish right now."
When the cleanup is complete in about 10 years, young fish might be edible within five years in the river. But, out in the bay of Green Bay, where no cleanup is planned, PCBs are expected to contaminate fish for up to 100 years.
by Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post
April 1, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101629.html
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to allow higher levels of contaminants such as arsenic in the drinking water used by small rural communities, in response to complaints that they cannot afford to comply with recently imposed limits. The proposal would roll back a rule that went into effect earlier this year and make it permissible for water systems serving 10,000 or fewer residents to have three times the level of contaminants allowed under that regulation.
About 50 million people live in communities that would be affected by the proposed change. In the case of arsenic, the most recent EPA data suggest as many as 10 million Americans are drinking water that does not meet the new federal standards. Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Water, said the agency was trying to satisfy Congress, which instructed EPA in 1996 to take into account that it costs small rural towns proportionately more to meet federal drinking water standards. "We're taking the position both public health protection and affordability can be achieved together," Grumbles said in an interview this week. "When you're looking at small communities, oftentimes they cannot comply with the [current] standard."
But Erik Olson, a senior lawyer for the advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, called the move a broad attack on public health. "It could have serious impacts on people's health, not just in small-town America," Olson said. "It is like overturning the whole apple cart on this program."
The question of how to regulate drinking water quality has roiled Washington for years. Just before leaving office, President Bill Clinton imposed a more stringent standard for arsenic, dictating that drinking water should contain no more than 10 parts per billion of the poison, which in small amounts is a known carcinogen. President Bush suspended the standard after taking office, but Congress voted to reinstate it, and in 2001, the National Academy of Sciences issued a study saying arsenic was more dangerous than the EPA had previously believed. The deadline for water systems to comply with the arsenic rule was January of this year.
The proposed revision was unveiled in early March in the Federal Register and is subject to public comment until May 1. Administration officials said the number of comments they receive will determine when it would take effect. EPA's new proposal would permit drinking water to have arsenic levels of as much as 30 parts per billion in some communities. This would have a major effect on states such as Maryland and Virginia, which have struggled in recent months to meet the new arsenic rule. Last summer, the Virginia Department of Health estimated that 11 well-based water systems serving 9,500 people in Northern Virginia might not meet the new standard for arsenic. Maryland has a high level of naturally occurring arsenic in its water, and its Department of the Environment has estimated that 37 water systems serving more than 26,000 people now exceed the 10-parts-per-billion arsenic limit. These include systems serving several towns as well as individual developments, mobile home parks, schools and businesses in Dorchester, Caroline, Queen Anne's, Worcester, Garrett, St. Mary's and Talbot counties.
General Manager George Hanson's Chesapeake Water Association in Lusby, Md., serves 4,000 town residents with four wells. Three of them meet the new arsenic standard, but one well has 14 parts per billion in its water. He estimated that cleaning it up would cost between $1 million and $4 million. "It's some of the most beautiful water I've ever seen. The arsenic is the only thing that fouls the entire system," Hanson said, adding that he and other community water suppliers are hoping the new EPA proposal will offer them a way out. "They're waiting for someone to help them."
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, complying with federal drinking water standards is not supposed to cost water systems more than 2.5 percent of the median U.S. household income, which in 2004 was $44,684, per household served. That means meeting these standards should not cost more than $1,117 per household. Under EPA's proposal, drinking water compliance could not cost more than $335 per household.
Several public officials and environmental experts said they were just starting to review the administration's plan, but some said they worry that it could lead to broad exemptions from the current federal contaminant standards cities and larger towns must also meet. Besides arsenic, other water contaminants including radon and lead pose a health threat in some communities. James Taft, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, said he and others are concerned that the less stringent standard will "become the rule, rather than the exception" if larger communities press for similar relief.
Avner Vengosh, a geochemistry and hydrology professor at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, said he was surprised by the administration's proposal because North Carolina officials are trying to keep arsenic levels as low as 2 parts per billion. "It's a bit ironic you have this loosening in the EPA standard when local authorities are making it more stringent," Vengosh said, adding that many rural residents "have no clue what they have in the water."
National Rural Water Association analyst Mike Keegan, who backs the administration's proposal, said the current rule is based on what contaminant levels are economically and technically feasible, rather than what is essential to preserve public health. The administration may face a fight on Capitol Hill over the proposal. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who helped write the 1996 law, said EPA's proposal, "if finalized, would allow weakened drinking water standards, not just in rural areas, but in the majority of drinking water systems in the United States."
Reuters
March 31, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-03-31T143018Z_01_L31442292_RTRUKOC_0_US-PHONES.xml
STOCKHOLM -- The use of mobile phones over a long period of time can raise the risk of brain tumors, according to a Swedish study released on Friday, contradicting the conclusions of other researchers. Last year, the Dutch Health Council, in an overview of research from around the world, found no evidence that radiation from mobile phones and TV towers was harmful. A four-year British survey in January also showed no link between regular, long-term use of cell phones and the most common type of tumor.
But researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life looked at mobile phone use of 2,200 cancer patients and an equal number of healthy control cases. Of the cancer patients, aged between 20 and 80, 905 had a malignant brain tumor and about a tenth of them were also heavy users of mobile phones. "Of these 905 cases, 85 were so-called high users of mobile phones, that is they began early to use mobile and/or wireless telephones and used them a lot," said the authors of the study in a statement issued by the Institute.
Published in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, the study defines heavy use as 2,000 plus hours, which "corresponds to 10 years' use in the work place for one hour per day". Early use was defined as having begun to use a mobile phone before the age of 20.
There was also shown to be a marked increase in the risk of tumor on the side of the head where the telephone was generally used, said the study, which took into account factors such as smoking habits, working history and exposure to other agents. Kjell Mild, who led the study, said the figures meant that heavy users of mobile phones had a 240 percent increased risk of a malignant tumor on the side of the head the phone is used. "The way to get the risk down is to use handsfree," he told Reuters.
He said his study was the biggest yet to look at long-term users of the wireless phone, which has been around in Sweden in a portable form since 1984, longer than in many other countries.
by Mark Grossi, Fresno Bee
March 30, 2006
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/11994235p-12755179c.html
Air pollution costs San Joaquin Valley residents $3.2 billion a year in medical bills, lost work time, suffering and early death, a panel of experts announced Wednesday. The panel wrote a study that puts a price tag on health problems from air pollution in the Valley, which ranks with Los Angeles and Houston as the dirtiest air basins in the country. "If you snapped your fingers and suddenly had clean air, this is how much money would be saved," said nationally known economist Jane V. Hall. "It's sticker shock, I'm sure. But nobody in the Valley escapes this problem."
Hall is one of two California State University, Fullerton, professors who joined with air expert Frederick W. Lurmann of Sonoma Technology Inc. to write the study. The three have experience in such studies and were aware of the Valley's air problems. The authors and Valley health advocates said the study is proof that leaders should quicken the pace to clear the air. The head of the local air district agreed the study is important but added that the air cleanup already has made big strides. "All of our major [pollution] categories have come down dramatically," said Seyed Sadredin, executive director of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. "But the essence of the study is important. There is an economic cost."
The $80,000 study, funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, covers the Valley's eight counties from Stockton to Bakersfield. The authors said Hispanics and blacks are more affected by poor air quality than other residents. The cost of health-related problems varies from county to county, they concluded, but the average is about $1,000 per person in the Valley. The price tag includes the cost of early death. The researchers set the price at $6.7 million per death and estimated 460 people ages 30 and older die before their time because of air pollution. "We have a conservative total," said professor Victor Brajer, the other Cal State Fullerton economist. "Recent research suggests the effects of fine particulate pollution might cause two or three times as many deaths." Brajer said that the 460 annual deaths occur about 14 years sooner than they should.
The social value of each life was based on mainstream economic research and federal studies, focusing on age, occupational risk, income and other factors. The range was $3.8 million to $9 million per person, and the economists settled on the middle ground at $6.7 million. "Is it worth spending almost $7 million to save your child's life?" Hall asked. "Maybe you can't pay that much, but maybe society can."
The study put a price on other factors, such as lost work, school absence and emergency room visits. There also was a category called "minor restricted activity days" when people are affected by air quality but not enough to call in sick. Researchers estimated the Valley could avoid 325 new cases of chronic bronchitis each year if microscopic particles, called PM-2.5, are kept within the federal health standard. Each new case of chronic bronchitis costs about $374,000 annually, the study showed.
There should be little argument about the figures, said Kevin Hamilton, an asthma clinical specialist and health advocate. He said the figures are conservative and probably understate many costs. For instance, the research showed the cost of treating an asthma attack is $50. He sees bills that are much higher. "Where I work, the bill is $256," he said. "That's a huge difference."
Both Hamilton and air district chief Sadredin said the study would be a tool in advocacy efforts. Sadredin said the Valley needs federal and state help against the biggest source of pollution -- vehicles. "I plan to use it in our advocacy role with the EPA and the state to get them to do their fair share in controlling mobile sources," he said. Hamilton said the study provides evidence to argue for stronger air rules from the local air district. He said he believes the district board has been hearing an unbalanced approach that favors the economics of industries. "Now we really can bring health to the table," he said. "The next board meeting should be pretty interesting."
by Harrison Sheppard, Los Angeles Daily News
March 30, 2006
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_3652606
SACRAMENTO -- Alarmed at growing evidence linking chemical toxins to health problems, legislators have proposed a statewide study of the chemicals in Californians' bodies caused by environmental pollution and household products. The "biomonitoring" bill passed its first key committee vote Wednesday, but still faces significant corporate and political opposition. It would create a program to measure the amount and type of chemicals in the bodies of study volunteers through tests of blood, urine and breast milk.
It could also attempt to correlate those levels with various causes, such as household chemicals, or even potentially hazardous sites such as the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Hills, where a recent study found a slightly higher cancer rate among residents of surrounding communities. "It's time to try to get good science on the environmental causes of cancer," said Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, who authored the bill with Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento.
SB 1379 is Ortiz's fourth attempt to pass such a bill amid heavy opposition from manufacturers, chemical companies and other business interests. After rejecting it the two prior years, the Legislature passed a biomonitoring measure in 2005, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying the proposed study was flawed. He directed administration officials to begin looking at creating their own biomonitoring program. Since then, the state Health and Human Services Department and the California Environmental Protection Agency have been meeting to create a framework for such a program but have not yet developed cost estimates or projected timelines for their effort.
Most opponents have said publicly they don't oppose the concept of biomonitoring but have problems with the bill's structure. Tim Shestek, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, said the group's main concern is that the data would be provided with no context. For example, a study volunteer would be told he has a certain chemical in his body, but not whether the level is harmful. "This bill assumes the mere detection of a chemical at any level is harmful," Shestek said. "That's contradictory to what the folks at (the federal Centers for Disease Control) say when they do their own biomonitoring program. "Our view is it's really the beginning. What's necessary is additional research to determine which levels of a chemical may cause health effects and what level may be trivial."
Other business groups opposing the bill include the California Chamber of Commerce, the American Electronics Association, the Western States Petroleum Association and the California League of Food Processors. But people living in areas facing serious contamination and health issues welcomed the proposal.
Neighbors of the Santa Susana lab have been concerned for years about the potential health effects caused by the extensive contamination of heavy metals and radiation present in the soil and groundwater near the site. Bonnie Klea, an activist who has lived near the Santa Susana lab for 35 years and worked there in the 1960s, said she and other neighbors had their hair tested last year and found high levels of harmful materials such as uranium and tin. She said other Californians would gain by learning the levels of harmful materials in their own bodies. "I think it's a very, very good idea," said Klea, who was treated for bladder cancer 10 years ago that she believes was caused by exposure from the lab. "We've had these corporations be in denial all these years that they caused any of the neighbors harm."
The program would cost an estimated $3 million to $5 million, but would be eligible for $1.7 million from the federal government, Ortiz said. The nature of the study and how to use the data it generates would be determined by an advisory panel to be appointed by state officials and legislators. But those involved with authoring the bill said they could very likely look at geographic cancer clusters and links to environmental contamination. "If the scientists and physicians in the Department of Health or Cal-EPA say we're concerned about clusters that are occurring in the San Fernando Valley ... let's look at these categories of chemicals and biomonitor and see do we get any information out of that biomonitoring that leads us to say this might be a link," said Donna Brownsey, a lobbyist for the Breast Cancer Fund, which is co-sponsoring the bill. "And then do the additional medical research to see if that pans out."
by James S. Tyree, CNHI News Service, Pryor [Oklahoma] Daily Times
March 29, 2006
http://www.pryordailytimes.com/business/cnhinsenvironment_story_088133030.html?keyword=topstory
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Ed Kessler couldn't believe what was happening in his pond. A sample of fish swimming in his pond near Purcell revealed a troubling discovery -- mercury. Fish from Kessler's pond was sampled during an Environmental Protection Agency study conducted from 2000 through 2003. The Norman resident learned fish tested from his pond had 0.558 parts per million of mercury.
The amount may seem microscopically miniscule, but it's higher than the 0.5 ppm level that can be dangerous for pregnant women and children. It's also nearly twice the 0.3 ppm screening value for human health -- EPA lingo for high enough to warrant further study. The fish wasn't too toxic by EPA standards to shun altogether, but it was more than enough to make Kessler wonder. Nineteen of the 21 Oklahoma sites tested by the EPA had fish with some level of mercury, arsenic or toxic organic chemical. "The bottom line is you don't know if you can eat the fish or not, unless you have one of the few ponds that doesn't have mercury or toxins," Kessler said. "Even if the mercury is a little low, I don't want to eat fish with mercury in it."
Kessler also keeps tabs on the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, which monitors toxins in fish in 49 of the state's largest public reservoirs. Monty Elder, environmental program manager at DEQ, said sites are sampled every seven years, but tests become annual at places where fish have toxins that exceed a minimum limit. For mercury, it's 0.5 ppm, or milligrams per kilogram. Elder said the DEQ bases its standard by the EPA's guide for fish consumption. Pregnant women and children 6 and younger should limit fish with levels between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm to two meals per month and avoid it altogether if it's higher. For everyone else, the EPA levels are 1 ppm for limited eating and 1.5 for none at all.
According to the EPA, microscopic organisms convert mercury and methylmercury within fish, and predator fish usually have more of it. Mercury and methylmercury damage the nervous system, especially its development within fetuses, babies and younger children. In late 2004, Elder said, the EPA lowered its mercury advisory level for pregnant women from 1.0 to 0.5. "Given the changes in mercury consumption levels, there are 10 lakes in Oklahoma in which sampled fish contained levels of mercury above the 0.5 mg/kg consumption advisory level," Elder said. "Those lakes," she said, "are McMurtry, Zoo, Draper, Coalgate, McGee Creek, Hugo, Broken Bow, Wister, Greenleaf and Heyburn." McMurtry is near Stillwater, Greenleaf is south of Fort Gibson, Heyburn is 11 miles southwest of Sapulpa, and Stanley Draper and Zoo lakes are in the Oklahoma City area.
The advisory means those lakes will be tested again this year. If the readings come back high again, the DEQ will issue consumption advisories for the specific lakes. For now, though, there are no posted warnings for fish consumed at those places. Mike Fina, an Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department spokesman, said public lake personnel work closely with the DEQ and they would post advisories as soon as the environmental department tells them to. "They govern us in that regard, the level of mercury in the water and fish. In fact, we rely on them for those tests," Fina said. "They have not directed us to do any postings. We work so close with them, we're a conservation agency as well and also from the tourism aspect."
The only advisory in effect for any Oklahoma lake is for catfish in the Bitter Creek Watershed near Altus due to elevated levels of pesticides DDT and toxaphene. Pregnant women and young children are advised to have no more than two servings in a month of fish caught there. Because the state has so many untested lakes and no one knew how this year's readings on fish in the 10 reservoirs would turn out, the DEQ last year issued a statewide advisory on mercury. The advisory says pregnant and nursing women, along with kids 15 and younger, should eat locally caught predator fish no more than once a week. Bass, walleye, saugeye and flathead catfish are the predator fish to watch. The advisory says sunfish and channel catfish typically have less mercury.
Elder said the DEQ soon will be able to test more bodies of water quickly, thanks to a new $50,000 machine that allows testers to take out a small core of flesh and inject in the machine for a much faster reading. Getting to more places is needed, she said, because it's otherwise impossible to tell which lake, pond, or stream has fish with high mercury. The DEQ spends $75,000 a year on monitoring fish toxins. Its plan to expand the program would double the cost.
"Mercury is an interesting thing because the presence of mercury in the water doesn't mean it's in the fish," she said. "It has to be methylated. It doesn't occur in every lake and it depends on a lot of factors...You can have lakes right next to each other and only one have fish with higher mercury, which means you have to sample every lake."
The mercury warnings for fish have no bearing on recreational activities at those sites, she said. Elder said the lakes are safe for fishing, swimming, boating or anything else people would do for fun. Fina said Greenleaf is among a number of reservoir areas getting plenty of visitors, and they remain popular for fishing.
Back in Norman, Kessler believes government agencies are responding to toxins in fish but have been slow in doing so. Establishing where the mercury comes from is vital in figuring out how to stem it. The mercury warnings for fish don't affect municipal water supplies, often fed by area lakes, Elder said. Such water is tested for hundreds of chemicals and is always treated, Elder said, and when chemicals are present they cannot exceed EPA standards.
Given the health risks associated with mercury and other toxins, Kessler hopes environmental officials put a rush on finding the answers. "The question is how do you handle it," he said. "I don't want to be like so many other false alarmists, and yet something needs to be done."
by Kris Christen, Environmental Science & Technology
March 29, 2006
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/mar/science/kc_chickenpoop.html
Farmers have used animal manure as fertilizer since the beginning of recorded history, but during the past decade a growing body of research has revealed that the practice can have some polluting side effects. For example, when chicken poop is used to "improve" soils, excess nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus can make their way into nearby waterways. Scientists have suspected that chicken waste could also be a source of arsenic -- a known carcinogen. A research article published today on ES&T's Research ASAP website supports those suspicions with some persuasive evidence linking arsenic and chicken poop.
Now that the U.S. EPA's new drinking-water standard of 10 parts per billion for this toxic element has gone into effect, scientists are beginning to look more carefully at roxarsone, a common feed additive used in poultry operations. They are zeroing in on how it can be transformed from a relatively harmless organic arsenic species into more toxic inorganic forms after being released into the environment when chicken manure is used as fertilizer.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that in 2006, 9.1 billion broiler chickens will be produced in the U.S. About 70% of these broiler chickens are fed roxarsone as a supplement to control infections and increase weight. They excrete it mostly unaltered, and their arsenic-laden waste is typically disposed of as a fertilizer spread onto nearby farmlands.
In earlier reconnaissance studies, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers didn't find any roxarsone in soils and stream sediments in and near fields where chicken waste had been applied. However, they did see higher concentrations of water-extractable arsenate [As(V)] and arsenite [As(III)] compared with similar soils and sediments with no history of poultry fertilizer use. What they didn't know was the mechanism for how the roxarsone became As(V) and As(III). The new research fills in some of the blanks.
Scientists from the University of Arizona and USGS found in laboratory experiments that in the anaerobic conditions typical in underwater sediments and subsurface soils, roxarsone was rapidly transformed into its corresponding aromatic amine, 4-hydroxy-3-aminophenylarsonic acid, in a matter of days. Over a longer of period of time (230 days), this compound biologically degraded into As(III), one of the more toxic and very mobile species of arsenic, as well as smaller amounts of As(V).
"The roxarsone itself doesn't have a high toxicity, [but] if it ends up in an anaerobic environment, then we see that it's eventually going to be converted to arsenite, which has a very high acute toxicity," says Jim Field, an environmental engineer at the University of Arizona and the paper's corresponding author. "That means if people are land-applying this material in areas with a high water table, the stuff would go immediately into an anaerobic environment where you'd get accumulation of arsenite." Likewise, the poultry manure itself is very wet, so if it's stockpiled, the roxarsone could transform into As(III) within the compost, and rainwater runoff could send it into waterways, where the material could accumulate in sediments.
Other studies since USGS's initial work have shown how under aerobic conditions roxarsone is degraded over time into As(V), which is toxic to plants, notes Gregory Cutter, a chemical oceanographer with Old Dominion University. But sediments in freshwater lakes and coastal environments are typically anoxic, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic region of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, where many industrial poultry farms operate. "That's the importance of this paper," Cutter says. These facilities "are very close to sensitive bodies of water such as the Chesapeake Bay."
Ellen Silbergeld, an environmental health scientist at Johns Hopkins University, agrees. "My concern is the scenario of [the arsenic] leaching into groundwater and [Maryland's] Eastern Shore, where everyone drinks groundwater, and drinking water is drawn from a fairly shallow aquifer." She recommends that arsenicals be eliminated from animal feeds altogether because land disposal of the resulting waste is unregulated. "This is a huge volume of waste being placed in a relatively restricted area where the absorptive properties of the soils are being exceeded," she notes.
The National Chicken Council disagrees. "Our industry just doesn't share the view that there are significant issues with this," says Richard Lobb, a spokesperson for the trade group. "Attempts in the past to tie poultry farming to arsenic in drinking water haven't been successful, so while this may be a theoretical concern, we don't have any reason to believe it's a real-world concern."
Indeed, USGS hasn't found a real problem, either. "We haven't identified any particular areas that were impacted by this practice," says John Garbarino, a USGS research chemist and one of the paper's coauthors. However, Tracy Connell Hancock, a USGS hydrologist, points out that the potential exists for arsenic to leach into groundwater that may be used for drinking water, particularly in karst regions. "We just haven't seen that in our studies, but we have very limited sampling," she notes.
by BJ Corbitt, Brunswick [Georgia] News
Mar 29, 2006
http://www.thebrunswicknews.com/front/328654787552476.php
Reba Reyna still enjoys walking into the marsh in her backyard, but she says it just doesn't offer the same sensation it did decades ago. "We used to walk out and the shrimp would come out and nibble on your toes, but not anymore," the Glynn County retiree said. Living on Shore Drive in central Glynn County for almost 30 years, Reyna knows the marsh has changed. The marsh sits just 25 feet from her back door. Much of the marine life that used to flow through the marsh -- fed by an inland creek from the Turtle River -- has disappeared. And what remains isn't suitable for consumption, she said.
She blames the situation on Allied Chemical Corp. and its years of dumping mercury and other chemicals into the Turtle River. The site of the defunct plant today is a U.S. Superfund Site. She isn't the only one blaming Allied Chemical for environmental problems. Reyna -- along with her husband Warren and daughter Pamela Long -- recently joined a class action lawsuit which accuses Honeywell International, formerly Allied Chemical Corp., of dumping tons of mercury and polychlorinated byphenols, or PCBs, into the Turtle River over a 23-year period. Thirty-four residents have added their names to a list that includes hundreds of people. "I know that what the pollution has done is (it has) killed everything in our marsh back here," she said.
Honeywell operated the chlor-alkilai chemical plant on Ross Road from 1956 to 1979. The suit also alleges that Honeywell conspired with Linden Chemicals and Plastics -- or LCP, which operated the plant from 1979 to 1994 -- to keep the dumping quiet.
Surveys of the site by the state Environmental Protection Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have revealed elevated levels of mercury, lead and PCBs at the plant site and in nearby water and organic life. Honeywell spokesperson Victoria Streitfeld said Honeywell will defend the case vigorously but declined to offer further comment.
Roughly 200 parties are seeking damages from the company. Originally filed in 1995, the suit is pending in both Glynn County Superior Court and in U.S. District Court here. Brunswick attorney Bob Killian, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, declined comment, citing restrictions against speaking to the news media imposed by U.S. District Judge Anthony Alaimo, who has been assigned the case.
The suit alleges that the chemicals from the plants have killed and contaminated much of the area's marine life and posed a danger to people who consume fish from the Turtle River and the creeks it feeds. The state Department of Natural Resources closed part of the Turtle River and Purvis Creek to fishing in the 1990s and issued a consumption advisory. The citizens involved in the case are seeking a number of damages from Honeywell, including compensation for lost property values, legal fees and exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent to the company from future actions similar to those alleged in the suit.
by Robert Miller, Danbury [Connecticut] News-Times
March 29, 2006
http://news.newstimeslive.com/story.php?id=81694
Exhaust from an 18-wheeler may be obnoxious, but at least it's on the move. But big construction jobs -- and the heavy equipment needed to get the job done -- can stay in place for weeks, becoming serious sources of pollution for their neighbors. "I drive to work on Route 7 every day and it takes me 45 minutes to get to work," said Lauretta Cianflone who works at Hamilton Mortgage Corp. in Ridgefield, where a major expansion of Route 7 is under way. "We're all used to it. In a couple of years, it will all be for the best." "We have no choice -- it's not going to go away," said her co-worker, Adam Falis. Others said the project isn't a problem. "Maybe occasionally, but really, no," said Steve St. Germainof the Ridgefield Athletic Club. "And I'm outside a lot." "I haven't noticed anything, and I'm pretty sensitive to these things," said Chris Milano,office manager of CTPC Exchange in Ridgefield.
On Tuesday, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment -- which has helped lead the fight to clean the state's air -- said more people should be aware of the impact construction sites have on the air. In its report, the CFE said emissions from diesel engines at construction sites, truck stops, buses and garbage trucks are having a serious effect on the state's air pollution. To reduce it, the CFE said the state should require the owners of such vehicles to burn cleaner fuel and retrofit their equipment to further cut emissions.
Plotting construction sites on a map, CFE -- a New Haven-based advocacy group -- said about 100,000 state residents live in "diesel risk zones" that extend from about 110 yards to 550 yards from construction sites. The health risk in these zones increase during work hours and the commuter rush. "We're hoping to get a handle on what the sources of pollution are in the state," said Charles Rothenberger, staff attorney for the CFE. "This is one way of getting this done."
The CFE found construction sites, and their diesel equipment, are sources of particulate matter -- tiny bits of pollution that, when inhaled, can inflame and damage the lungs. Home furnaces that burn heating oil are another source of these emissions. Pollution intensifies about 36 days each year when air is stagnant. On those days, the CFE said, the level of pollution in suburban school playgrounds can equal those of heavily polluted urban sites.
Rothenberger said epidemiological studies show construction workers suffer a higher rate of respiratory ailments than average workers. But the CFE said fine particulate matter also is a health risk to people who live near the idling equipment. "This happens to neighbors, to schools," he said. "They're not closing down the schools when this type of work is going on."
David Brown, one of the report's authors, said particulate matter is known to aggravate asthma, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other bronchial diseases. A clear correlation exists between inhaling fine particulate matter and heart attacks. Using data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the CFE said in 1999, breathing particulate matter was responsible for 340 heart attacks in Connecticut, along with 4,091 asthma attacks, 125 cases of chronic bronchitis and more than 24,000 lost days of work.
The CFE points out these diesel emissions already occur in a state where air pollution is a given. Last year, the American Lung Association gave Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties an "F" for levels of daily particulate matter. The CFE estimates about two-thirds of the state's 4,000 tons of diesel emissions come from "non-road" sources like construction sites. Although Connecticut receives airborne pollution from states to the west and south, the CFE estimates about 25 percent of all of Fairfield County's particulate matter pollution comes from diesel engines. The report also points out air pollution rates over a 24-hour period. But during spikes of pollution, which can last for as long as six hours, pollution levels can triple.
Brown and Rothenberger said the state can do simple things to cut diesel emissions -- in addition to already having retrofit school buses to reduce their pollution. The state should require diesel engines to use only ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. While it's more expensive, it's far less polluting. "Construction sites use a much higher sulfur diesel than other engines," Brown said. "If there was one thing I could do with this, it would be to change the fuel mix." The CFE report notes all on-road diesel vehicles this year must burn ultra low-sulfur fuel, containing no more than 15 parts of sulfur per million.
In 2008, the EPA will require new, off-road, diesel vehicles, like construction equipment to meet stringent new emissions standards. But because older vehicles will stay on the road for a while, most health benefits from the switch won't occur until around 2015.
The CFE recommends all off-road vehicles burn ultra low-sulfur fuel, which could reduce particulate emissions by 15 percent. Retrofitting construction equipment could reduce those emissions by as much as 90 percent. The CFE also recommends reducing the sulfur level in home heating oil. Rothenberger said a pilot program shows these methods work for construction sites. "All the reports, from the state Department of Environmental Protection, from the Department of Transportation, all have said it's been great," he said.
by Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times
March 29, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-toxic29mar29,0,5610036.story
After massive underground plumes of an industrial solvent were discovered in the nation's water supplies, the Environmental Protection Agency mounted a major effort in the 1990s to assess how dangerous the chemical was to human health. Following four years of study, senior EPA scientists came to an alarming conclusion: The solvent, trichloroethylene, or TCE, was as much as 40 times more likely to cause cancer than the EPA had previously believed.
The preliminary report in 2001 laid the groundwork for tough new standards to limit public exposure to TCE. Instead of triggering any action, however, the assessment set off a high-stakes battle between the EPA and Defense Department, which had more than 1,000 military properties nationwide polluted with TCE. By 2003, after a prolonged challenge orchestrated by the Pentagon, the EPA lost control of the issue and its TCE assessment was cast aside. As a result, any conclusion about whether millions of Americans were being contaminated by TCE was delayed indefinitely.
What happened with TCE is a stark illustration of a power shift that has badly damaged the EPA's ability to carry out one of its essential missions: assessing the health risks of toxic chemicals. The agency's authority and its scientific stature have been eroded under a withering attack on its technical staff by the military and its contractors. Indeed, the Bush administration leadership at the EPA ultimately sided with the military. After years on the defensive, the Pentagon -- with help from NASA and the Energy Department -- is taking a far tougher stand in challenging calls for environmental cleanups. It is using its formidable political leverage to demand greater proof that industrial substances cause cancer before ratcheting up costly cleanups at polluted bases.
The military says it is only striving to make smart decisions based on sound science and accuses the EPA of being unduly influenced by left-leaning scientists. But critics say the defense establishment has manufactured unwarranted scientific doubt, used its powerful role in the executive branch to cause delays and forced a reduction in the margins of protection that traditionally guard public health.
If the EPA's 2001 draft risk assessment was correct, then possibly thousands of the nation's birth defects and cancers every year are due in part to TCE exposure, according to several academic experts. "It is a World Trade Center in slow motion," said Boston University epidemiologist David Ozonoff, a TCE expert. "You would never notice it."
Senior officials in the Defense Department say much remains unknown about TCE. "We are all for getting the facts on the table," said Alex A. Beehler, the Pentagon's top environmental official. "Meanwhile, we have done everything we can to curtail use of TCE."
But in the last four years, the Pentagon, with help from the Energy Department and NASA, derailed tough EPA action on such water contaminants as the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate. In response, state regulators in California and elsewhere have moved to impose their own rules. The stakes are even higher with TCE. Half a dozen state, federal and international agencies classify TCE as a probable carcinogen. California EPA regulators consider TCE a known carcinogen and issued their own 1999 risk assessment that reached the same conclusion as federal EPA regulators: TCE was far more toxic than previous scientific studies indicated.
TCE is the most widespread water contaminant in the nation. Huge swaths of California, New York, Texas and Florida, among other states, lie over TCE plumes. The solvent has spread under much of the San Gabriel and San Fernando valleys, as well as the shuttered El Toro Marine Corps base in Orange County. Developed by chemists in the late 19th century, TCE was widely used to degrease metal parts and then dumped into nearby disposal pits at industrial plants and military bases, where it seeped into aquifers.
The public is exposed to TCE in several ways, including drinking or showering in contaminated water and breathing air in homes where TCE vapors have intruded from the soil. Limiting such exposures, even at current federal regulatory levels, requires elaborate treatment facilities that cost billions of dollars annually. In addition, some cities, notably Los Angeles, have high ambient levels of TCE in the air. An internal Air Force report issued in 2003 warned that the Pentagon alone has 1,400 sites contaminated with TCE. Among those, at least 46 have involved large-scale contamination or significant exposure to humans at military bases, according to a list compiled by the Natural Resources New Service, an environmental group based in Washington.
The Air Force was convinced that the EPA would toughen its allowable limit of TCE in drinking water of 5 parts per billion by at least fivefold. The service was already spending $5 billion a year to clean up TCE at its bases and tougher standards would drive that up by another $1.5 billion, according to an Air Force document. Some outside experts said that estimate was probably low.
After the EPA issued the draft assessment, the Pentagon, Energy Department and NASA appealed their case directly to the White House. TCE has also contaminated 23 sites in the Energy Department's nuclear weapons complex -- including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the Bay Area, and NASA centers, including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Caņada Flintridge. The agencies argued that the EPA had produced junk science, its assumptions were badly flawed and that evidence exonerating TCE was ignored. They argued that the EPA could not be trusted to move ahead on its own and that top leaders in the agency did not have control of their own bureaucracy.
Bush administration appointees in the EPA -- notably research director Paul Gilman -- sided with the Pentagon and agreed to pull back the risk assessment. The matter was referred for a lengthy study by the National Academy of Sciences, which is due to issue a new report this summer. Any resolution of the cancer risk TCE poses will take years and any new regulation could take even longer. The delay tactics have angered Republicans and Democrats who represent contaminated communities, where residents in some cases have elevated rates of cancer and birth defects but no direct proof that their illness is tied to TCE. Half a dozen members of Congress last year wrote to the EPA, demanding that it issue interim standards for TCE, instead of waiting years while scientific battles are waged between competing federal agencies. EPA leaders have rejected those demands.
"The evidence on TCE is overwhelming," said Dr. Gina Solomon, an environmental medicine expert at UC San Francisco and a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We have 80 epidemiological studies and hundreds of toxicology studies. They are fairly consistent in finding cancer risks that cover a range of tumors. It is hard to make all that human health risk go away."
But Raymond F. DuBois, former deputy undersecretary of Defense for installations and environment in the Bush administration, said the Pentagon had not been willing to accept whatever came out of the EPA, though it cared a great deal about base contamination. "If you go down two or three levels in EPA, you have an awful lot of people that came onboard during the Clinton administration, to be perfectly blunt about it, and have a different approach than I do at Defense," DuBois said. "It doesn't mean I don't respect their opinions or judgments, but I have an obligation where our scientists question their scientists to bring it to the surface."
The military has virtually eliminated its use of TCE, purchasing only 11 gallons last year, said Beehler, an attorney who used to head environmental affairs for Koch Industries Inc., a large industrial conglomerate in Wichita, Kan. In its fight against the 2001 risk assessment, the Pentagon has gone to the very fundamentals of cancer research: toxicology, the study of poisons; and epidemiology, the science of how diseases are distributed in the population. This scientific approach has worked better than past arguments that cleanups are a costly diversion from the Pentagon's mission to defend U.S. security.
A few months after the 2001 draft risk assessment came out, an Air Force rebuttal charged that the EPA had "misrepresented" data from animal and human health studies. It said "there is no convincing evidence" that some groups of people, like children and diabetics, are more susceptible to TCE, a key part of the EPA's report. And it said the EPA had failed to consider viewpoints from "scientists who believe that TCE does not represent a human cancer risk at levels reasonably expected in the environment."
But comments such as these are outside the scientific mainstream. Other federal agencies have also expressed grave concern about TCE and some experts say it is only a matter of time before the chemical is universally recognized as a known carcinogen. "Do I think TCE causes cancer? Yes," said Ozonoff, the Boston University TCE expert. "There is lots of evidence. Is there a dispute about it? Yes. Whenever the stakes are high, that's when there will be disputes about the science."
The 2001 risk assessment found TCE was two to 40 times more likely to cause cancer than was found in an assessment conducted in 1986, a wide range that reflected many scientific uncertainties. Because cancer risk assessments are not an exact science, federal regulators have historically exercised great caution in protecting public health.
To read the rest of the article, please visit http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-toxic29mar29,0,5610036.story?page=1.
by Craig D. Rose, [San Diego] Union-Tribune
March 28, 2006
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060328-9999-1b28southbay.html
A local environmental group says that modernizing the South Bay Power Plant -- frequently cited as essential for the region's future power needs -- would subject more than 200,000 Chula Vista residents to unhealthy levels of air pollution. The Environmental Health Coalition yesterday released a study of likely air emissions from a modern 650-megawatt power plant on the Chula Vista site, concluding that it would significantly contribute to what it says are dangerous levels of pollution in the area. The coalition said the elevated emission levels from such a power plant would extend to distances that would put children at more than 60 schools and preschools at risk. A 650-megawatt plant of that size could provide enough electricity to power 500,000 or more homes.
The Environmental Health Coalition, a 26-year-old local organization, has long maintained that pollution from the existing power plant is among the causes of elevated rates of childhood hospitalization from asthma in Chula Vista. The current plant on the bayfront site began operation in 1960. As a result of the study's findings, the EHC recommends that all opportunities should be exhausted to pursue renewable nonpollution energy sources in the region. If regional reliability requires that a plant be built, the coalition said, it should have a capacity of no more than 65 megawatts. A plant of that size -- sufficient to power 50,000 or more homes -- would produce 25 to 33 percent of the emission levels of a larger generating facility, according to the EHC. "This is an opportunity to avoid another 40-year mistake by pursuing a clean energy future," said Rebecca Pearl, a spokeswoman for the coalition. The EHC study was conducted by Environ International Corp. of Irvine.
Duke Energy of North America, which holds a lease on the plant from its owner, the San Diego Unified Port Commission, and is planning a new facility on the site, said that while Environ is a reputable consultant, the EHC study was flawed. Andrew Trump, Duke's project manager at the South Bay plant, said the coalition studied a water-cooled plant design instead of the air-cooled facility that the energy company now plans to build. An air-cooled plant, Trump said, would not have the cooling towers that would cause about 80 percent of the particulate pollution projected by the study. In addition, Trump said, the EHC's consultant firm incorrectly assumed that Duke would be operating the new facility's duct burners -- a component that boosts electricity output -- more than 300 days of the year. Instead, he said, the duct burners would likely operate for about 20 days each year. "We are designing this new plant in a way that ensures it will meet all applicable air quality regulations," Trump said. He emphasized that the plant planned for the site would generate more electricity, yet produce fewer emissions than the existing facility. "This new plant would be part of a continuous improvement in air quality in this region," he said.
Duke is scheduled to transfer ownership of the lease at South Bay to LS Power, a New York company, in June. Trump said the new owners were also committed to building the same type of plant, with a goal of filing the first permit with state regulators by the end of June. A spokeswoman for the San Diego Air Pollution Control District confirmed that the region has been steadily lowering its level of fine particulate pollution in recent years. Fine particulates -- 2.5 microns or smaller -- are considered a greater hazard that larger particulates.
But Anita Pinsley, the control district spokeswoman, added that the region isn't in compliance with state standards for particulate pollution of either size. The local air district is in compliance with some federal standards, while not with others, she said. Pinsley added that the South Bay air quality monitoring station, located within three miles of the power plant, had not recorded high levels of particulates from the existing plant.
Melanie McCutchan, a research associate with EHC, said there were still "many sets of human lungs between the power plant and the monitoring station." She said Duke's proposal to build an air-cooled plant would "not significantly" affect the particulates emissions expected from the plant by EHC's study. "We know that the plant contributes particulate matter to the atmosphere and we know that Chula Vista has high rates of asthma," McCutchan said. "A large power plant, even with better technology, will perpetuate poor air quality and increase the risk of cancer and asthma," she said. "It is unnecessary to submit residents to these risks when there are viable alternatives."
Bill Powers, an engineer and chairman of the Border Power Plant Working Group, said he was encouraged to hear that Duke is targeting a dry cooled plant, at least partly because the use of bay water for cooling by the existing plant takes a heavy environmental toll. "But I haven't seen the studies and can't say with certainty how much eliminating the cooling towers would reduce particulate emissions," he said. "At other sites, eliminating cooling towers from the design has had a relatively small impact on reducing particulates."
San Diego Gas & Electric has in the past said that its planning to satisfy electricity needs assumes that either South Bay or the Cabrillo Power Plant in Carlsbad would be rebuilt. Eddie Van Herik, an SDG&E spokesman, said yesterday the utility continues to believe the region would need significantly new sources of electricity from within the region.
by Pat Stith, [North Carolina] News & Observer
March 26, 2006
http://www.newsobserver.com/1171/story/422233.html
More than 2 million North Carolinians drink water from private wells. Most of them have no idea how dangerous that can be. Jerry and Mary Price do. Three years ago, the Prices discovered that their Wake County well had been polluted with a colorless liquid used in the manufacture of gasoline, insecticides and other products.They learned that they should limit their showers to five minutes, that they should not drink water from their taps or cook with it -- and that their government had known for seven years about polluted wells nearby but hadn't warned them or their neighbors. "I hope and pray that no one has developed cancer from this," said state Rep. Bernard Allen, a Beechwood Park neighbor whose well also was contaminated. "Some people have lived in the neighborhood for many, many years, and that's all the water that they've used. God forbid if that water was contaminated 25, 30 years ago."
After the pollution seeped into his neighborhood off Poole Road near the Neuse River, Allen tried to strengthen laws protecting private well owners. He wanted the state to require tests of private wells prior to sale or rental of property. And he wanted to require regulators to notify nearby property owners when they discovered contamination. He failed. The bill he introduced last year, opposed by real estate interests because of the cost, didn't get a hearing. Well owners still aren't told of nearby well contamination, and North Carolinians continue to drink water from private wells that are seldom, if ever, tested.
The state requires vehicle owners to get their cars and trucks inspected annually to make sure the horn honks and other equipment does what it's supposed to. It regulates sewage disposal. But at least three attempts during the past 15 years to require even minimal testing of private wells have been defeated. Private well pollution is not just a problem in rural counties. About 93,000 residents of Wake County get water from private wells, and 650 to 700 new wells are drilled in the county each year. Greg Bright, Wake's groundwater program supervisor, said most of the existing wells have never been tested. "Just to make a wild guess, I'd probably say at least three-quarters of them have never been tested, and that may be conservative," he said.
The state started regulating well construction in 1972. But only eight employees have been assigned to enforce those regulations statewide. "I can assure you that the state of North Carolina doesn't have sufficient staff to go out and actually check wells for construction," said Hope Taylor-Guevara, executive director of Clean Water for North Carolina, an environmental group that supported Allen's bill.
Five years ago, the state agency responsible for protecting groundwater asked to hire nine more people and to help more counties start programs to regulate wells. But it was a tough budget year, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources said no. Gov. Mike Easley never saw the request; nor did legislators, who make the final decision. The agency has not tried again.
Thirty-five counties have some sort of construction oversight or well-testing program, but only 14 require even minimal tests. In the other 65 counties, well drillers are on the honor system when it comes to construction standards. "That's like putting up speed limits but not setting anything up to regulate drivers," said B.K. Jones, a former Richmond County environmental health supervisor responsible for well inspections. "If we knew there was no Highway Patrol, how many of us would drive at 65 miles per hour?"
Public systems safer
When private wells are tested, contamination is found routinely. The N.C. State Laboratory of Public Health, in Raleigh, tests for bacteria in more than 500 private well-water samples that county health departments send each month. Those tests show that water from public systems is safer than water from private wells. For the past seven years, almost 30 percent of the tests of private wells have been positive for total coliform bacteria. With a few exceptions, these bacteria are harmless micro-organisms, but their presence indicates that the water might have been contaminated with feces from humans or other warm-blooded animals. When a test is positive for total coliform, the state lab follows up with a test that looks for fecal coliform and its most common member, E. coli. A positive fecal/E. coli test means the presence of bacteria or viruses that might sicken or kill. Then it's time to start boiling the water.
Over the years, the state lab has found fecal/E. coli in about 1 of every 30 private well samples. During that same period, labs that test samples from public water systems have found fecal/E. coli in about 1 in every 780 samples. The private well samples tested by the state lab are not random. Some samples came from wells where members of a family already were sick, and some from wells flooded after a hurricane. But while the number of samples analyzed varied widely from year to year, the ratio of E. coli-positive samples has never dropped below 1 in 45. Tests of new wells in Wake County reveal the same problem: about 1 in 80 are contaminated with E. coli.
Bill Holman, former secretary of environment and natural resources and now executive director of the state's Clean Water Management Trust Fund, says North Carolina's failure to protect either groundwater quality or private wells is "one of the biggest missing gaps" in its health system.
A creeping danger
Some contaminants, such as bacteria, can sicken or kill a family within days. Of the 14 counties that require testing of private wells, only four look for anything other than bacteria. But scores of other contaminants, over time, are just as dangerous. Most are colorless, odorless and tasteless, so there's no warning. Like cigarette smoke, they kill so slowly that people don't notice. The danger comes both from man-made sources and the curses of nature. The state has documented more than 25,000 known soil and water contamination sites, including contaminants such as the 1,2-Dichloropropane that poisoned the Prices' well off Poole Road near Raleigh. And there are natural killers such as arsenic, which exists in soil and minerals and can dissolve into well water.
Charles G. Pippin is a hydrogeologist in the state Division of Water Quality's office in Mooresville. He calculates that the chances of drilling a well in the Triangle and getting water with a detectable -- and therefore dangerous -- level of arsenic ranges from 2 percent in Franklin to 38 percent in Chatham. In the two most arsenic-prone counties in the state, Stanly and Union, Pippin says the chances of finding arsenic in well water are more than 50 percent.
Radiological contaminants leaching from granite can also poison groundwater; in North Carolina, eastern Wake County is ground zero. Uranium and radium show up in public water systems in east Wake far more often than anywhere else. Private well owners should take that as a warning, says William E. Grantmyre, former president of Heater Utilities Inc. in Cary. Heater owned about 480 public water systems -- 175 in Wake County -- prior to its sale in 2004. "There are thousands of wells in eastern Wake, and they [the owners] don't have a clue," said Grantmyre, now an attorney on the Public Staff at the N.C. Utilities Commission. "I'm not saying it's in 50 percent of the wells, but it's a lot."
Natural contamination
A geological formation called the Rolesville outcrop -- essentially a block of granite -- is the source of the radiological contamination in Wake. In the eastern third of the county, even amateur spotters can see huge granite outcroppings exposed on the surface, up to half the size of a football field. Much of this granite contains uranium or its "children," including radium 226 and 228. Water passing through crevices in the rock picks up these contaminants. Wake County normally tests for 18 contaminants before it allows a new well to be used, but it does not require tests for radiological elements.
Wake County charges $400 for a well permit and, by most accounts, it has the best well-construction inspection and testing program in the state. Since 2003, the county has required that new wells be tested not only for bacteria but also for nitrates, nitrites, lead, arsenic, hardness, iron, calcium, magnesium, zinc and copper. If there's a gas station nearby, the county might require a test to determine whether fuel has leaked into the groundwater. If the well flunks, the developer or owner must fix the problem, usually with a filter, before the house can be occupied.
Wake might soon require a test for radiological contaminants. The county is in the closing months of a three-year study of radon in the air and water -- and it's finding plenty in eastern Wake. For Wake's stepped up well-testing program, thank Jerry and Mary Price and their neighbors in the Beechwood Park subdivision. Through the trees beside their house at the end of Ann Avenue, the Prices can see two houses on Poole Road whose owners were told in 1996 that their well water was polluted. But no one told the Prices or their neighbors in the 20-home community. State law doesn't require it. Had it not been for research to win an unrelated zoning battle, they might never have found out their own well had been polluted. "Once we found out our wells were contaminated, we went into action," said Jerry Price, the founding pastor of Solid Rock Baptist Church, three or four minutes from their house. "We tried to find anybody that we could to help us," Mary Price said. "And we started calling everybody."
The Prices are retired educators, she from the Wake County Public School System and he from the state Department of Correction. They searched through government records and discovered contamination that the state, and Wake County, had known about all along. They organized the neighborhood. They confronted state and local officials. They got the problem fixed: Raleigh extended its water line into their neighborhood.
Several people in the neighborhood do have cancer, according to the Prices. "We do not know whether it's connected," Mary Price said. "But we know from the research that we've done that some of these chemicals can cause cancer."
Allen's bill, co-sponsored by seven other representatives, would have required tests of private wells before property could be leased or sold. "Personally, I don't think that's asking too much, to make sure our citizens are drinking good water," Allen said. The House Health Committee chairman, Thomas E. Wright of Wilmington, said Allen's bill had great merit. "I think the question came down to, who was going to bear the cost of paying for the tests? Would it be the seller, the buyer, the developer, the Realtor?"
Paul Wilms, director of governmental affairs for the N.C. Home Builders Association, said his organization would not automatically oppose rules requiring statewide inspection or permitting of wells. But the builders had several problems with Allen's proposal, Wilms said. For one, the cost of the water tests the bill would require is not clear. Nor was it certain that state-certified labs would have the capacity to process them quickly enough not to impede home sales, he said. Wilms also has questions about a provision that would force disclosure to the state and nearby property owners after contamination is discovered in a well. If the contamination wasn't at dangerous levels, the market value of several properties might fall unfairly, he said.
A push for testing
Proponents of mandatory tests for private wells have tried for a state standard at least three times since 1991. Top officials at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources say they will push private-well-testing legislation again when the General Assembly returns May 9. Terry L. Pierce, director of the department's Division of Environmental Health, told legislators in December that water suitable for human consumption is his No. 1 health priority. During his 25 years in the public health field, he said, he has been intrigued by how much effort is spent on enforcement of rules governing the disposal of sewage that comes out of rural houses and how little is spent protecting private wells.
Pierce said in an interview that a bill requiring tests of private wells had never passed in part because people at his level and others had not done a good job educating the legislature and the public. "I think people have the misconception that it's being done already," he said. "If you would ask the average person in one of these counties that do not have a well program if their well was checked, I'll bet you they'll tell you it was. 'Oh, I'm sure the health department looked at it.'"
Rep. Pryor A. Gibson III of Wadesboro, co-chairman of a panel that reviews environmental policy, said he has fussed about the safety of private wells for years. "It's a shortcoming in our environmental policy that we've never had a statewide well-testing program," Gibson said. "There is a high percentage of North Carolinians who live out in the country, particularly in central North Carolina, who have never had their wells tested, and they are unaware that because of our geography that there are some places that have some stuff that's not good for you." Gibson represents Union County, southeast of Charlotte, where well drillers have a 50-50 chance of finding water with arsenic in concentrations of 1 part per billion or more, according to estimates by Pippin, the state hydrogeologist. Gibson said legislators will look at a testing bill this year. "It's not going to be cheap," he said. "We can't make counties fund things they can't afford to do, so we need to find the money."
