Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Tag: toxic

Categories
Backyard Talk

State Stops Plan to Burn PFAS Waste

The state of Vermont changed its mind about sending about 2,500 gallons of the hazardous fire depressant known as PFOA and PFOS to a hazardous waste incinerator, when it discovered that the operator of the plant had been cited for numerous clean air violations. The Heritage Thermal Services incinerator in East Liverpool, OH has consistently and repeatedly been in violation of federal and state environmental laws and has been a Significant and Habitual Non-Complier of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and High Priority Violator of the Clean Air Act continuously for years. For the past three years running, for the 12 consecutive quarters from October 2014 to today, Heritage Thermal Services has been and continues to be a High Priority Violator of the Clean Air Act due to the release of excessive amounts of hazardous air pollutants and hydrocarbons. That’s 100% of the time. This is an increase over the three (3) year period from 2010 to 2012 when Heritage Thermal Services was a High Priority Violator 67% of the time.
What’s odd about the decision to burn this waste is that the very reason this family of chemicals are used by fire fighters is that it suppresses flames and is difficult to burn. It’s very likely that the much of the PFAS waste that would be burned in an incinerator would end up going out the smokestack creating air pollution problems.
The state changed its mind once it learned about Heritage’s track record. There was also public pressure from local citizens groups in Vermont who raised significant concerns about burning foam at a hazardous waste incinerator.  Alonzo Spencer of the local groups Save Our County in East Liverpool credited the Conservation Law Foundation which has an office in Vermont with stopping the delivery of the waste. “I would like to personally thank Jen Duggen [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][Vermont director of CLF]. Heritage was on the verge of accepting waste from Vermont that Heritage couldn’t handle correctly. It was Duggan’s Foundation that opposed that. That waste would have been on its way now if she hadn’t intervened,” Spencer told a local paper.
The ingredients of these fire-fighting foams have been found to be toxic. PFOS and PFOA belong to a class of compounds called PFAS chemicals that have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, developmental problems in children and immune system problems. They were banned for use by fire departments in the early 2000s and have become an emerging drinking water contaminant across the country. An estimated 110 million Americans have PFAS in their water according to a report by the Environmental Working Group. There are 32 military sites and 17 private sites contaminated with PFAS that are on the federal Superfund list. For more, <read here>.
Alonzo Spencer told his local paper, “The city has been spared a ‘disaster.’”[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

Categories
Homepage Superfund News

Trump’s Region 4 EPA Administrator Indicted on Alabama Ethics Charges

The USEPA Region 4 Administrator, a 2017 Trump appointee, has been indicted by a Jefferson County, Alabama, grand jury for ethics violations, along with his former business partner, former Alabama Environmental Management Commissioner Scott Phillips. <Read more…>

Categories
Backyard Talk

Periodic Mass Shootings Aren’t The Only Source Of Lead In Schools

By: Sharon Franklin
In a November 5, 2018 Katie LaGrone and Matthew Apthorp of ABC Action News Tampa Florida, reported that “most Florida school districts don’t test for lead on campus”.  They reported that Florida law requires school officials to protect children’s health and safety, but the law does not require schools to sample for lead in drinking water.  Throughout the United States, there are only six states that require school systems to test for lead in drinking water.  They are California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.  Across the country and around the state of Florida, lead-contaminated drinking water has put schools in the spotlight and under the microscope.  In Florida’s Hillsborough County, 54 schools have tested above 15 parts per billion, the federal standard for action.   Water fountains at the school recently tested 50.5 parts per billion (ppb) and 73.7 (ppb), nearly four and five times above that federal standard. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends lead levels should not exceed one part per billion (1/ppb).
The lack of consistent lead testing at schools in Florida is a statewide failure spelled out in a 2017 Environment Florida Report, where the sunshine state got an “F” for failing to keep school water from becoming laced with lead.  Jennifer Rubiello, Executive Director of Environment Florida, a state advocacy group, said “lead testing is like Russian roulette”.
Believe it or not, there is no federal requirement for schools to test for lead in their water.  Only 43% of school districts in the United States are purported to say that they have tested their water for lead in 2016 or 2017, according to the Government Accountability Office, and 37 percent of those districts found at least some of the toxic metal.
In a report by the USPIRG Education Fund Environment America Research & Policy Center released in February 2017, Get the Lead Out Ensuring Safe Drinking Water for Our Children at School by John Rumpler and Christina Schlegel, they stated the health threat of lead in schools water deserves immediate attention from state and local policymakers.  They give two main reasons for this conclusion, (1) Lead is highly toxic and especially damaging to children, impairing how they learn, grow, and behave.  (2)  Current regulations are too weak to protect children from lead-laden water at school.
Where are we now on this issue? Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has repeatedly delayed revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which had earlier stated that eliminating lead from plumbing materials is the only way to guarantee nobody will drink lead-tainted water.  .  However, while we wait, our children are being still being exposed to another lethal threat.   For additional information, see CHEJ resources fact sheets on water: http://chej.org/healthy-water-resources/

Categories
Backyard Talk

Cleaning up PFAS from the environment- and from our drinking water

By : Lauren Maranto
The analysis of water quality is a critical to both the environment and our daily lives. Water quality is often measured by the presence or lack of metals, toxins, and nutrients, and allows us to determine how these levels may affect human health. Although in the past we have focused on these determinants of water quality, recent attention has been brought to a chemical group called Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and their effect on human health.
According to the EPA, PFAS are a group of chemicals that include PFOS and GenX, among many others. These are a cause for concern not only for their prevalence in our daily lives, but also because they are highly persistent in the environment and in the human body, meaning that they do not break down and will therefore continue to accumulate over time.
PFAS have been used all over the globe, in products including cookware, stain repellents, and fire retardant foams. According to the EPA guide on PFAS, they can be found in things such as household products, waste from production facilities, and living organisms (including fish, animals, and humans). They can even be found in food due to contaminated packaging and processing, or in our drinking water.
Due to their persistence in the environment, PFAS are more likely to leach and spread through environmental processes, allowing them to leach into the water and affect areas further from the source. This has been a common occurrence with the use of fire retardant foams, which release PFAS that are then carried into streams and lakes through runoff, contaminating the water. It also leaches into the soil, which can contaminate crops. Therefore, people can be exposed to low levels of PFAS through exposure to contaminated water, soil, food packaging, and equipment used in manufacturing, according to the EPA. More direct exposure may also occur in an industrial facility that produces PFAS or at any large site that uses firefighting foams.
According to a recent report by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, an organization dedicated to the implementation of strong chemical policy, approximately 110 million people in 39 states are exposed to drinking water that has been contaminated by PFAS. Studies have linked exposure to some PFAS to adverse health effects, including elevated cholesterol levels, weakened immune system, cancer, decreased infant birth weights, and thyroid hormone disruption. This is a serious, widespread issue that will not go away on its own, and action must be taken to clean up these communities.
However, the communities that have been affected by PFAS are taking initiative, spreading support and awareness for this issue. Toxic Action Center has worked with community leaders in these areas to form the National PFAS Contamination Coalition, a group that works with community groups to share their stories, information, and strategies to spread awareness and reduce the presence of PFAS. For more information on the coalition’s work, contact Shaina Kasper, Vermont State Director and New Hampshire Community organizer, at shaina@toxicsaction.org. In addition, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families has worked with Congress to pass a provision allowing the commercial use of PFAS-free firefighting foam, and are now working on implementing these in locations across the world. For more information on their work to clean up drinking water, visit the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families report.
Although this issue is being addressed, there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of the continued clean up and monitoring of PFAS. However, we are optimistic that the increased awareness and understanding of this chemical hazard will allow for better regulation of PFAS in the future.

Categories
Homepage

Huge Win for Local Residents as Tonawanda Coke Closes its Doors

The Tonawanda Coke plant near Buffalo, NY, closed its doors this past Sunday marking a huge victory for the local residents who have fought for years to shut down the facility. Read more here.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Where Do Plastics Go?

When a plastic bottle gets recycled by an environmentally-conscious consumer, where does it go? Many people assume it gets trucked off somewhere nearby and ultimately gets reborn as a brand new product further down the line. The reality, however, is that a significant portion of America’s waste used to get sent to China to be processed and potentially turned into something useful.
Unfortunately, since January 1 of 2018, China has placed bans and restrictions on many types of waste the United States used to export, leaving huge amounts of potentially reusable materials with nowhere to utilize them. By 2030, 111 million metric tons of plastic waste that otherwise would have been processed in China now has nowhere to be handled.[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][1] The domestic factories that process these kinds of materials into usable goods are too few, too small, and too swamped to take on this extra capacity.
Under an administration that touts its “America First” values as paramount, it seems overwhelmingly hypocritical to be sending huge portions of our recycling, and the jobs and income associated with processing and repurposing it, away to other countries. The United States isn’t only missing out on a large economic opportunity by neglecting to re-establish a recycling industry on American soil. Unsurprisingly, the practice of shipping off our waste for someone else to deal with has had negative consequences for the countries burdened with it.
Currently, portions of what used to be sent to China now go to countries like Vietnam and Thailand without adequate facilities to process recyclable materials. Without the proper infrastructure it is common in some places to simply burn these pallets of plastics, metals, and e-waste releasing huge quantities of air pollution.[2] Under America’s current recycling system, we are essentially exporting toxic gases that damage the health and beauty of developing nations across the Pacific.
While public awareness of what can and can’t be recycled and government initiative to re-establish an American recycling industry are important, they do nothing to address the fact that Americans on average generate nearly 5 pounds of waste every day.[3] Ultimately, the best thing to do is consume less plastics and other single-use materials altogether. If you want to reduce the amount of waste you generate, consider using reusable water bottles and portable coffee mugs, bringing your own cutlery to work on days you eat out, and demanding that companies or businesses where you spend your money use less single-use packaging.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/21/china-ban-plastic-waste-recycling/721879002/
[2] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/america-china-recycling-crisis-landfills_us_5b5170b1e4b0de86f48b7740
[3] https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

Categories
Backyard Talk News Archive

What is the road ahead for Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria?

On Wednesday, September 20, Hurricane Maria made a direct hit to Puerto Rico– virtually destroying most of its infrastructure and plunging Puerto Ricans into a humanitarian crisis. About 97% of Puerto Rico’s 3.4 million population is without power, and about half without running water. Let’s not forget that these are American citizens we are talking about.
The Trump Administration’s response has been significantly slower and less effective than the response to Hurricane Harvey and Irma. President Trump tweeted about the situation on Monday, stating that,“Much of the Island was destroyed, with billions of dollars owed to Wall Street and the banks which, sadly, must be dealt with.”
His lack of empathy towards a U.S. territory struggling to survive following a disaster is alarming, even for him. Focusing on the massive debt held by Puerto Rico, whose economy is now even more ravaged than it was before, is just cruel but unacceptable.
Gov. Ricardo Rossell of Puerto Rico urged Congress to approve a commensurate aid package. A week after the hurricane, FEMA put out a statement that they have airplanes and ships loaded with meals, water and generators headed to the island.
In addition to the ongoing crisis, the Guajataca Dam in the island’s northwest corner has suffered a “critical infrastructure failure,” which poses immediate flooding threats to about 70,000 people. While the majority of residents in the potential flood zone have evacuated, efforts are being made to evacuate periphery areas.
The path for Puerto Rico ahead is uncertain. Its power grid is almost entirely wiped out, and has proven to lack resilience. Many experts on disaster response urge for the opportunity to be taken to rebuild Puerto Rico’s power grid from the ground up– a project that would require billions of dollars.
Not to mention, there are 23 Superfund sites on the island that likely have contaminated soil and groundwater. Unexploded bombs, bullets, and projectiles are among the toxic contents of these Superfund sites, specifically on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques which was used by the military as a bomb-test site.
In the southern coastal town of Guayama, a five-story pile of coal ash has been sitting next to a low-income, minority community of 45,000 people. This ash contains heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, and chromium. The company responsible is Applied Energy Systems (AES), which was ordered to remove the pile prior to the hurricane but whether this was done is unclear. It is highly likely that this toxic ash has contaminated the surrounding land water sources.
At this point, we must continue to urge the U.S. government to provide ongoing aid to our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico. Be sure to check back with CHEJ on the front of environmental justice for Puerto Ricans following this humanitarian disaster.
Click on the below link to see how you can help the victims of Hurricane Maria:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/can-help-hurricane-victims-puerto-rico/

Categories
Backyard Talk

Increases in Infant Mortality Linked to Fracking

A new study published last week in the Journal of Environmental Protection provides new evidence that the gas extraction process of hydrofracturing, known as fracking, is harming the health of people who live near these wells. This study found that counties in Pennsylvania with higher numbers of fracking wells had higher rates of infant mortality.
The authors compared early infant mortality for the years 2007-2010 in ten Pennsylvania counties that were heavily fracked to the rates for the rest of the Pennsylvania (excluding the 10 heavily fracked counties) for the years 2003-2006 which was considered a pre-fracking period. The results showed a statistically significant 29% excess risk for newborn infants of dying during the first 28 days of life if they were born in the ten heavily fracked counties during the 4-year period following development of fracking gas wells in these counties. The early infant mortality rate for the rest of the state decreased by 2% during this same time-period. The association with infant mortality was even greater in the five northeast Pennsylvania counties of Susquehanna, Bradford, Wyoming, Lycoming and Tioga where the early infant mortality rate increased by 67%. These counties had the greatest number of fracking wells. The early infant mortality rate was increased by 18% in the five southwest Pennsylvania counties of Washington, Westmoreland, Greene, Butler and Fayette where fracking also occurred but at lesser rates.
According to the report, about 50 more babies died in these 10 counties than would have been predicted if the rate had been the same over the study period as it was for all of Pennsylvania, where the incidence rate fell over the same period. Although the study could not prove what might be causing these increases in infant mortality, the authors did observe an association between early infant mortality and the number of drinking water violations in private wells in the five northeast PA counties. This finding led the authors to state that the increase risk of early infant mortality might be related to exposure to drinking water which may be contaminated. They further noted that this contamination might be due to the release of naturally occurring radioactive material, including radium, thorium and uranium caused by underground explosions set off by the natural gas extraction process.
In closing, the authors described early infant mortality as “a flag for genetic damage, and thus represents a “miner’s canary” for other ill health effects in children and adults, particularly cancer, though there is a temporal lag in cancer between exposure and clinical expression.” While this study has its limitations, it still raises serious questions about the safety of the natural gas extraction process called fracking. To read the full study, see <http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JEP_2017042413181160.pdf>.
 

Categories
Backyard Talk

March for Science

As a scientist, it’s not unusual to experience people not understanding the jargon and complexity of science. Part of what we’re trained to do is explain and interpret what we do. What’s much harder to understand is the total dismissal of scientific information and consensus around issues. While science does not have many critical answers for people exposed to toxic chemicals, it is nonetheless the foundation of what we do know. It can tell us what chemicals people are exposed to, the concentration of those chemicals, and the risks these exposures pose. We often don’t know how long a person was exposed, what interactions/synergistic effects might result if exposed to more than one chemical, or what specific health outcomes a person can expect or anticipate.
There are clear limitations in what we know, but that does not mean we ignore the science altogether. This what Donald Trump is proposing to do with climate change, ignore what the vast majority of scientific researchers who devote their life to studying this issue have  coming to agree on – that human behavior is influencing the earth’s climate in a dangerous way that cannot be ignored.
This is why the scientific community is stepping out of its comfort zone and organizing a march on Washington to protest the dismissal of worldwide scientific consensus on the issue of global climate change. As described on its website the “March for Science is a celebration of science. It’s not only about scientists and politicians; it’s about the very real role that science plays in each of our lives and the need to respect and encourage research that gives us insight into the world.”
There’s a lot of push back coming from within the scientific community that generally shuns public involvement in politics. But this is an unusual time. Not only has the President of the United States called global warming a “hoax” … “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” but there is an alarming tend towards dismissing scientific facts and consensus, and an illogical attack on research funding that threatens our basic world understanding. These threats have left scientists with little choice but to come together and speak out.
This is an unparalleled opportunity to highlight the value of science and show your opposition to the war on science. Join the March for Science on April 22nd in Washington, DC. For more information, see https://www.marchforscience.com/

Categories
Backyard Talk

Low Doses Matter

A new video is available that addresses the cumulative impact of exposure to low level mixtures of toxic chemicals on the developing brain. Dr Bruce Lanphear and colleagues from Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia have produced an excellent 7 minute video that is sure to educate and provoke discussion.   
This remarkable video, Little Things Matter, explains in easy-to-understand language why exposures to small amounts of toxic chemicals matter, how widespread exposure to brain-damaging toxins, such as lead and mercury, PCBs and flame-retardants, can have severe impacts on the developing brain of children. “There is strong evidence that learning disabilities and lower IQ scores can be attributed to extremely low levels of exposure to toxic metals like lead and mercury, persistent toxins such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), and other toxins including organophosphate (OP) pesticides and compounds used as flame-retardants. These toxins are common in our daily environments,” says Lanphear.
Lanphear who narrates the video states that “We’ve been studying the impact of toxins on children for the past 30 years and reached the inescapable conclusion: little things matter.” He goes on to say that exposure to toxic chemicals can have a life-long impact on children and that extremely low levels of toxins can impact brain development.
The video illustrates how vulnerable children are to exposures to toxic chemicals. It points out that a 5 point decrease in average IQ among U.S. children would result in an additional 3.4 million children who are considered intellectually disabled or mentally retarded. There is a corresponding decrease the number of children who are considered to be intellectually gifted.  
Lanphear and his colleagues offer advice on what steps people can take to reduce their exposures to toxic chemicals including eating fresh or frozen food, avoiding pesticide use in your home and checking for lead hazards. He also suggests contacting your federal representatives and urging them to support legislation that reverses the burden of proof to require companies to prove that a chemical is not toxic before it enters the market, as is the case in the European Union. Lanphear goes to say that the ultimate solution is to reverse how we regulate chemicals. He could not be more right. We can no longer rely on the notion that only exposure to chemicals at high doses matter. This video makes it clear that small doses do matter. Be sure to check out this new video.