WolfeNotes.com

Study to Examine Potential Health Impacts From Dupont Toxic Site

[Update: 6/10/11: The Record reports on high levels of lead found in homes in Ringwood: Upper Ringwood urged to get kids tested for lead.

In addition to Ringwood/Ford, there were extremely high levels of lead and mercury in soils excavated by Dupont in Pompton Lakes. Given flooding, it’s likely that contamination moved significantly away from Acid Brook. Similar health studies and sampling should be done in Pompton Lakes. End update]

Last night, scientists from UMDNJ and Rutgers held a meeting with select invitees regarding the toxic pollution in Pompton Lakes – here is the invitation flyer.

The purpose of the meeting was to learn of concerns, obviously in the wake of an explosive December 2009 Health Consultation by the NJ Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS).

The NJDHSS study found elevated rates of cancers possibly related to exposures to volatile organic chemicals (VOC’s) seeping into homes from contaminated groundwater, a process known as “vapor intrusion”.  

NJDHSS issued a followup Cancer Incidence Analysis in April 2010 which fueled additional concerns.

Here is the meeting invitation I received:

We want to learn your concerns about environmental health exposures in your community and discuss the possibility of conducting a community-based participatory research study to address community concerns regarding volatile organic compounds (VOCs).    

This Preliminary Listening Session is being held in collaboration with the Center for Environmental Exposures and Disease (CEED) at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey/Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and the Pompton Lakes Residents for Environmental Integrity (PLREI).   (This Preliminary Listening Session has select invitees, subsequent sessions will be open to the public.)

I was unable to attend the meeting but sent the below letter to UMDNJ to outline my concerns and recommendations for the research design (with a copy to EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck).

My key concerns at this initial stage are that: 1) the proposed focus on VOC’s needs to be expanded to include toxic heavy metals lead and mercury; 2) include comprehensive exposure assessment, body burden, and epidemiological methods; 3) the research design be linked to Dupont pollution; and 4) be funded by Dupont via EPA regulatory enforcement .

Going forward, the research process must be open, transparent, based on strong science, and conducted with community input into research goals, objectives, and methods.

May 11, 2011 

Subject: Proposal for  Preliminary Listening Session on May 16

Dear Ms. Liang:

Thank you for this invitation.

Unfortunately, I am unable to confirm attendance at this time, as I will be travelling to my son’s college graduation this weekend and may not return home by Monday.

Therefore, please accept this brief list of items I believe are worthy of consideration in any environmental health and epidemiological assessment in Pompton Lakes, including their relationships to the Dupont contamination. To the degree possible, causal linkages with Dupont releases must be made part of the scientific inquiry.

Any work should be designed to fill gaps in the historic remedial investigation work at the Dupont site (both on and off site), as well as to validate historic work.

1. Community-wide contamination characterization.

Focus on off site transport of lead, mercury, and chlorinated organics.

Conduct representative samples of:

• dust in homes
• soil in residential yards and gardens
• indoor air
• ambient air
• drinking water (tap) and source water
• surface water
• sediments
• biota/wildlife 
• pets

2. Exposure assesssment – chemical body burden of current residents

Given historically high levels of lead and mercury in soils and sediments, frequent flooding, and potential wind/dust pathways, it is reasonable to assume that metals have moved off site. Mercury is known to bio-accumulate. VOC’s are known to have migrated off site and entered homes. Thus exposure is likely. 

Research should quantify the concentrations of pollutants of concern in human tissue, blood, urine, hair, etc. and compare them to a baseline population (DEP did similar baseline work in recently comparing air toxics in urban Paterson with suburban/rural Chester, NJ).

3. In depth epidemiological work to build on prior DHSS study

Expand prior DHSS work to examine non-cancer endpoints associated with environmental exposures.

• Expand tracking of health outcomes of out-migrants
• Create a current statistical profile of community morbidity and mortality – how does it compare to similar populations?

4. Make commitments to conduct medical assessment and provide ongoing medical monitoring in exposed populations

5. Diagnose and propose a remedy to barriers to installation of vapor mitigation systems in homes where systems have not been installed 

It is my understanding that approximately half the 450 impacted homes above the “plume” have not installed vapor mitigation systems? Why is that?   What are the barriers and how can they be overcome?

6. Fish consumption advisories

DEP issues annual fish consumption advisories. Fish from Pompton Lake and other nearby likely impacted waters are included in those advisories. Are residents aware of these advisories? Why is the Lake not posted? 

7. Wildlife assessment

There is hunting in the area for deer, turkey, squirrel, and other game species. These wildlife populations probably have been exposed to on and off site releases from the Dupont site. The ecological impacts and potential human exposure risks should be examined.   

8. Risk communication – public education – Duty to warn

There is a great need for credible, accurate, and accessible information to be distributed to the community. Dupont, DEP, and EPA are not trusted by many in the community, and are thus not effective risk communicators.  This set of issues requires focus and resources.

It is embarasssing that a private consultant has prepared and distributed a brochure on vapor intrusion, while government has not. There is no reason that the vapor intrusion issue should be treated any differently than the significant communication resources invested in radon risks and mitigation.

9. How to pay for all this work

In my view, the aformentioned scientific and technical work is all directly related to and made necessary by the discharge of hazardous substances by Dupont and their off site migration.

Legally, Dupont is the Responsible Party (under Superfund) and the Permittee (under RCRA) that is required to address these concerns.

The costs incurred to conduct this work are eligible for assessment and cost recovery under Superfund and/or RCRA.

In the alternate, Dupont’s RCRA permit could be unilaterally modified by EPA to mandate this work be done in accordance with EPA specifications.

Regardless of the regulatory mechanism, the point is that EPA has permit, enforcement, and Superfund cost recovery powers to force Dupont to pay for this work.

Under CERCLA section 122(b)(3), funds recovered under an agreement with a potentially responsible party may be placed into a Superfund special account to carry out the purposes of that agreement (i.e., to conduct or finance site-specific response actions). I recommended that EPA rely on that authority in an enforcement action and create a Superfund Special Account to pay for the above work.

Importantly, the Dupont site would NOT have to be listed on the NPL as a Superfund site in order for EPA to deploy this enforcement authority. See my recent letter to EPA Region 2 Administrator Enck.

Please note that I left NJDEP out of these ideas. That is intentional, as they have no credibility in the community.

Thanks again for the invitation and your favorable consideration of these ideas. I’d appreciate a written response to how these concerns wll be addressed. I am willing to discuss further at your convenience. 

Sincerely,

Bill Wolfe, Director

NJ PEER

609-397-4861

Of course, we will keep readers informed of how this study progresses.

[Update: 5/22/11 – Sandy Bauers of Philly Inquirer does a good story today on Tuesday’s EPA hearing in Philadelphia on a proposed mercury emissions rule (we mentioned recently in Update 2). But the context and far more important story on coal plants is this: Another Obama EPA Backtrack On Greenhouse Gas Regulation

For Inquirer story, see: Getting coal power to clean up its stacks– end update]

Drove out to Pittsburgh for my son’s graduation from Carnegie Mellon (CMU) this weekend. He graduated with honors and moves on to a Doctoral program in computer science at Johns Hopkins. My daughter just finished her junior year at CMU. We had an awesome weekend – CMU is truly a world class university. [Ironic note: I declined a full scholarship in 1975 – I think CMU was called Carnegie Institute of Technology back then.]

But, on the ride home, I couldn’t get my head around the contradictions between the cutting edge technology and intellectual firepower at CMU (see NAS Report  “Hidden Costs of Energy“), and the troglodite promotion of carbon fuels I saw on all those disgusting billboards along the way.

[Update:

“The largest portion of this is excess mortality increased human deaths as a result of criteria air pollutants emitted by power plants and vehicles,” said Jared L. Cohon, president of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, who led the study committee.

Nearly 20,000 people die prematurely each year from such causes, according to the study’s authors, who valued each life at $6 million based on the dollar in 2000. Those pollutants include small soot particles, which cause lung damage; nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog; and sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain

Here’s just some of the carbon data on Pennsylvania:

• the fourth largest coal producing state;
• the fifth largest coal burning state
• high reliance on coal – 78 coal-fired generating units ,  20,475 megawatts (MW) of capacity – 41.5% of the total electric generating capacity
• with greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas as bad as coal, Pa. is the third leading producer of natural gas 

What a fracking nightmare! Adding insult to injury, they invoked styles from the depression era Federal Art Project! Take a look for yourself:

Attacking wind and solar while promoting coal (with truck depot along a highway as a backdrop).

Look closely for the wind turbines in the background. A highly popular visual of wind power is cynically polluted by a coal promotion.

fracking greenscam

I almost gagged on the Depression era labor mural motif.

[Update below]

Kirk Moore reports on Rutgers professor Mike Kennish’s latest Report on the continuing declining ecological health of Barnegat Bay (See: “State of the Bay Report: 2011“)

New bay study cites declining trends

Underwater seagrass meadows in Barnegat Bay have lost 50 percent to 88 percent of their plant mass since 2004, a measure that researchers say is a critical indicator of the bay’s declining health.

The seagrass situation is a big part of the 2011 State of the Bay report being presented today at Ocean County College in Toms River. Of 19 key health indicators selected by the report authors, 11 have shown no improvement or are in decline.

These findings come as no suprise to anyone who is paying attention to the health of the Bay.

No, what surprises me is that despite years of compelling science on the Bay’s decline, many remain in denial (or worse) or are diverted by focusing on the wrong indicators.

For example, compare the interpretation and characterization of the data from Barnegat Bay Partnership Director Hales and Rutgers Professor Kennish.

Here’s what Hales had to say:

“It’s more bad news than good news. But the report is what it is. It shows us the way to move forward” said Stan Hales, executive director of the Barnegat Bay Partnership,

Note how he downplays the concern (it is what it is?) and implies some kind of balance or good side of the story (more bad than good).

This Report is a devastating indictment of  management failure of the voluntary and locally driven Barnegat Bay Partnership model that Stan directs.

It is not Stan’s fault – he just lacks the financial and regulatory tools to get the job done. Voluntary local efforts simply can not control land use and pollution problems that are causing the Bay’s decline.

It’s time for Stan to admit that.

A similarly frank assessment of the dire implications of continued reliance on voluntary local control are what led to NJ’s nationally recognized regional management progams in the Pinelands and Highlands.

Limitations of local effort are why we have national laws, like the Clean Water Act, and regulatory programs, like the TMDL.

Now compare Stan’s tepid bad news/good news reaction with Rutgers professor Kennish:

Those values have declined to the lowest levels ever measured, said Michael Kennish, a research professor with the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University.

The average weight per square meter (a sample grid about three feet square) “in 2010 was the lowest on record,” said Kennish, whose latest paper is included in today’s conference.

When 2010 and 2004 seagrass data are compared, researchers see the leafy parts of the plants in the water declined 87.3 percent over those years, while the root systems in the bay bottom were 64.7 percent less by weight, Kennish said.

“This is a huge hit, a huge decline” Kennish added

And not all 19 indicators are equally important in measuring the health of the Bay. Kennish is focused on the key indicators, all of which are in serious decline.

But another problem is that DEP water quality standards and monitored indicators are far less important or outright misleading, which suggest that the Bay is improving.

An absurd indicator monitored by DEP is  acres of harvestable shellfish beds, a regulatory classification that also suggests things are improving – yet the shellfish that live there are in steep decline!

DEP also likes to focus on another ecologically less relevant indicator, bathing beach closings, which is not in decline and also gives misleading and false positive news.

DEP has the regulatory tools and financial resources to tackle the job. But, as an excuse to do nothing and avoid tough decisions, they literally have been looking the other way as the Bay dies.

This DEP abdication lets Governor Christie play misleading political games with his 10 Point Plan, which is nothing but more of the same failed status quo.

This Report shows us another nail in the coffin.

And what happens as even more land is converted to development and pollutant loadings continue to INCREASE?

We may be approaching (or have passed) an ecological tipping point that will result in collapse of biological functions in the Bay.

If so, nuisance jellyfish will look like a minor issue and some real nasty organisms could emerge, making the Bay a stagnant putrescent pool, kind of a liquid landfill.

If that happens, what do you think happens to the property value of all those Bay homes?  What happens to the value of homes near a stinking landfill?

What happens to all those local businesses that depend on boating, fishing, swimming, and tourism?

Forgetaboudit.

The Barnegat Bay Partnership lacks the tools to get the job done. Chrisite’s 10 Point Pan lacks the tools to get the job done.

Let’s agree and deploy more effective existing tools under the Clean Water Act and the full arsenal of DEP regulatory programs.

The below finding from the Report makes the case for enforcement of the Clean Water Act via a TMDL, which provides the management tools and would provide the data and science on nitrogen sources and loadings:

But to plan restoration efforts for the bay, better estimates are needed to help assess the importance of nitrogen sources within the watershed.

[Update – I just read the Report. It is a high quality product and it paints a devastating picture. Almost all of the 19 indicators selected are the right ones. The only good news I take away from the Report is that about 35% of the tributary streams are still healthy with good water quality. Those streams need to be saved, but, lack of effective land use controls will not do the job. A major effort in reducing allowable impervious cover under CAFRA and addressing cumulative impacts are required. More Category One 300 foot buffers are required. Similarly, declining freshwater inputs is a bad and worsening problem. It can be addressed by more restrictive DEP water allocation and NJPDES water reuse mandates. Again, the tools exist, but DEP needs to step up to the plate. The BBay Partneship can not do this.

Trailhead & parking  at Weiss Ecology Center  – maps & more from NY/NJ Trail Conference.

Wanaque Reservoir, Manhattan skyline

“Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.”  ~~~ Hannah Arendt

Breaking news! Since last we wrote (see: The Dialectic of Red Tape), the Philadelphia Inquirer reports stunning new developments on the Red Tape front.

Looks like Johnny can’t read because of – you guessed it – Red Tape!

Christie names task force to cut red tape in education

By Rita Giordano

Inquirer Staff Writer

A task force aimed at cutting red tape and excess regulations in public education was appointed Monday by Gov. Christie. …

“While we must hold educators accountable and measure how effectively they are teaching our children, we must also give the leaders in our schools the flexibility they need to drive innovation in the classroom and deliver the best results,” Christie said in a statement.

The task force is charged with recommending ways to increase instruction quality and academic achievement, improve teacher effectiveness and student safety, and eliminate or change burdensome regulations.

The only slogans he left out were: 1) treating kids like customers, 2) the need for a revised mission and cultural transformation in schools to promote economic development, and 3) common sense regulations based on rigorous cost benefit analysis!