| |
Updated 5-31-08
|
|
| |
Altama Elementary School: More Factual
and Scientific Inaccuracies from the EPA
EPA Refuses to Test School
By Dr. R. Kevin Pegg
|
|
| |
At the request of the Glynn
Environmental Coalition I reviewed the recent
January 29, 2008 EPA PowerPoint
presentation to the Glynn County Board of Education. There are factual
errors and scientific inaccuracies contained within this presentation.
First, “toxaphene” is a trade name for a toxic and carcinogenic mixture of
chlorinated organic chemicals. Toxaphene was never a chemically defined
preparation. Camphene from pine stumps was chlorinated until a toxic
endpoint was reached using a fly bioassay—a test to see how many flies died
in a fixed period of time with a known quantity of toxaphene. Off-grade
product with mixed results for fly killing was stored on the Hercules site
for many years, or placed into the 009 landfill. Contamination outside of
the 009 landfill repository cells was proven beyond doubt in numerous
studies conducted during the mid-1990’s. Toxaphene was found along the
transportation route to the landfill, in the neighborhood adjacent the
landfill, on the school grounds adjacent the landfill, in the drainage ditch
separating the landfill from the school, and outside of the containment
cells on landfill grounds.
All of the available science shows beyond doubt that toxaphene, including
technical grade and so-called “weathered” toxaphene, is a biocide (kills
across species lines), is mutagenic, and causes cancer in laboratory
rodents. These studies have been replicated in numerous laboratories with
appropriate scientific controls and are not in dispute. However, there are
very few scientific studies showing which of the many chemicals in toxaphene
are most toxic, most mutagenic, or most carcinogenic. When there are few
peer–reviewed and replicated studies proving safety both the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry
(ATSDR) mandate cleaning up the environment using the most conservative
levels (the lowest amounts) of the target chemical. All Federal agencies
involved in regulating foreign substances -- the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), United States Department of Agriculture, and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) --also use the
common-sense and prudent approach of erring on the side of caution when it
comes to complex chemicals.
Federal guidelines mandate that potential environmental exposure pathways to
toxic chemicals must be defined. Pathways include exposure through air
(volatile chemicals and small particles), surface or groundwater (soluble
chemicals), or soil. Extensive toxaphene contamination was found on the soil
of the elementary school adjacent the 009 Landfill Superfund Site. Further,
there was ample evidence of human use (trails, trash) throughout the
contaminated areas. Contemporaneous documents defined both past landfill
site operations and contaminated spoil piles from the stream placed on
school property as sources of the toxaphene on school property. It is a
scientific fact that a completed exposure pathway for soil did exist on
school grounds. Region 4 EPA’s assertion that only groundwater exposure at
this site is relevant is not consistent with the site history. Note that the
slides entitled “2006 Groundwater Sampling” and “Toxaphene Exposure Risks”
are entirely irrelevant for any discussion of a soil pathway. It is unclear
why EPA is asserting groundwater data in regard to soil sampling issues;
there is no logical reason for making a claim for soil safety based on
water.
|
|
| |
 |
... |
All of the available analytical science
shows that toxaphene is a straightforward chemical mixture to analyze and
characterize. The EPA has had in place, for decades, scientific methods for
quantifying multi-component mixtures. Toxaphene can easily be quantified
using gas chromatography with a variety of detectors. These instruments are
common to nearly every laboratory, and the techniques are basic. Toxaphene
is routinely quantified using this standard equipment and standard EPA
methods in laboratories around the country and around the world. |
|
| |
There is no scientific
rationale for a special toxaphene method just to monitor toxaphene in Glynn
County, Georgia. EPA’s assertion that no method existed in 1993 to test for
“weathered” toxaphene is nonfactual. Standard EPA methods would have
quantified toxaphene at this site in 1993, and were in use at that time at
other sites with far less toxaphene. Risk modeling is a well-established science. When calculating risk the
nature of the chemical is taken into consideration, the amount of chemical
exposure—concentration of chemical and duration—is factored into the
equation, and toxicology effects from animal and human exposure all are
assigned values. These models are then placed into the public domain so that
other toxicologists can validate the findings. There currently are
mathematical risk assessment models for assessing toxaphene risk. EPA
asserts in a slide titled “Re-evaluation of Site Risks” that “EPA Region 4
conducted a re-analysis of European toxicity data and determined that
weathered toxaphene breakdown products are less toxic than technical
toxaphene.” If these models are published then the reference should be
given, especially since Region 4 EPA is not a third party to this
controversy. Region 4 actually created this controversy by using
unscientific methodology, which cannot be set aside with non-reviewed
internal studies and opinions. No scientist would accept Region 4’s
statement at face value without seeing the entire EPA mathematical model
used for the reassessment.
There is no scientific support for Region 4 EPA’s claims that toxaphene in
Brunswick, Georgia:
- requires special methods for detection;
- does not require monitoring; and,
- is proven safe based on Region 4’s reassessment.
Further, the opinions expressed by EPA Region 4 are contrary to agency
guidelines. Unlike other parts of the country, and the world, Glynn County
-- likely one of the most toxaphene contaminated areas anywhere -- has not
received the benefit of simple scientific analyses for toxaphene in soil. It
is reasonable to expect Region 4 to follow the order of their own Inspector
General to test the vicinity of the landfill with the EPA’s validated
methods, rather than rely on data using a discredited technique.
R. Kevin Pegg, Ph.D. |
|
| |
...
|
|
|