COMMENTS OPPOSING NATIONAL APPROVAL
FOR THE ARMY TO INCINERATE PCB-CONTAMINATED
COMPONENTS OF THE CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENT
STOCKPILE
These comments voice strong opposition to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) intent to issue a national permit/approval
authorizing the U.S. Army to burn materials from the nation's chemical
warfare agent stockpile that contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The persons and organizations opposing the EPA's plan to authorize the
Army to burn PCBs include: Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG),
Kentucky Environmental Foundation, Common Ground, Serving Alabama's
Future Environment, Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration,
Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal, Families Against Incinerator Risk, GASP,
Oregon Clearinghouse for Pollution Reduction, Institute for theAdvancement of Hawaiian Affairs, Oregon Wildlife Federation, Cindy
King, Karyn Jones, Susan Jones, Deborah McCoy-Burns, Dr. Suzanne
Marshall, Peter Hille, Naomi Schultz, Brenda Lindell, Evelyn Yates, Joe
Steward, Sara Morgan, and Jason Groenewald (herein referred to as
"Commentors").
EPA failed to engage in any analysis pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate issuance of the an approval
for the Army to incinerate PCBs pursuant to TSCA. EPA's failure violates
NEPA and necessitates postponement of any action by EPA regarding the
TSCA permit until EPA has met its obligations under NEPA to evaluate the
environmental impacts of and alternatives to the Army's chemical warfare
agent incinerators.
NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the environmental
impacts of major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332. This requirement applies to
EPA's issuance of a permit under TSCA, and its failure to prepare an EIS
violates NEPA. Unlike other environmental statutes, such as the Clean
Water Act and Clean Air Act, TSCA contains no statutory exemptions from
NEPA's requirements. See 33 U.S.C. 1371 (Clean Water Act); 15 U.S.C. §
793(c)(1) (Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act's
exemption for Clean Air Act).
EPA's issuance of the TSCA permit should be postponed until EPA has
met its obligations under NEPA by preparing an EIS that evaluates the
environmental impacts of and alternatives to the Army's plan to incinerate
PCB-contaminated materials. EPA's failure to satisfy NEPA otherwise will
subject the Army's operating or proposed incinerators generally to
injunctive measures.
2.1. EPA Failed to Provide the Affected Public with Adequate
Notice and an Opportunity to be Heard Regarding the Plan to
Issue TSCA Approval For the Army to Incinerate
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Waste.
EPA has failed to meet its obligations under the federal Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to
provide the public with adequate notice of the Agency's plan to provide
nationwide PCB approval for the Army's proposed incinerators. The
nationwide approval planned by EPA would directly impact persons living
in and around four areas of the country: Tooele, Utah; Pine Bluff,
Arkansas; Anniston, Alabama, and Umatilla, Oregon. Notices and a public
meeting on this issue were provided in Utah, but not elsewhere. For
example, the vast majority of the Commentors are not aware of notices
placed in local and statewide newspapers, or even the Federal Register, that
inform the public about the plan to provide the Army with nationwide
approval to incinerate PCBs. The majority of Commentors did not receive
direct mailings from the EPA, even though the Army and State agencies
have mailing lists of persons who wish to be informed of developments
pertaining to the Army's chemical warfare agent incinerators. This is
clearly inadequate notice and opportunity to comment.
In addition, EPA has failed to provide adequate access to concerned
members of the public throughout the nation to documents that the Agency
has reviewed and/or relied upon in its development of the plan to provide
the Army with nationwide approval to dispose of PCBs. This problem
would have been greatly alleviated by posting documents on EPA's website
and advising concerned community members that the documents were
available.
The Commentors are very concerned about the Army's incinerators
disseminating PCBs throughout the communities where the chemical
warfare agents are stockpiled because, as EPA recently noted, exposure to
the 209 synthetic organic chemicals collectively known as "PCBs" create
"different levels of risk for harmful effects" for people exposed to them and
as a result of PCBs "resistance to degradation, PCBs persist in the
environment for decades." See "Public Health Implications Of Exposure
To Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)," U.S. Public Health Service, The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, and The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, (Revised February 2, 1999). The Commentors do not want to see
their communities and the environment around them used as sacrifice zone
for a badly conceived and implemented Army incineration program.
2.2. The U.S. Constitution Requires That Citizens Who Will
Likely Be Harmed By The Incineration of PCB-Contaminated
Materials Be Provided A Full Evidentiary Hearing
At best, EPA has merely allowed some concerned members of the public
to present oral and written comments regarding the EPA's plan to provide
nationwide approval for the Army to incinerate PCBs. This process is
grossly inadequate and contrary to the rights provided citizens by the U.S.
Constitution.
There can be no legitimate dispute that as presently planned the Army's
incinerators will release deadly contaminates into our environment
including: chemical warfare agent; dioxins and furans; polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs); mercury; arsenic; lead; and a host of other known and
unknown chemicals. Many of these contaminates are persistent, which
means they will remain in the environment and our bodies, in some cases,
for many years. Once ingested by humans, the contaminates emitted by the
Army's incinerators can cause a range of health effects including, cancer,
birth defects, immune system effects, reproductive effects, and learning
disorders. There is no legitimate dispute that the present cancer rate in
North America (before adding emissions from all the Army's proposed
incinerators) is an astounding 1 in 3.
It is highly likely that some of these Commentors, their children a nd
other family members, neighbors, and/or friends will ingest some of the
PCBs and other dangerous contaminates emitted by the Army's incinerators.
As present background exposures to PCBs and dioxins, which cause cancer
and non-cancer effects, and other contaminates that may cause cancer are
high, the impact of the emissions from the Army's incineration of PCBs
will significantly enhance the risk of harm and will likely cause harm. The
first victims of such emissions will be infants, children, the elderly, and
persons who are already sick or have suffered significant illness.
By approving the Army's request to incinerate PCBs, the EPA is
subjecting these Commentors and other impacted citizens to unwanted
chemical exposure and ingestion of dangerous chemicals. No government
agency, state or federal, has the right to force upon its citizens the ingestion
of dangerous chemicals. Certainly, no government agency can cause harm
or greatly increase the risk of harm without providing Due Process. (In
Whitner v. State of South Carolina , 492 S.E.2d 777 (S.C. 1997), the South Carolina
Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a woman charged with child abuse. The charge of
abuse was based upon the woman's ingestion of cocaine, which in turn exposed her fetus to
cocaine. While the Commentors do not pass judgment on the specifics of that case, we see
little difference between the criminal offense prosecuted by South Carolina officials and the
"permitted" distribution and subsequent ingestion of dangerous PCBs and other chemicals via
the Army's incinerators.)
If the Commentors are not provided an evidentiary hearing before an
impartial decision-maker with full discovery and the ability to use
compulsory process (i.e., force key Army and EPA officials to testify under
oath) they will be unable to demonstrate that their position on critical issues
like human health risk, environmental risks, and the unproven, experimental
nature of the proposed incineration of PCBs is more credible than the
positions taken by the Army. In short, the Commentors must be permitted
to test the evidence the EPA and Army rely upon to prove the safety of the
plan to incinerate PCBs. If the witnesses and documents offered by the
Army and EPA to support permitting the incineration of PCBs cannot
withstand the scrutiny of a fairly administered evidentiary hearing, then
such approval must not be permitted.
Below, the Commentors provide prima facie evidence that the
incineration of PCBs at the Army's operating or planned incinerators is not
safe and cannot be adjudged worthy of approval under TSCA. Providing
the type of hearing described above and mandated by the U.S.
Constitution's Due Process requirements will enable the Commentors to
fairly prove their well-founded concerns.
Pursuant to TSCA, EPA must take action to prevent "an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment." 15 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(B).
EPA "may not approve an incinerator for the disposal of PCBs and PCB
Items unless [it] finds that the incinerator meets all of the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and/or (b) of [40 C.F.R. § 761.70]. Indeed, EPA must go
further than merely verifying that the Army's incinerators fulfill the letter
of the regulatory standards. Similar to exercise of EPA's RCRA omnibus
authority, pursuant to TSCA EPA must protect the public and environment
from unreasonable risk.
For the reasons set forth below the Commentors demand that EPA
deny the nationwide Approval to Dispose of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
produced by the Army's incinerators suggest that the Army, its contractors, and other
(PCBs) ("Draft Approval"). Alternatively, at a minimum, the Commentors
insist that EPA address the substantial questions, issues, and concerns raised
by all Commentors in a definitive matter, which necessitates withdrawal of
the Draft Approval, substantial revision of the Draft Approval, and
reissuance of the revised Draft Approval for public comment and hearing.
3.1 The TOCDF/JACADS Trial Burn Data Relied Upon By
EPA Is Grossly Defective and Provides No Basis For
Issuing An Approval to Incinerate PCBs
EPA's regulations require that an incinerator achieve a 99.9999 (6-9s)
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) on PCBs. Draft Approval at 9.
DRE is calculated by measuring the amount of PCBs placed in the waste
stream, and sampling to determine what amount is released into the
environment from the stack. Draft Approval at 9.
EPA failed to require and the Army failed to perform a DRE test
consistent with agency regulations or standards. The record made available
by EPA does not indicate that the PCB testing done at TOCDF included a
precise measurement of the amount of PCBs that went into the incinerator
during various tests. Consequently, EPA and the Army cannot know what
percentage of the PCBs fed to the incinerator were emitted from the stack.
government agency officials may be guilty of child abuse?
In addition, several significant errors or weaknesses in the JACADS
testing provide no support for EPA's Draft Approval.
· The narrative log for the test burn indicates numerous problems with the
system and notes that sampling was delayed during these system failures
and shutdowns. As these types of systematic problems are to be an
expected part of daily operations and will produce emissions and
wastewater and ash, the sampling should have been continued to monitor
the efficiency of the system during non-optimal conditions.
· The narrative log indicates that the end product ash was sampled after it
had cooled. There is no indication that the ash was monitored or tested
in any way as the cooling process took place. Because many of the
contaminants of concern in this instance are volatile and semi-volatile
organic compounds that would tend to elute from heated media, this
represents a potential totally unmonitored source of air contamination
and unreported system inefficiency.
· No sample trains utilized had a recovery rate in the laboratory of more
than 83.8 % of the PCB spiked into the system. Therefore, the values
reported for PCB emissions and utilized to calculate DRE should have
been increased by a minimum of 16.2 % prior to the DRE calculation.
The average recovery rate for PCBs in the laboratory for all runs was a
very low 68.93 %. Each sample value reported should have been
appropriately and proportionally adjusted for recovery rate prior to
calculation of the DRE.
· The concentrations of a pre-measured PCB surrogate feed into the
incinerator during testing was actually recoverable from the various
sampling media. The average recovery rate for Run 1 was 67.74 %,
Run 2 at 71.66 %, Run 3 at 70.21% and Run 4 at an astonishingly low
34.1 %. Five samples in Run 4 were spiked with PCB surrogate that
was entirely undetected during analysis. Therefore, it is clear that the
DRE calculations presented were likely made on the basis of the small
fraction of the actual PCB recoverable by use of collection Method 5 and
standard analytical laboratory protocol. In any case, the DRE
calculations presented must be adjusted proportional to recovery values
provided by QA/QC data.
In addition, despite prior experience at JACADS, TOCDF still had
great difficulty achieving 99.9999 percent DRE during testing. This
problem was primarily attributed to some gasket material in the
incinerator system that was alleged to contain trace amounts of PCBs.
However, during a recent public meeting in Utah on this issue, EPA
officials admitted that no PCBs were detected on the actual gaskets
used during the testing. Therefore, claims by the EPA and the Army
that some gasket material distorted the DRE test results cannot be
supported by the record. EPA must reject the TOCDF DRE test results
as inadequate and deny the Army's request to incinerate PCBs.
Finally, it is very important to note that the test burn conditions
relied upon by EPA to issue an approval to the Army to burn PCBs is
in no manner representative of operational conditions of the DFS at
TOCDF. The Army is presently bypassing the punch and drain steps
in the process and feeding rockets directly into the DFS. This process
of incinerating essentially the entire rocket, shipping/firing tubes,
agent, and the rest, in the DFS has never been subject to test burns.
The lack of testing means that little is known about DRE, PICs, and
other important issues that serve as indicators of the quality of DFS
operations. Consequently, EPA cannot rely on data that was produced
during test burns that were not representative of real-life operations.
The Approval To Incinerate PCBs Fails to Provide Firm and Enforceable Standards
EPA must set firm and enforceable standards that are based on what is
needed to adequately protect human health and the environment. Once
these standards are firmly set, EPA must require that the Army and its
contractors accurately and continuously collect and report on data obtained
during incinerator operations. The EPA must require the Army and its
contractors to utilize on-line gas chromatography or another system or
combination of systems that will provide continuous emission information
about all stack, vent, and fugitive emissions, including but not limited to:
PCBs, dioxins, furans, other dioxin-like chemicals, chlorine, metals, and
other hazardous compounds. The emission data collected must also be
analyzed using muti-dimensional gas chromatography / mass spectroscopy
(MDGC/MS). Such a combination of analytical techniques will provide the
best data about the quantities and species of PCBs and other elements or
compounds being emitted from the Army's incinerators.
All data and analyses collected and created by the referenced systems
should be placed on-line for general review by the public. Information
must be placed on-line as it is collected and evaluated by the Army and its
contractors. In no case should the information provided by the Army and
its contractors be made available any later than it is made available to the
EPA or state agencies. The EPA must also require the Army and its
contractors to certify the information placed on-line. This will allow the
public to determine the status of the incinerator and will prompt citizen-
directed enforcement action as needed.
The Draft Approva l will not allow citizens to obtain timely or accurate
information that will allow them to protect their health and environment.
One can hardly expect successful enforcement of requirements that restrict
the emission of PCBs without clear and timely data being made available
regarding PCB incineration activities. Speculation about how much PCBs
(or other substance) may have been emitted during an upset condition
creating high level of carbon monoxide (CO) is not an acceptable method
for ensuring protection of public health and enforcement. Moreover,
speculation about the quantity of PCBs being fed to the incinerator or the
amount of PCBs being emitted from the stack does not provide the EPA or
citizens with adequate tools for compliance monitoring and enforcement.
EPA must require continuous monitoring and publication of such
information; otherwise effective compliance monitoring and enforcement
will be unattainable. The inability to ensure compliance monitoring and
enforcement means that public health and the environment cannot be
adequately protected.
Next, the Draft Approval specifies a destruction removal efficiency
(DRE) of 99.9999 percent on PCBs. However, in addition to problems
mentioned previously, it is clear from the scientific literature that such
destruction efficiencies cannot be achieved on low concentrations of PCBs
and other wastes in the waste feed. To date, and despite indications at the
Army's JACADS facility in the Pacific and Tooele facility in Utah that the
Army's incinerator cannot meet the 6-9s DRE standard, the EPA has failed
to address how the Army can be expected to incinerate relatively low
concentrations (for DRE purposes) of PCBs in the Army's waste stream.
The EPA's findings regarding the TOCDF DFS incinerator indicate a high
concentration of PCBs in firing/shipping tubes for rockets of 5,800 ppm
and an average concentration of 1,247 ppm. The literature indicates that to
achieve a 6-9s DRE using and incinerator requires a feed at concentrations
at least 10,000 ppm.
Under EPA contract Midwest Research Institute (MRI) and others have
performed extensive field tests on a wide variety of practical incineration
devices. The objectives of these tests were to characterize the waste
destruction performance of present incineration technology and to
determine if any common factors correlate waste destruction among full-
scale units. To address the second objective MRI performed an extensive
statistical treatment of their data. The most significant statistical correlation
found was the relationship between waste penetration (= 1 - DRE/100) and
waste concentration in the original feed stream.
One item of significance in the study performed by MRI is that all
points above the horizontal dashed line (of Figure 5-1 in the study)
represent noncompliance under the 99.99 percent DRE rule. These results
indicate that current technology has difficulty meeting the licensing
regulations when the waste represents less than 1,000 ppm in the feed
stream. This finding has significance with respect to waste streams
contaminated by low concentrations of extremely hazardous materials (e.g.
dioxin or chlorophenol contaminated pesticides).
It is important to note that Figure 5-1 in the MRI study and the data
collected there indicates that a DRE of 99.9999 percent was achieved only
with those chemicals present in the waste at concentrations greater than
10,000 ppm; a DRE of 99.99 percent was achieved only with waste
components present at concentrations greater than 100 ppm. Therefore, low
concentration of hazardous constituents and PCBs will not be destroyed at a
4-9s or 6-9s DRE. The Army's incinerators will not achieve 6-9s DRE on
concentrations of PCBs less than 10,000 ppm.
EPA must establish trial burn and other testing conditions that will
ensure the incinerator can handle the types of wastes and concentrations
present in the chemical warfare agent stockpile waste stream. This
specifically means testing to determine if the incinerator can destroy PCBs
at less than 10,000 ppm and other hazardous constituents at less than 100
ppm.
Moreover, DRE as defined by EPA, does not ensure adequate
"destruction" of the PCBs contained in the Army's chemical warfare agent
waste stream. There are significant quantities of PCBs and dioxins in ash
and other process streams. EPA does not evaluate how these wastes will be
treated and what impact these wastes will have on human health and the
environment.
As [Rachel] Carson warned in one of her last speeches, this
contamination has been an unprecedented experiment: "We are
subjecting whole populations to exposure to chemicals which
animal experiments have proved to be extremely poisonous and
in many cases cumulative in their effects. These exposures
begin at or before birth and - unless we change our methods -
will continue through the lifetime of those now living. No one
knows what the results will be because we have no previous
experience to guide us."
-Vice President Al Gore, January 22, 1996
One of the little advertised features of incinerators is their ability to
create new hazardous substances from the waste stream being treated.
These new creations are often referred to as products of incomplete
combustion (PICs). The Army's incinerators will create and release PICs
when PCB-contaminated and other components of the Army's waste stream
are incinerated. It is important to note that PICs are not created and/or
released by other technologies that were not considered by the EPA or the
Army.
A recent EPA research report on the emissions of hazardous waste
incinerators provides the following critical assessment:
It can be concluded from these experiments that the current sampling
and analytical schemes for characterizing HWC [hazardous waste
combustion] emissions are inadequate and provide an incomplete
picture of the emission profile. This is primarily due to the presence
of an extremely complex mixture of organic compounds in the HWC
emission samples.... the number of compounds suspected to be
present in incinerator emissions may be an order of magnitude
greater than initially suspected.
Development of a Hazardous Waste Incinerator Target Analyte List of
Products of Incomplete Combustion; EPA Office of Solid Waste; National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park (USEPA -
600/R-98-076 July 1998) at 4-1 (emphasis added) ("EPA PIC Study
1998"). The information provided in this EPA report reveals that any
assessment of risks caused by emissions from the Army's incinerators is
flawed, it also means that the assessment of risks caused by release of
chemicals from a the filter units and other facility components has not been
properly characterized.
In general, an evaluation of the literature on PICs indicates that only
about fifteen (15) percent of the PICs that will be produced by a hazardous
waste incinerator have been identified. (See, e.g., Trenholm, A.R., C.C. Lee,
"Analysis of PIC and Total Mass Emissions from an Incinerator," U.S.
EPA and Midwest Research Institute.) Of course, this means that aboutninety percent of PICs are unidentified. This enormous data gap poses
serious concerns for proper assessment of the human health and
environmental risks posed by the operation of the Army's incinerators. This
problem of PIC identification, quantification, and toxicity analysis is well
known to the agencies and the incinerator industry.
In an assessment of incineration, EPA found, "[v]ery few tests have
been conducted to identify and quantify PICs from hazardous waste
combustors under nonoptimum conditions." (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, "Background Document for the Development of PIC Regulations
for Hazardous Waste Incinerators, Draft Final Report, Washington, D.C.,
October 1989.) Moreover, the relationship
between incinerator performance during brief trial burns and that achieved
during routine operations has been characterized as follows: "The trial burn
data only indicate how well the incinerator was operating during the time
that the data were being taken, typically only a period of a few days. No
information is obtained on how the incinerator might respond if fuel, or
especially waste, conditions change. ... It is difficult to generalize the results
of a trial burn to predict how the composition of the incinerator exhaust
will change under these varying conditions." (Staley, L., M. Richards, G. Huffman,
and D. Chang, "Incinerator Operating Parameters Which
Correlate with Performance, " EPA/600/2-86/091, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1986.)
The following observation from a EPA study is applicable to the
Army's incinerators: "One present concern for application of incineration
technology is that the hazard associated with a waste stream may not be
removed even though the original waste compounds are destroyed.
Transformation of the waste into hazardous products of incomplete
combustion (PICs) can potentially aggravate the hazard associated with the
waste stream. For example, a hazardous but nontoxic waste can be partially
transformed into chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins or dibenzofurans upon
incineration." (J.C. Kramlich, E.M. Poncelet, R.E. Charles, W.R. Seeker, G.S.
Samuelsen, and J.A. Cole, "Experimental Investigation of Critical
Fundamental Issues in Hazardous Waste Incineration," EPA/600/2-89/048,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, September 1989.) Chlorinated dioxins and furans are formed when carbon
and the halogen, chlorine, are present in the waste fed into incinerators and
other combustion systems. Polyhalogenated dioxins and furans and other
dioxin-like chemicals will undoubtedly be among the products of
incomplete combustion released during the incineration of mixed waste, just
as they are among the "thousands of different compounds" that are,
according to EPA, typically found in the stack emissions of hazardous waste
incinerator. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Incinerators and Burning of Hazardous Wastes in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces; Proposed and Supplemental Proposed Rule,
Technical Corrections, and Request for Comments," 55 Fed. Reg. 82, April 27, 1990.)
There has been no full identification of the mass of pollutants known
to be present in stack gases in any trial burn at any hazardous waste
incinerator, nor is this likely to be achieved: "PIC emissions are composed
of thousands of different compounds, some of which are in very minute
quantities and cannot be detected and quantified without very elaborate and
expensive sampling and analytical [S&A] techniques. Such elaborate S&A
work is not feasible in trial burns for permitting purposes and can only be
done in research tests. Very few research tests have been conducted to date
to identify and quantify all the PICs in a typical emissions sample, and
whenever done were unsuccessful because sampling and analysis techniques
are not available to identify or quantify many of the potential compounds
emitted, nor are toxicity data available for all the compounds." ( Id. (EPA 1990).)
All of the referenced studies point to the same conclusion: The
incineration technology proposed by the Army to dispose of PCB-
contaminated materials produces unknown emissions that cannot be
properly assessed to determine the full extent of potential human health and
environmental impacts. Consequently, the EPA may not issue an Approval.
There are documented worldwide increases in the number of
diseases or conditions of the reproductive system in infants,
children, and adults that may be linked to early exposures to
hormonally active chemicals . . . the world's populations of
humans and wildlife participate in the ongoing experiment.
- From "Generations at Risk: Reproductive Health and the
Environment" (Schettler, Solomon, Valenti, and Huddle, "Generations at
Risk: Reproductive Health and the Environment," MIT Press 1999, pp. 168-169.)
As mentioned previously, the Army's chemical warfare agent
incinerators and related components will create and/or release dangerous
contaminates such as: PCBs, dioxins, furans, metals, and a host of other
known and unknown substances. As it is the focus of EPA's nationwide
approval effort, we will first discuss PCBs.
Like its cousins from the dioxin family, PCBs are a very dangerous class
of chemicals that are presently spread throughout the world, including the
bodies of most humans. The analysis of the dangers associated with PCB
emissions is similar to that of dioxins. Simply stated, people in the United
States are already overexposed to PCBs. The following passage makes the
point.
It appears that despite a twenty-year ban on U.S. production, PCB
exposures at current ambient environmental levels impair
intellectual and motor development of children. The
environmental persistence of these chemicals and their tendency to
bioaccumulate ensure continued exposure for years to come.
("Generations at Risk," p.179 [emphasis added]. See the
review of the scientific evidence supporting the quoted statement at pp. 175 - 179.)
This statement is consistent with the views of many distinguished scientists
who met in Erice, Sicily in November 1995 regarding environmental
endocrine disrupting chemicals. The consensus statement of those scientists,
in part, is reflected here.
The full range of substances interfering with natural endocrine
modulation of neural and behavioral development cannot be entirely
defined at present. However, compounds shown to have endocrine
effects include dioxins, PCBs, phenolics, phthalates, and many
pesticides. Any compounds mimicking or antagonizing actions of, or
altering levels of, neurotransmitters, hormones, and growth factors in
the developing brain are potentially in this group.
* * * * * *
Because certain PCBs and dioxins are known to impair normal
thyroid function, we suspect that they contribute to learning
disabilities, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and
perhaps other neurological abnormalities. In addition, many
pesticides affect thyroid function and, therefore, may have similar
consequences.
Statement from the work session on environmental endocrine disrupting
chemicals: Neural, endocrine and behavioral effects, Erice, Sicily,
November 1995 [emphasis in original]. (The authors of the Erice Statement are
Dr. Enrico Alleva, Head Section of Behavioral Pathophysiology Institute of
Neurobiology, Rome, Italy; Dr. John Brock, Chief, PCBs and Pesticides Laboratory
National Center for Environmental Health Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta, GA; Dr. Abraham Brouwer Associate Professor and Toxicology and
Research Coordinator Department of Toxicology Agricultural University
Wageningen, The Netherlands; Dr. Theo Colborn, Senior Program Scientist Wildlife and
>Contaminants Project World Wildlife Fund Washington, DC; Dr. M. Cristina Fossi, Professor Department of
Environmental Biology University of Siena, Siena, Italy; Dr. Earl Gray Section Chief
Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Section US EPA Research Triangle
Park, NC; Dr. Louis Guillette, Professor Department of Zoology
University of Florida Gainesville, FL; Peter Hauser, MD, Chief of
Psychiatry Service (116A) Baltimore VAMC 10 North Greene Street Baltimore,
MD; Dr. John Leatherland, Professor, Chair Department of Biomedical Sciences
Ontario Veterinary College University of Guelph Ontario, Canada; Dr. Neil
MacLusky, Professor Director Basic Research Div of Reproductive Science
Toronto Hospital Ontario, Canada; Dr. Antonio Mutti, Professor Laboratory of
Industrial Toxicology University of Parma Medical School, Parma, Italy;
Dr. Paola Palanza, Researcher Department of Biology and Physiology
University of Parma, Parma, Italy; Dr. Susan Porterfield Associate Professor
and Associate Dean of Curriculum Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA; Dr.
Risto Santti, Associate Professor Department of Anatomy Institute of
Biomedicine University of Turku Turku, Finland; Dr. Stuart A. Stein,
Associate Professor or Neurology, Medicine, Pediatrics, OB-GYN, and
Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology University of Miami School of Medicine,
Miami, FL and Chief of Neurology Children's Hospital of Orange County,
Orange, CA; Dr. Frederick vom Saal Professor Division of Biological Sciences
University of MO Columbia, MO; Dr. Bernard Weiss Professor
Department of Environmental Medicine University of Rochester School of
Medicine and Dentistry Rochester, NY.)
We cannot afford to add additional PCBs to our already overexposed
bodies and environment. As the literature cited points out, we may already
be at or above the danger point. The incineration technologies proposed by
the Army's create and release many known and unknown dangerous
substances. (In fact, incineration is probably the worst technology from a public health and
environmental perspective. See, Pat Costner, D. Luscombe, M. Simpson, "Technical Criteria
for the Destruction of Stockpiled Persistent Organic Pollutants," Greenpeace, October 7,
1998. This report eloquently discusses the weaknesses of incineration and describes other
technologies that may be more suitable for dealing with persistent organic chemicals [e.g.,
PCBs].)
No set of approval conditions that could be crafted can erase
the dangerous flaws in the proposed technologies. Therefore, the EPA, by
law, must reject the Army's plan to incinerate PCBs.
As documented above, PCBs are of great concern to human health
because they are resistant to breakdown in the environment and concentrate
in the fatty tissues of animals and people. Recently, the U.S. Public Health
Service, The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry noted:
Recent findings indicate that susceptible populations (e.g., certain
ethnic groups, sport anglers, the elderly, pregnant women, children,
fetuses, and nursing infants) continue to be exposed to PCBs via fish
and wildlife consumption. Human health studies discussed in this
summary indicate that: 1) reproductive function may be disrupted by
exposure to PCBs; 2) neurobehavioral and developmental deficits
occur in newborns and continue through school-aged children who
had in utero exposure to PCBs; 3) other systemic effects (e.g., self-
reported liver disease and diabetes, and effects on the thyroid and
immune systems) are associated with elevated serum levels of PCBs;
and 4) increased cancer risks, e.g., non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, are
associated with PCB exposures.
"Public Health Implications Of Exposure To Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs)," U.S. Public Health Service, The Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Revised February 2, 1999).
In fact, separate studies on U.S., Dutch, Japanese, and Taiwanese
populations link fetal and infant exposure to PCBs with a wide range of
neurological and developmental problems, including lower IQ, poor short
term memory, slower reflexes, poor reading comprehension, low birth
weight, and poor cognitive functioning. (Longnecker, MP, WJ Rogan and G Lucier, "The
human health effects of DDT
(dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and an
overview of organochlorines in public health," Annual Review of Public Health,
18:211-244, 1997.)
When alternatives to incineration are clearly available there is no reason to subject humans or
the environment to the dangers of PCBs.
PCBs can "bio-magnify," increasing in concentration at each higher
level of the food chain. Food chain exposures to PCBs can exceed
inhalation exposure by 10 to 3000 times, depending on food consumption
patterns. (D. Cleverly, U.S. EPA, G. Rice, U.S. EPA, S. Durkee, U.S. EPA,F. Bradforn, ORNL, C.
Travis, ORNL, "Estimating Total Human Exposure to Toxic Air Pollutants Emitted from
the Stack of Municipal Waste Combustors," paper presented at the 1993 International
Municipal Waste Combustion Conference, Williamsburg, VA, March 30,-April 2 [Sponsored
by the Air and Waste Management Association and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.])
The EPA is also well aware of the fact that PCBs often travel
long distances to impact communities and water bodies that are some
distance away from the source of the PCBs. The issue of long and medium
range transport of PCBs and other persistent compounds is most evident in
EPA's work involving the Great Lakes. See, e.g., Great Lakes Mass
Balance Study. Spreading the risk of PCB dispersion through poorly
designed incineration fails to protect human health or the environment
from unreasonable risk as mandated by TSCA.
What is most disturbing about EPA's plan to provide the Army with
nationwide approval for the incineration of PCB-contaminated wastes is
that the Agency callously disregards current human health and
environmental issues that clearly warrant a ban on emissions of PCBs,
dioxins, and other dangerous substances. Examples of current PCB
impacts are apparent in the communities in and around Anniston,
Alabama. (Some of the story behind the PCB contamination in Anniston is well told in a recent
published article. See, What Monsanto Knew: Outraged by PCB Contamination, an Alabama
Town Unearths a Company's Past , by Nancy Beiles, The Nation , May 2000) Anniston is one of the communities slated to receive an
incinerator to dispose of the stockpile of chemical warfare agents stored
there.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
has found that "[e]xposures to PCBs in soil in parts of Anniston present a
public health hazard." (Evaluation of Soil, Blood & Air Data From Anniston,
Alabama Calhoun County, Alabama, ATSDR Health Consultation, Executive
Summary.) ATSDR further found that "young children [in
Anniston] have elevated levels of PCBs." (Id.) EPA has failed to consider the
current human health and environmental conditions in and around
Anniston, Tooele, Umatilla, and Pine Bluff before deciding to allow the
Army to incinerate PCB-contaminated materials. This is a gross abdication
of EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment. (EPA's failure to consider the impacts on the children of Anniston and those in and
around the other impacted areas violates the President's directive on protecting the health of
children from environmental contaminates. See, Executive Order 13045.)
Moreover, EPA has failed to consider the Envir onmental Justice
consequences of allowing the Army to incinerate PCB-contaminated
materials in its chemical warfare agent incinerators. Communities that are
politically disenfranchised or that have been historically subject to
discrimination live in and around the areas where the Army plans to
incinerate PCB-contaminated material and other components of the
chemical warfare agent stockpile. The failure of the EPA to fully assess
the consequences of the planned PCB incineration Approval on these
communities violates their civil rights and principles of Environmental
Justice. See, e.g., Executive Order 12898. The further failure to
consider less harmful alternatives to incineration is a violation of NEPA
and the Executive Order. (Implementation of non-incineration technologies for destruction of chemical
weapons, including those containing PCBs, could greatly reduce the risk of exposure to PCBs
throughout the demilitarization process. Some technologies - including some of the
technologies being demonstrated through the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment
(ACWA) program - have proven capability of treating PCBs to EPA's required DRE and
have achieved overall greater destruction efficiency of PCBs than that of
incineration. The very nature of the ACWA review criteria and demonstration results,
establishes that these technologies are also much more likely to be accepted by the public
than is incineration. The Army and EPA would be well served to seek destruction
technologies which accomplish greater protection of public health and the environment from
PCBs, dioxins and other persistent chemicals which would otherwise be released through an
incinerator smokestack.)
5.2. The Impacts From Dioxin Emissions Will Cause Harm.
Although EPA's planned approval only focuses on PCBs, the Agency is
well aware that the incineration of PCB-contaminated materials will also
create other dangerous emissions. One dangerous chemical that is often
analyzed together with PCBs because of similarities in persistence and
health and environmental impact is dioxin.
In general, the family of chemicals referred to as dioxin has been
described as follows:
In the world of synthetic chemicals, dioxin has enjoyed the reputation
of being the worst of the troublemakers--the most deadly, the most
feared, and the most elusive to scientists seeking to unravel the secrets
of its toxicity. Lab tests had shown dioxin to be thousands of times
more deadly than arsenic to guinea pigs, who died after swallowing
only one-millionth of a gram per kilogram of body weight, and the
most potent carcinogen ever tested in a number of animal species.
. . . the chemical known to scientists as 2,3,7,8-TCDD [one form of
dioxin] and to the public as the "most toxic chemical on earth"-is for
the most part an inadvertent by-product of twentieth-century life, a
contaminant created during the manufacture of certain chlorine-
containing chemicals such as pesticides and wood preservatives . . .
incinerating trash . . . and burning fossil fuels. Like DDT and PCBs,
dioxin is a fat-loving persistent compound that accumulates in the
body. And like other persistent chemicals it has been detected
virtually everywhere-in air, water, soil, sediment, and food.
Although discussion usually focuses on 2,3,7,8-TCDD, it is important
to remember this is only the most toxic and notorious member of the
dioxin family, which contains 74 other problematic chemicals.
Moreover, dioxin is found more often than not in the company of
furans-a related family of contaminants containing 135 chemicals
with a structure similar to dioxins and with similar toxic and
biological effects on animals. ("Our Stolen Future," p. 113.)
Actually, the dioxin family is likely even larger than described in the
passage quoted when one considers brominated, bromochloro, and sulfur
analogs of dioxins and furans. (EPA PIC Study 1998 at 1-1 [complete citation in text].)
In an effort to understand and assess the potential impacts of dioxin
and related compounds, EPA has been involved in an evaluation of these
dangerous chemicals. EPA has provided, in part, the following assessment:
. . . [data suggests] dioxin results in a broad spectrum of
biochemical and biological effects in animals and, based on
limited data, some of these effects occur in humans. Relatively
speaking, these exposures and effects are observable at very low
levels in the laboratory and in the environment when compared
with other environmental toxicants. [emphasis in original] (EPA's
Dioxin Health Assessment, Draft, Aug. 1994) at 9-74.
These compounds . . . are extremely potent in producing a variety of
effects in experimental animals based on traditional toxicology
studies at levels hundreds or thousands of times lower than most
synthetic chemicals of environmental interest. In addition, human
studies demonstrate that exposure to dioxin and related compounds is
associated with subtle biochemical and biological changes whose
clinical is as yet unknown . . . Id. at 9-74 to 9-75.
A large variety of sources of dioxin have been identified and
others may exist. Because dioxin-like chemicals are persistent
and accumulate in biological tissues, particularly in animals, the
major route of human exposure is through ingestion of foods
containing minute quantities of dioxin-like compounds. Certain
segments of the population may be exposed to additional
increments of exposure by being in proximity to point sources or
because of dietary practices. [Emphasis in original] Id. at 9-75.
There is adequate evidence based upon all available information,
including studies in human populations as well as in laboratory
animals and from ancillary experimental data, to support the
inference that humans are likely to respond to a broad spectrum
of effects from exposure to dioxin and related compounds, if
exposures are high enough. These effects will likely range from
adaptive changes at or near background levels of exposure to
adverse effects with increasing severity as exposure increases
above background levels. [Emphasis in original] Id. at 9-79.
In TCDD-exposed men, subtle changes in biochemistry and
physiology, such as enzyme induction, altered levels of
circulating reproductive hormones, or reduced glucose tolerance,
have been detected in a limited number of available studies.
These findings, coupled with knowledge derived from animal
experiments, suggest the potential for adverse impacts on human
metabolism and developmental and/or reproductive biology and,
perhaps, other effects in the range of current human exposures .
. . As body burdens increase within and above [average
background intake], the probability and severity as well as the
spectrum of human noncancer effects most likely increase . . . the
margin of exposure (MOE) between background levels and levels
where effects are detectable in humans in terms of TEQs is
considerably smaller than previously estimated. [Emphasis in
original]. Id. at 9-81.
With regard to carcinogenicity, a weight-of-evidence evaluation
suggests that dioxin and related compounds (CDDs, CDFs, and
dioxin-like PCBs) are likely to present a cancer hazard to
humans. [Emphasis in original]. Id. at 9-85.
Concerning the carcinogenicity of dioxin-like compounds, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which is part of the World Health
Organization (WHO) has formally defined the most potent member of the
dioxin family as being carcinogenic to humans. See, 1997 Abstract of
IARC Monograph. Among other things, the IARC stated that "[b]ecause of
the long half lives of many [dioxin-like] substances in humans (e.g., ca. 7
years for TCDD), a single, acute exposure from the environment results in
the exposure of the potential target tissues for a period of years." Id. at 1.
Physicians and scientists who have reviewed EPA's work on the
assessment of dioxin as well as other data concerning the current impacts of
dioxins provide similar warnings.
The extensive six-year EPA review documents a wide range of health
effects that result from exposure to dioxin, some of which occur at
extremely low exposure levels, and provides important information
about dioxin sources. Although there is some variation with
geographical location and diet, many people have dioxin levels at
or near those known to cause harmful effects in animal
studies. ("Generations at Risk," p. 170 (emphasis added), citing, Birnbaum LS. The mechanism of
dioxin toxicity: relationship to risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 102(Suppl 9): 157-
167, 1994.)
Investigators in the Netherlands found that higher dioxin levels in
breast milk correlate with lower thyroid hormone levels in breast-
feeding infants. ("Generations at Risk," p. 175, citing, Koopman-Esseboom C, Morse D, Weisglas-
Kuperus N, et al. Effects of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls on thyroid hormone
status of pregnant women and their infants. Pediatr Res 36:468-473, 1994.)
This finding is particularly important since the
correlation appears at current levels of ambient dioxin exposure.
Moreover, in pre-term and low-birth-weight babies, decreased
thyroid hormone in the first weeks of life is associated with increased
risk or neurological disorders, including the need for special
education by age nine. ("Generations at Risk," p. 175 (emphasis added), citing, den Oden AL, Verkerk PH, et al.
The relation between neonatal thyroxine levels and neurodevelopmental outcome at age 5
and 9 years in a national cohort of very preterm and/or very low birth weight infants.
Pediatr Res 39:142-145, 1996.)
Once dioxin occupies the receptor in a human cell, researchers have
found it binds to DNA in the cell nucleus, prompting many of the
same changes in gene expression seen in animal experiments.
Humans seem no less sensitive to this effect. But what happens
afterwards to produce all of dioxin's disparate biological effects,
including developmental disruption, remains a mystery. However it
happens, dioxin acts like a powerful and persistent hormone that
is capable of producing lasting effects at very low doses--doses
similar to levels found in the human population.
("Our Stolen Future," p. 120 [emphasis added].)
. . . no matter which agency's calculations are used to establish safe
daily intake levels of dioxins, the average daily intake of the average
person, approximately 120 pg, exceeds or equals them all. The
average daily intake of Americans, which is about 2 pg/kg bw
(Schecter, 1999) is more than 200 times higher than the EPA dose,
twice the ATSDR MRL, and in the middle of the WHO TDI range.
If dioxin-like PCBs are included, then the daily intake of dioxin is
that much higher than these standard guidelines . . . the average daily
intake of dioxin in the U.S. is well above these federal and
international guidelines. (Center for Health, Environment and Justice, "
American People's Dioxin Report: Technical Support Document,"
Falls Church, VA, November 1999, at 33.)
. . . dioxin harms people at body burden levels ranging from 14 to 83
ng/kg, levels comparable to those that harm other animals. If
depression of the immune system occurs at 7 ng/kg . . . and
Americans have an average dioxin body burden of 10 ng/kg, then the
immune system of some Americans may be compromised, and any
general increase in dioxin exposure may be even more harmful to the
general population. Whether one uses daily intake rates or body
burdens, the levels of dioxin that Americans have been exposed to are
harmful or just short of being near harmful. Dioxin is an ubiquitous
toxin that reaches people in a most fundamental way: through our
food. Whether that food comes from supermarket shelves, fish in a
river, or breast milk, it contains measurable and often harmful
amounts of dioxin. (Id. at 36.)
As the work done by EPA and the analyses provided by independent
physicians and scientists makes clear, we already have enough dioxin in our
bodies to cause a variety of health effects. Adding more dioxin to the
environment through incineration of the Army's PCB-contaminated
materials will surely cause harm or increase the harm already being
experienced.
EPA's concerns about dioxin and related compounds are shared by
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). See,
ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins,
December 1998. ATSDR outlines a number of important concerns
regarding dioxin:
[B]ecause of the magnitude of uncertainty in dose response
relationships for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the possibility that current
background exposures may be sufficient to contribute to a risk of
adverse health effects in human populations cannot be completely
excluded. [ Id. at 266].
Children appear to be unusually susceptible to the dermal toxicity of
2,3,7,8-TCDD . . . Additionally, the available animal data suggests
that the developing fetus is very sensitive to 2,3,7,8-TCDD-induced
toxicity. 2,3,7,8-TCDD appears to interfere with the development of
the reproductive, immune, and nervous systems; the mechanisms of
action for these toxic effects have not been elucidated. [ Id. at 317].
2,3,7,8-TCDD through dietary habits if they are: breast-fed; children of
local fishers who consume larger amounts of local fish than the general
population; children of subsistence hunters; or children of subsistence
farmers. Id. at 477 - 478. In general populations that face potentially high
exposures to 2,3,7,8-TCDD include: persons exposed through
environmental contamination; persons living near waste disposal facilities;
recreational and subsistence fishers; subsistence hunters; and subsistence
farmers. Id. at 485 - 497. Unfortunately, it is clear that the Army's
incinerators will create dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and cause them to
be released into the environment. It is equally clear on the present record
that EPA has failed to analyze the combined impacts of the PCBs, dioxins,
and other hazardous compounds that will be released by the Army's
incinerators.
In sum, because the Army incinerators will release PCBs, dioxins, and
other hazardous chemicals, and harmful effects may already be occurring as
a result of current exposures to these compounds, there are no Approval
conditions that can adequately protect human health and the environment.
Consequently, EPA must deny the Army's request for nationwide approval
to incinerate PCB-contaminated materials.
6. Conclusion
EPA's plan to allow the Army to incinerate PCB-contaminated
materials in Anniston, Pine Bluff, Tooele, and Umatilla violates NEPA,
TSCA, the civil rights of the directly impacted populations, principles of
Environmental Justice, and the rights of children. EPA has failed to
properly notice the public and provide accessible information regarding its
intentions to provide authorization for the Army to incinerate PCB-
contaminated wastes. In addition, members of the public who will be
injured by the release of PCBs and other dangerous substances have not
been afforded an evidentiary hearing.
These serious deficiencies require EPA to deny the Army's request
for nationwide approval to incinerate PCB-contaminated wastes. In
addition, any temporary approvals for PCB incineration that may have been
provided to the Army for operations in Tooele or on Kalama Island must be
immediately withdrawn. Alternatively, the Draft Approval must be
withdrawn, revised, and reissued for public comments and the proper
evidentiary hearings once the noted deficiencies have been corrected.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard E. Condit, Esq.
1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 1004
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-955-6968 ext. 4 27
Counsel for the Commentors
Effective May 22, 2000, Counsel's new street address will be CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: |