Toxic Chemicals in America: Controversies in Human and Environmental Health [2 Volumes] [1 & 2 (A-Z)] 2020015799, 2020015800, 9781440857546, 9781440857553, 9781440857522, 9781440857539

Citation preview

About the pagination of this eBook This eBook contains a multi-volume set. To navigate the front matter of this eBook by page number, you will need to use the volume number and the page number, separated by a hyphen. For example, to go to page v of volume 1, type “1-v” in the Go box at the bottom of the screen and click "Go." To go to page v of volume 2, type “2-v”… and so forth.

Toxic Chemicals in America

Toxic Chemicals in America Controversies in Human and Environmental Health

VOLUME 1: A–H

Kelly A. Tzoumis, Editor

Copyright © 2021 by ABC-CLIO, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Tzoumis, Kelly A., author. Title: Toxic chemicals in America : controversies in human and environmental health / Kelly A. Tzoumis, editor. Description: Santa Barbara, California : ABC-CLIO, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020015799 (print) | LCCN 2020015800 (ebook) | ISBN 9781440857546 (v. 1 ; hardcover) | ISBN 9781440857553 (v. 2 ; hardcover) | ISBN 9781440857522 (set ; hardcover) | ISBN 9781440857539 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Toxicological chemistry—United States. | Environmental toxicology—United States. Classification: LCC RA1219.3 .T68 2021 (print) | LCC RA1219.3 (ebook) | DDC 613/.10973—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020015799 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020015800 ISBN: 978-1-4408-5752-2 (set) 978-1-4408-5754-6 (vol. 1) 978-1-4408-5755-3 (vol. 2) 978-1-4408-5753-9 (ebook) 25  24  23  22  21   1  2  3  4  5 This book is also available as an eBook. ABC-CLIO An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC ABC-CLIO, LLC 147 Castilian Drive Santa Barbara, California 93117 ­w ww​.­abc​-­clio​.­com This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents

Alphabetical List of Entries  vii Preface xiii Acknowledgments  xv Introduction xvii A–Z Entries  1 About the Editor and Contributors  681 Index  683

Alphabetical List of Entries

VOLUME ONE Abbott Laboratories Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) Acute Toxicity versus Chronic Toxicity Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Air Contamination Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Airplane Emissions American Chemistry Council (ACC) Ammonia (NH3) Antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol) Arsenic (As) Asbestos Asthma Automobile Emissions Automotive Manufacturing Basel Action Network (BAN) Benzene (C6H6) Beryllium (Be) Beyond Pesticides Bhopal Disaster (1984) Bioavailability Biomarkers Bioremediation

Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2) Bleach (NaOCl) Blood Alcohol Toxicity BlueGreen Alliance Breast Cancer Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP) Brockovich, Erin (1960–) Brody, Charlotte (1948–) Bullard, Robert (1946–) Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound Cadmium (Cd) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Cancer Alley (Louisiana) Car and Household Batteries Carbon Disulfide (CS2) Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4) Carson, Rachel (1907–1964) Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Centers of Excellence on Environmental Health Disparities Research (EHD) Chemical Abstracts Service Registry (CAS)

viii

Alphabetical List of Entries

Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR) Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) Chemical Manufacturing Chemical Remediation Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016) Chernobyl Disaster (1986) Chevron Phillips Chemical Company and Chevron Corporation Child Impacts Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers Children’s Toys and Playgrounds Chlorine Gas (Cl2) Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Chloroform (CHCl3) Chromium (Cr) Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970) Clean Air Mercury Rule Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972) Clean Water Action (CWA) Coal and Coal Dust Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980) Confidential Business Information (CBI) and Trade Secrets (TS) Confined Disposal Facilities in the Great Lakes Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (1972) Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Cookstoves (Wood) Copper (Cu) Corrosives

Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of Council of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Sound Management of Chemicals Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico (1995) Cresol (C7H8O) Cumulative Impacts Cuyahoga River Fires (Cleveland, Ohio) Davis, Devra (1946–) De Minimis Limitations Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ) Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Delaney Clause Dermal Exposure Dermal Toxicity Developmental Neurotoxicity Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) Dioxins Dow Chemical Company DowDuPont, Inc. Drain Cleaners DuPont Chemical Company (E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company) Eastman Chemical Company Ecolab Inc. Electronics Recycling (E-Waste) Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986) Encapsulation Endocrine Disruptors Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)



Alphabetical List of Entries ix

Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism Environmental Movement (1970s) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Executive Order 12898 (1994) Executive Order 13148 (2000) Executive Order 13423 (2007) Executive Order 13650 (2013) Executive Order 13693 (2015) Exxon Mobil Corporation Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972) Fertility Impacts Fertilizers Fetal Impacts (In Utero Toxicity) Fish Contamination Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes Flammables and Combustibles Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination (2016) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996) Formaldehyde (CH2O) Fox, Josh (1972–) FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry Fruits and Vegetables Gasoline General Electric Company

Gibbs, Lois (1951–) Global Harmonization System (GHS) Gore, Al (1948–) Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (1997) Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA) (including Areas of Concern) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) (1972, 1978, 1987, 2012) Green Products and Services Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change Greenpeace Groundwater Contamination Halogens Hamilton, Alice (1869–1970) Hazardous Waste Health-Care Wastes Healthy Legacy Heavy Metals Herbicides High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW) Honeywell International Inc. Household Cleaners Household Exposure Household Hazardous Waste, Disposal of Household Paints Hudson River Superfund Site (1984) Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)

VOLUME TWO Immunotoxicity In Situ Vitrification

Industrial Solvents Insecticides

x

Alphabetical List of Entries

Institutional Monitoring and Controls International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) International Joint Commission (IJC) Johnson & Johnson JustGreen Partnership (JGP) Killer Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania (1948) Known to Be a Human Carcinogen Landfill Disposal Laundry Detergents Lead (Pb) Lead Prohibited in Automobile Gasoline Additive (1986) Learning Disabilities Lethal Dose 50% (LD50) Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) Love Canal, New York (1976) Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAEL) Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW) LyondellBasell Industries Maathai, Wangari (1940–2011) Meat and Fish Consumption Meat and Fish Toxicity Mercury (Hg) Metal Mining Methyl Alcohol or Methanol (CH4O or CH3OH) Milk Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) Mining Wastes Monsanto Company Montreal Protocol Mosaic Company Mothballs Nader, Ralph (1934–)

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network National Environmental Sacrifice Zones National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Laboratories National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Toxicology Program (NTP) Native American Impacts Natural Gas Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Nerve Agents Neurological Toxicity Nickel (Ni) No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) Nonstick Teflon Cooking Pan Coatings Nuclear Weapons Facilities Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Oil Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990) Oven Cleaners Overburdened Community Ozone Hole Paper Industry Parabens Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)



Alphabetical List of Entries xi

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Pesticides Petroleum Industry Phthalates Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) Phytoremediation Plutonium (Pu) Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (1990) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) PPG Industries, Inc. Praxair, Inc. Precocious Puberty Pregnancy, Toxic Chemicals during Prescription Drugs, Disposal of Project Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks (TENDR) Pulmonary and Cardiovascular Toxicity Pump and Treat Reasonably Anticipated to Be a Human Carcinogen Renal Toxic Chemicals (Nephrotoxicity) RESOLVE Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976) Respiratory Toxicity Risk Assessment Rodenticides Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974) Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Safer States Safety Data Sheets (SDS)

Secondhand Smoke Sediment Contamination Seniors, Environmental and Health Impacts on Sensitizers Sierra Club Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Soil Contamination SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP) State Emergency Responders State Public Health Agencies Steingraber, Sandra (1959–) Tar Tetrachloroethylene (Perc) Three Mile Island Accident (1979) Threshold Certification and Alternate Thresholds Threshold Limit Values (TLV) Times Beach, Missouri (1982) Tin and Tin Compounds (Tributyltin) Tobacco Smoke Toner Cartridges Toxaphene (C10H10Cl8) Toxic and Hazardous Substances Toxic Chemicals, Incineration of Toxic Release or Accident Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976) Toxic Waste and Race in the United States (1987 and 1990) Toxic-Free Legacy (TFL) Coalition Toxicity Labels Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Transuranic (TRU) Waste Trichloroethylene (TCE) (C2HCl3) Tuberculosis (TB)

xii

Alphabetical List of Entries

Underground Injection Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit 1992) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Uranium U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) Vaccination Controversy Vapor Vacuum Extraction of VOCs Vinyl Chloride (CHCl=H2C)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Vulnerable Population Impacts Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests (1983) Wasserman-Nieto, Kimberly (1977–) Water Contamination (Surface) WE ACT for Environmental Justice Women for a Healthy Environment (WHE) Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) Workplace and Occupational Exposure Workplace Lead Poisoning in Bayway, New Jersey (1924)

Preface

This expert reference book provides information on some of the most important toxic chemicals created and used across the world. Each of these toxic substances is part of a larger historical context. There are a series of public policies and laws, people and organizations, and events that shape how we manage these substances today. Understanding this complexity of events—science and technology, history and incidents—leads to a better understanding of how these toxic substances were formed, and this can lead to better management and prevention of toxic substances in the future. Questions are often asked today about how and why these toxic substances exist. The answer is not simple. It is this complexity of interactions that lays at the foundation for the niche of this book. It provides a guide that is not otherwise available in one source and places the toxic chemicals into context in an understandable and easy-to-use format. There is a need for this type of reference book because of the complexity in how these substances are produced and managed by our government agencies, which have continuously taken a fragmented, disjointed, and often incomprehensible approach. This has made it difficult for researchers and the general public alike to maintain knowledge of these substances and to understand how they may impact human health. The public has become more aware of these toxic chemicals in their everyday living over the years. Ironically, with an increased awareness by the public about toxic chemicals in our ecosystem, the need for clear and useful information has accelerated at the same time that access to this information has become more diffuse and complex. The wide variety of sources of information about toxic chemicals are often more technical or too narrow of focus for the reader to apply in everyday life. The goal of this book is to guide researchers, students, and the public through the maze of technical and scientific information available for a better understanding of the role toxic chemicals have in society and the context in which they are created, managed, and regulated. A notable feature of this book is its contribution to integration of information on toxic chemicals and public policies not found in other references. This two-volume reference set provides information that is grounded in research provided by regulatory and government agencies, international agencies, academic research, and reports on events surrounding these chemicals regarding

xiv Preface

human health and the environment to provide a larger focus on impacts to society. The contributors primarily represent academics who have achieved the highest degree in their profession. The benefit of having such a reference book is that it allows the reader to gain access to a variety of synthesized information on approximately three hundred entries related to toxic chemicals in one convenient source. The entries include a variety of toxic chemicals and substances and their impacts on human health. Other entries include the historical events surrounding the creation and exposure of these substances to the environment. Some entries discuss the laws, public policies, and people or organizations involved with the creation and regulation of these substances. The book also has entries for critical nonprofit organizations, trade associations, and the private-sector organizations that are intimately involved with toxic chemicals. Having information that includes the historical and public policy context creates a more informed understanding of toxic chemicals in our society.

Acknowledgments

The editor would like to acknowledge the contributors who participated in this reference book. With their contributions, the reference book is enriched by their expertise and research. The support of the publisher was also invaluable in the design and completion of the book. Dr. Toni Lesser and Ms. Brandy Brow were critical in its production. This work reflects a culmination of my career that has focused on integrating natural science and social science to better understand the impact of toxic chemicals on the lives of people. Most of all, completing this book could not have been possible without Mr. Tyrone Tiedeman, and it is dedicated to my daughter KellyJaneKara (KJK) Walker who is missed daily.

Introduction

Modern society has benefited from the progress and growth of scientific and technological innovations over time. These innovations have provided benefits to everyday life, and they have also contributed to the economic engines of the United States and other countries. These advances continue today. Some examples of these advances include increased agricultural output, enhanced transportation and energy production, improvements to health and medical treatments, and the conveniences of household and personal care products that are often taken for granted. These advances in science and technology come with each generation, and over time, they are highlighted with surges in production that can fuel economies and improve the socioeconomics of societies. This is where the story of toxic chemicals begins. Many of the conveniences in our daily lives from scientific and technological innovations come with human health and environmental risks in the form of toxic chemicals and substances. These toxic risks are often not realized at the time of a discovery or implementation of production. This cultural and historical context, in which toxic chemicals and their associated public policies need to be understood, is the approach of this book. Chemicals and substances are often discovered or created, adopted, and then later determined to be a risk for public health and the environment. This is the reason that innovations in science and technology in addition to events such as accidents and spills are critical to understanding how public policies that regulate and manage these toxic substances have evolved. The risks of these substances are usually not known until well after they have been adopted and used widely in application. Therefore, public policies regarding toxic chemicals, unlike many other types of government regulations, have a timing or sequencing trigger that includes events such as accidents and spills and from the activism of policy entrepreneurs who often bring the risk of the substances to the attention of government agencies. Getting onto the agenda of the government is a critical step in connecting the management of these toxic substances to public policy. This is the process whereby chemicals and substances become identified as having some risk to human health or the environment. Often, this does not happen quickly, sometimes taking many years, and can generate protracted litigation and bureaucratic wrangling between the producer and user with the government regulator. This can include the

xviii Introduction

protection of “trade secrets” for a potential product’s composition that is under review by the government regulator. There are several routes for how toxics can gain access to the public policy agenda. Historically, the fastest route onto the agenda for a toxic chemical or substance is through a nationally publicized spill, accident, or event. This usually involves a public visualization that is so provocative that a demand for public policy protection results as a consequence. For example, an environmental disaster such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico led to reforms in oil drilling after numerous reports and congressional investigations. The changes in toxic policies were perhaps less noticeable, but they did contribute to enhanced safety features and reporting in the industry from the scrutiny of the accident. Likewise, the Exxon Valdez tanker that spilled millions of gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound led to the 1990 Oil Pollution Act. A commonly cited historical example that is thought to have helped launch public awareness of the impact from toxic chemicals in the United States is the Cuyahoga River burning in the 1950s and 1960s. The 1969 fire was one of the first nationally broadcasted environmental disasters and is widely credited as one of the triggers for the modern environmental movement. This movement occurred in the 1960s–1970s and was characterized by myriad congressional legislation that created environmental protection policies from toxics, as well as government enforcement authority by several newly created government agencies. Another event that raised awareness was the media’s proclaimed “death of Lake Erie.” Of course, Lake Erie was not dead. It suffered from the eutrophication process as a result of overloading the ecosystem with phosphorous-based fertilizers and detergents. Limiting the amount of chemicals entering the lake assisted with its revival. Some international events have triggered a change of public policy on toxics. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, resulting in nuclear radiation exposure, caused concern and additional awareness that prompted more protections in the industry. One of the most dramatic international impacts to toxics in terms of public policies in the United States was the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India. The release of methyl isocyanate from a pesticide plant killed tens of thousands of people. This accidental release spurred the U.S. Congress to create the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986. In addition to spills and accidents, other publicized events have also contributed to the toxic public policy agenda. For instance, the emergency evacuation of the Love Canal neighborhood in Niagara, New York, in 1978 by then president Carter can be linked to the establishment of one of the most important pieces of toxic cleanup legislation in 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund. This book captures these and other seminal events and disasters that help in understanding the chronology of toxic public policy today. Another important route to achieving the attention of the government’s agenda that cannot be overlooked in understanding the evolution of public policy on toxic chemicals is through the advocacy work of policy entrepreneurs. These can be individuals or organizations that actively call attention to the harm or risk from a particular chemical. Well-known policy entrepreneurs for toxic policies include

Introduction xix

people such as Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, and Lois Gibbs as well as Nobel Peace Prize recipients such as Dr. Wangari Mathai and former vice president Gore. There are many individuals, several selected for this book, that were major contributors and pioneers associated with the toxic policies that exist today. Sometimes policy entrepreneurs are an interest group or nonprofit organization that moves toxic chemical issues onto the government agenda and continues to apply pressure for action. Some of these organizations, such as the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, provide reports to the public about the dangers of some of the personal care and cosmetics products on the market. The environmental and consumer interest groups play a key role in the pressure and awareness of the toxics in our society. As a result of these multiple factors that impact public policy on toxics, there is not a distinct time period with clear start and end dates for understanding toxics in our society that can be easily mapped into a chronology. However, there are entrance points connected to scientific and technological innovations and discoveries that are linked to the introduction of toxics into the environment. Sometimes toxics are around for decades before the government becomes aware of the dangers of these substances. This book tries to provide that context for understanding the chronology and overall pace at which these toxics have become part of our society along with the events that introduced the substances and the policies that have managed or eliminated them.

THE CHRONOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OF THE TOXIC CHEMICAL PUBLIC POLICY AGENDA The chronology of chemicals begins with the early BCE period, when people were presumably exposed to toxics from the earth that created health risks. Not much is known about these chemicals, but certainly there are historical accounts of civilizations discovering the usefulness of asbestos in pottery, the use of cosmetics by ancient peoples, and other forms of cultural uses of toxic chemicals found in nature that were introduced in these early societies. It was not until later in history that major advances in science and technology represent the entrance points of toxics in society that serve as the backbone of this two-volume reference set. The industrial revolution periods created large sources of toxics from fossil fuels and metals associated with the major production of goods, heating, and transportation. Many of these toxics were released as emissions from factories and transportation sources into the air. Water and land were also impacted as disposal receptacles for these by-product wastes. Later, with the World Wars, a new form of toxic substance was advanced: the various types of warfare agents that are now regulated under international treaties and several agencies. During post–World War II, there was an expansion of chemical agents for agriculture products called the Green Revolution. This period was the expansion of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals for the enhanced yield of agricultural products. This was a renaissance of the chemical industry that created and began mass production of a number of synthetics and common-use products, such as

xx Introduction

nylon and plastics, and brought an expansion of household appliances and personal care products. It was not until the 1960s–1970s, after a number of events and other triggers that launched the modern environmental movement, that a number of government agencies and laws were created to regulate the prevention, management, and remediation of these toxics from the environment and human health. For instance, in the 1980s, the commercial food retail market took on a new approach to food supplies that is now labeled as organic, grass-fed, or hormone/antibiotic free. Products with these labels were rarely seen before the 1980s or only found in small retail food suppliers. Today, these products have large distribution stores that are widely dispersed. Finally, a more recent focus of public health protection is on the communities that are overburdened by these chemicals and people who were not explicitly protected under the policies and government regulatory actions under the modern environmental movement. Beginning in the 1980s, the environmental justice and food justice movements emerged to include the protection of many disenfranchised groups. In 1994, President Clinton’s Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, was signed. The most recent overhaul of toxic ­chemical policy in the United States comes from the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, an update of the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976. The rough chronology of toxic chemicals and public policy can be divided into the following periods: Early toxic chemicals Industrial revolution periods World Wars I and II Modern chemical revolution or green revolution Modern environmental movement Organic movement and awareness of toxic chemicals Environmental justice movement

EARLY TOXIC CHEMICALS It is difficult to trace early toxic chemicals in ancient civilizations; however, it is likely that several existed. One example of a toxic substance being integrated into the household before its known danger is the discovery and use of asbestos. It is known that asbestos, classified as a carcinogen today, was used by ancient Romans and Egyptians in their homes and palaces as part of the fabrics that were used for tablecloths, napkins, and shrouds. Asbestos is mined from the soil as a mineral. It was shown to have flame-retardant benefits and was first used in the pottery of these civilizations. Asbestos continues into the industrial revolution as a ubiquitous component of building and construction materials, paints, and insulation for

Introduction xxi

boilers and around piping. It was not until 1970 that asbestos was classified as a hazardous air pollutant. It was then restricted by the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and finally banned in 1989 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION PERIODS During the periods of what has been called the industrial revolution, major developments in manufacturing, transportation, and urbanization released a variety of uncontrolled toxics into the environment. Laborers, which included children, were exposed to toxic indoor air pollution in factories for many hours per day. The beginning of this period increased the volume of pollution in the air from fossil fuel emissions, which started with England’s manufacturing and then spread across Europe. This was the birth of acid rain in Europe—which arrived later in the United States—with the industrialization and growth of cities. Factories produced toxic by-products from manufacturing goods that were released directly into the air and water. These toxics included a range of heavy metals, including copper, lead, arsenic, and silver, to name a few. In addition, sulfur oxides from the combustion processes of fuels were probably at their all-time highest concentration for human exposure during this period. It could be argued that the ecosystem and public health were least protected during this period. There were no regulations or environmental controls that managed these toxics and relatively no government agencies involved with protecting human health and the environment. Many of the other types of toxics during this urbanizing period were associated with the disposal of meat and agricultural products onto the land or being discharged into rivers with the migration of effluents of human waste spilling directly into drinking water supplies. It is widely reported that the life expectancy in densely populated cities were lowered due to air and water contamination. Diseases from contaminated drinking water, air, and food were a significant problem for public health. Of course, those in lower socioeconomic strata were more impacted than others. Many of the large chemical companies started up in this time period. Innovation and mass production then further grew these companies during and after the World Wars into large contributors of the economies of the United States and Europe.

WORLD WARS I AND II Both World Wars contributed to the development of new toxic chemicals and agents. During World War I, poisonous gases such as chlorine gas, tear gas, mustard gas, and other chemicals were used in warfare. These gases were often lethal and had immediate health effects for the humans that were exposed. Under the 1925 Geneva Protocol, chemical weapons were banned from use internationally, but countries were still able to produce and stockpile them. During World War II, new chemicals were created as lethal agents of war. These newly formulated chemicals and nuclear materials were used on civilians as

xxii Introduction

well as troops. Since World War II, there have been some uses of toxic chemicals in warfare, in violation of international agreements. As of 1997, over 128 nations have agreed to ban the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. World War II also introduced the use of nuclear isotopes of both uranium and plutonium as warfare agents. The disposal, management, and remediation from the contamination of these high-level radioactive nuclear wastes continue to be an international public policy problem. In the post–World War II period, the growth of the chemical industry’s research and production was often focused on the war effort. The wars created a demand for certain types of warfare agents: however, post–World War II, chemicals that benefited the lives of humans advanced at a rapid and uninterrupted pace. MODERN CHEMICAL REVOLUTION The period just after World War II was coined as the Green Revolution because of the tremendous growth in chemical use to promote agricultural yields. New chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, and the creation of hybrid seeds helped to produce more food for billions of people. In 1970, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Norman Borlaug—who was given the title of the “Father of the Green Revolution”—for his work in this area. During this same period, there was a growth surge in the petrochemical industry that initiated the production of synthetic resins, polyester fibers, acrylics, rubbers, plastics, and chemicals for other modern conveniences, creating a strong demand and market for more mass produced chemicals. Many new products, such as personal care and household and construction materials, drove the growing consumptions patterns of the postwar society. Consumerism supported the chemical industry’s growth, driving new products for the household and growing postwar economy. Chemical companies expanded production and became major corporations with the United States and global operations as significant players in the international economies around the world. MODERN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT The period of the 1960s and 1970s is characterized as the modern environmental movement in the United States. This period had phenomenal growth of federal agencies and the creation of federal statutes to protect human health and the environment from the contamination of toxics. This period included a recognition that the public policies by state and local governments were not sufficiently keeping up with the necessary protections of human health and the environment. This movement focused many of the environmental interest groups that were already established or launched newly created onto the national agenda on concerns related to toxic chemicals. The environmental movement of this era propagated support on many college campuses and was aided by the attention of the national media.

Introduction xxiii

It is not surprising that an abundance of regulations and policy requirements were adopted during this period. This occurred after the expansive growth and use of chemicals during the postwar modern chemical revolution. This period saw the birth of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and other agencies involved with the protection of wildlife and ecosystems. During this period, the public focus was on improvements to drinking water, wastewater treatment systems, and consumer protections. Some of the foundational pieces of federal legislation were enacted in this time frame, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The cleanup of sites and the complete management—creation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal—of chemicals were enacted for the first time. This “cradle-to-grave” policy for chemicals was conceived with some of the most comprehensive management of chemicals in history under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act and the revised Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The modern environmental movement came to a close in 1980 with one of the most far-reaching remediation laws, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Superfund, which requires the cleanup of abandoned sites. This period ushered in a new role for the federal government that continues today in public policy on toxic chemicals.

THE ORGANIC MOVEMENT Most people are unaware that “organic” farming can be traced back to the early 1900s. Organic farming and agricultural production were not new in the 1980s; however, the demand for more organic produce increased during this period, and it has grown into a massive commercial industry today. Before the 1980s, small grocery stores offered “organically grown and produced” food items. Likewise, certain large grocery stores had designated sections with aisles for organic products. However, the public began to demand organically grown food supplies and products without the use of pesticides or antibiotics. These products were more expensive than other nonorganically labeled foods; however, the prices have declined over time because of increased demand and competition. Today, large grocery store chains regularly supply these products, making them more widely available than ever before. Companies that specialize in organic options for consumers have their products integrated onto food store shelves with labels of “organic,” which is regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A concern for knowing what is contained in the growth and production of food sources continues today. The demand for nongenetically engineered food, which has become controversial in Europe, is also included in this movement. A significant portion of this movement is concerned about cookware, baby bottles, water

xxiv Introduction

bottles, and other impacts from containing or cooking of food and the pathway for chemicals to being a health risk. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT During the modern environmental movement of the 1970s, the United States was undergoing a social expansion of civil rights, women’s rights, housing and voting rights, and concerns about the Vietnam War and presidential corruption. This was a growth period of public policies for the United States. After the expansion of environmental policies, there was another period, beginning in the 1980s, that received national attention; it began with the protest of PCBs in Warren County, North Carolina. This was the early start of the environmental justice movement. Several studies were conducted by the United Church of Christ and the General Accounting Office of Congress that indicated socioeconomics, particularly race and income, played a significant role in communities becoming overburdened with health and environmental impacts from toxics. This culminated in the 1994 Executive Order 12898 by President Clinton requiring the federal government to investigate and mitigate any disproportionate impacts to these communities. Today, these communities continue to have cumulative health risks and impacts that are higher than other segments of the U.S. population. Unlike the protests of the modern environmental movement, the environmental justice communities do not only call attention to toxic chemicals in the work place or from environmental exposures from factories or industries. Their vision statement includes being free of these health risks where they live, work, breathe, play, and pray. The interest groups and policy entrepreneurs in this movement include economic and social inequality issues such as transportation access, food justice, housing, employment, and other socioeconomic problems. They approach toxics holistically to address the social injustices of their communities. This movement, unlike the modern environmental movement, is mainly composed of local people from communities that have often not been included in public policies on toxics. Again, in the chronology of the time periods, it is difficult to contain discrete beginning and ending dates; there is an ebb and flow of the public policies surrounding toxics. Some are triggered by inventions emanating from science and technology and the products of mass production, urbanization, and industrialization. Other toxics are linked to the products of warfare. Sometimes nationally publicized accidents, spills, and disasters make the public aware, allowing change to become ripe. While these events and history inform some of the chronology, there is also the large contribution of policy entrepreneurs—individuals and organizations dedicated to the change of public policy on toxic chemicals. This book captures those events, disasters, and spills and the creation of toxic chemicals and substances to understand the evolution of toxic chemical public policies. It also features the people and organizations that help implement policies on toxics.

A Abbott Laboratories Abbott Laboratories (commonly referred to as Abbott) is an Illinois company that has over ninety-nine thousand employees working internationally and in the United States. The company’s main business includes the discovery, development, manufacture, and sale of health-care products. The products are sold directly to retailers, wholesalers, hospital, laboratories, physical offices, and government agencies worldwide. Products are focused in the markets of pharmaceutical, cardiovascular and diabetes health, neuromodulation, and diagnostics technology. The company is a leader in providing technology in blood screening; cardiovascular assistance devices, such as ventricular valves; and neuromodulation products. For 2017, Abbott reported revenues of over $27 billion (SEC 2018). Abbott Laboratories was founded in 1888 by Dr. Wallace Abbott, a physician and drugstore owner. It was a pioneer in creating pharmacy practices. The People’s Drug Store in Chicago was the first location that sold Abbott’s alkaloidal granules. These substances are found in plants and affect the human body in various ways that can be very potent. Alkaloids are found in nicotine, morphine, caffeine, and quinine. By 1894, the business had grown immensely, so Abbott formed the Abbott Alkaloidal Company. In 1897, the company went international with its entrance into London markets. Abbott began to work with synthetic medicines such as anesthetics and chlorobenzene, which was used as an antiseptic for soldiers during World War I. During the Great Depression, the company grew into new areas, such as providing vitamin and intravenous solutions. At the request of the federal government, Abbott joined with other pharmaceutical companies to produce penicillin during World War II. In the 1960s, it expanded into infant nutrition with the purchase of the manufacturer of Similac, one of the largest producers of infant formula. During this period, Abbott entered the nutrition market and continued to expand with the production of cereals, health snacks, and snack bars, particularly for those people with dietary restrictions, such as diabetes. More recently, Abbott was the first company licensed to use a diagnostic test for identifying the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). It was also the first company to produce Humira, which is a human monoclonal antibody drug. Abbott is a responsible party for several remediation projects in the United States and Puerto Rico. The remediation costs are expected to not exceed a cumulative cost of $10 million (SEC 2018). In 2017, Abbott reported that it had reached an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pay a civil penalty of $186,225 for violation under the Resources Conservation and Recovery

2

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)

Act (RCRA) for its site in Austin, Texas. The company also had a widespread recall of five million units of Similac formula sold in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and some Caribbean countries because of contamination from beetles and their larvae. In 1996, the company paid fines for dumping contaminants into Lake Michigan in 1991. The complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) showed that Abbott had caused contaminants to be discharged through its storm sewers into Lake Michigan. In 1970, Abbott was indicted by a federal grand jury for contaminated intravenous fluids. The deaths of 50 people and illness of 412 others were found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be caused by contaminated fluids from improperly sealed containers. In 2001, the Multinational Monitor, a magazine that tracks the activities of multinational corporations, which was founded by Ralph Nadar, included Abbott Laboratories in one of its top ten worst lists for TAP Pharmaceuticals, a joint venture with the Japanese Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. TAP was required to pay $875 million in connection with criminal charges from Medicare reimbursement fraud. In 2018, the New York Times reported that Humira is the top-selling prescription drug in the world. This anti-inflammatory medicine is used for a variety of diseases, particularly rheumatoid arthritis. The costs of this drug have increased 100 percent from 2012 to 2018, causing ongoing controversy in the consumer health community. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Nader, Ralph (1934–).

Further Reading

Hakim, Danny, 2018. “Humira’s Best-Selling Drug Formula: Start at a High Price. Go Higher.” New York Times, January 6, 2018. Accessed August 24, 2018. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2018​/­01​/­06​/ ­business​/ ­humira​-­drug​-­prices​.­html. Multinational Monitor. 2001. “Top 10 Worst Corporations of 2001.” CorpWatch, December 31, 2001. Accessed August 24, 2018. ­https://​­corpwatch​.­org​/­article​/­top​-­10​-­worst​ -­corporations​-­2001. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2018. “Abbott Laboratories: Form 10-Q.” Filed June 2018. Accessed July 23, 2020. ­https://​­fintel​.­io​/­filings​/­us​/­abt.

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) Acceptable daily intake (ADI) is a calculated estimate of the amount of a substance that can be ingested on a daily basis over one’s lifetime without risk to one’s health. Body weight is taken into account as part of this calculation as well as human development stages. ADIs provide food consumers with public health information, help protect domestic consumers from toxic contaminants in food and water, and assist with international food trade by standardizing chemical exposures in food and water across the nations.



Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 3

Originally, ADI focused on food additives and was established from the policies of two organizations that are part of the United Nations: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). However, ADI now also includes contaminants in food, such as pesticides, heavy metals, and chemicals that can bioaccumulate in the ecosystem. When the additive in food is not intended or is accidental, such as a pollutant, the term used is tolerable daily intake. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information on tolerable daily intakes for chemical pollutants. In a joint meeting on pesticide residues, the United Nations defined the ADI of a chemical as “the daily intake which, during an entire lifetime, appears to be without appreciable risk to the health of the consumer on the basis of all the known facts at the time of the evaluation of the chemical” (Codex Alimentarius Commission 2016). It is expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of body weight. The phrase “without appreciable risk” is used when there is some certainty that no harm to human health will result. ADIs are available through the Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “food law” or “food code”). This guide includes a collection of standards, guidelines, and codes of practice adopted by the United Nations’ Codex Alimentarius Commission. In 1963, this commission was created by the FAO and WHO to promote fair and transparent practices in international food trade to protect public health. This commission is part of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program in the United Nations. The benefit of ADIs is that this system sets global standards for exposures to contaminants in food and water substances. Scientists work with the United Nations to provide guidance on food safety. Calculating an ADI begins with a baseline called the no observed adverse effect level (commonly known as NOAEL). NOAEL is created for the most harmful human health impact in the most sensitive species of experimental animal. As a result, the NOAEL becomes the highest dietary level of an additive at which no adverse effects were observed in studies. It is calculated in milligrams of the additive per kilogram of body weight per day. To ensure the NOAEL is a conservative, safe number, it is then divided by what is considered a public health safety factor, which is commonly around one hundred and sometimes up to one thousand. NOAELs require a series of toxicity tests be established for the ADI so that all routes to human exposure from food chemical contaminants are considered. This includes scenarios of long-term exposure, fetal exposures, and exposure over time from human maturation starting from youth progressing to adulthood. The ADI is then calculated from the lowest NOAEL in the most sensitive test and the most sensitive species, which must include these scenarios of exposure. The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the United Nations, which works with both FAO and WHO, is the primary organization that works on the scientific information for food additives. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has required that Joint FAO/WHO and Codex Alimentarius Commission standards apply to the safety and composition of foods worldwide. Adopted in 1995, the Codex General Standard for Food Additives is regularly updated to include

4

Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs)

guidance from the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It explains which food additives may be incorporated into food. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets ADIs for most ingredients, including what the organization refers to as high-intensity sweeteners (artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes) in food and drinks. The FDA and EPA work together with the UN organizations to estimate human health risks from exposure to toxic chemical residues in water or food. This includes chemicals found in meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and milk. State and local public health agencies use this information to inform people about potential dangers from eating foods with these containments at different stages of human development. One example is the warning issued to pregnant women about eating potentially contaminated fish. The European Union also reviews additives, which are required to be included in legislation. These additives are assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). As part of its safety evaluations, EFSA can create an ADI for each additive, particularly when scientific information is available. Under this process, additives may present no hazard to human health. Safety assessments are a toxicological data review of all the scientific information in both human observations and required tests in laboratory animals. This data includes lifetime feeding studies and generational studies. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL); Pesticides.

Further Reading

Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2016. “International Food Standards.” Accessed August 20, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­fao​.­org​/­fao​-­who​-­codexalimentarius​/­en. European Food Information Council. 2013. “Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) Q and A.” December 1, 2013. Accessed September 22, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­eufic​.­org​/­en​ /­understanding​-­science​/­article​/­qas​-­on​-­acceptable​-­daily​-­intakes​-­adis.

Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) Acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs) outline the health impacts from a onetime or extremely rare exposure to an airborne chemical. AEGLs are specific levels of concentrations where health impacts are likely to occur. They are widely used by emergency responders when dealing with chemical spills, accidental releases, or terrorist actions. They were designed to protect the public health of all individuals, including those most susceptible to airborne complications, such as children, the elderly, asthmatics, or those with limited lung function. AEGLs for each airborne chemical were established by a participatory effort of the government, health providers, academic researchers, and the private sector. AEGLs are published by their chemical name and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry (commonly known as CAS) number in a table published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The database includes information on the individual chemicals and their health impacts from acute exposure.



Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) 5

The EPA established the National Advisory Committee (NAC) for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for Hazardous Substances in 1996 to review proposed AEGLs for extremely hazardous substances. The committee performed three major tasks toward establishing AEGLs: (1) reviewed the proposed AEGLs for scientific validity, completeness, internal consistency, and conformance to published National Research Council guidelines; (2) reviewed the recommendations that could have included identifying additional research priorities to fill data gaps; (3) and reviewed the recommended standard procedures for developing AEGLs. The main government sponsors of this work are the EPA and the U.S. Department of Defense. The NAC/AEGL had broad representation from many federal agencies, foreign governments, unions, the private sector, states, professional trade associations, and other public health responders. Technical support came from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and a mixture of private companies in and outside the United States. Organizations in the NAC/AEGL have created a master list of about one thousand priority chemicals for AEGL that has been reviewed by state agencies and private-sector organizations. The list represents chemicals that federal agencies considered potentially hazardous to human health and a potential exposure risk. WHY HAVE AEGLS? AEGLs were first considered as a priority public health policy after the Bhopal, India, accident in 1984, when a release of the extremely toxic airborne chemical methyl isocyanate “resulted in over 2,000 deaths, and many others were irreversibly injured with damage to the eyes and lungs. The release was from one container of methyl isocyanate” (EPA 2018a). The Bhopal catastrophe was one of the impetuses for creating the NAC/AEGL Committee and the corresponding AEGL Program. Emergency and first responders need information that is reliable and easily obtained in a single location. When toxic and hazardous chemicals are part of an accidental release, emergency responders lack the time or ability to check multiple sources of information. As a result, the AEGL Program provides hazard-level guidelines for chemical releases of airborne chemicals (EPA 2018a). In June 1993, the EPA developed the concept of a working committee and solicited support and participation from federal and state agencies and organizations in the private sector to establish a joint committee to develop exposure guideline levels. This gave birth to the NAC/AEGL Committee, a formal federal advisory committee. According to the EPA (2018a), the NAC/AEGL Committee first met in June 1996 and discussed more than 300 chemicals and developed AEGL values for at least 273 of the 329 chemicals on the AEGL priority chemical list. The First AEGL Chemical Priority List of 85 chemicals appeared in the Federal Register on May 21, 1997. Fifteen chemicals were subsequently added. The Second AEGL Chemical Priority List was published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2002, and contained 371 priority chemicals. From this list, 137 chemicals were considered a

6

Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs)

higher priority than the other 234 chemicals. All 471 AEGL priority chemicals are included in the current EPA online database (EPA 2018a). The last meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee was in April 2010, and its charter expired in October 2011. According to EPA (2018a), the AEGL Program is coordinated between the EPA and the National Academies to publish the final remaining AEGLs. HOW ARE AEGLS CALCULATED? Beginning in 2001, the National Academies published operating procedures for how AEGLs are calculated. These newly implemented procedures made the development of AEGLs more transparent to the public and more systematic in creating a process that was standardized. According to EPA (2018a, b), AEGLs are calculated for five short exposure time periods: ten minutes, thirty minutes, one hour, four hours, and eight hours. This is different than air quality standards where pollutants are measured on a much longer and repetitive exposure time frame. AEGLs are classified by the severity of human health impacts caused by the exposure. This classification ranges from one to three, with level three being the most significant human health impacts. AEGLs are measured in concentrations of parts per million (ppm) or milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). Above this concentration level, an AEGL indicates that the airborne chemical would result in certain levels of human health impacts. According to EPA (2018a) guidelines, AEGLs classified at level 1 include discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. The effects at this level are not disabling and are reversible upon cessation of exposure. AEGLs classified at level 2 are considered irreversible or can have long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired human functioning. AEGLs classified at level 3 are the most serious. These chemicals have life-threatening health effects or may cause death. The airborne chemicals below a level 1 AEGL classification represent exposure levels that could produce mild and progressively increasing, but transient, and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. With increasing concentrations of the chemical above each AEGL classification levels 1–3, there is a greater likelihood of occurrence and the severity of effects described. So, AEGL concentrations of airborne chemicals represent more of a threshold level for when human health impacts are likely for the public. This includes more vulnerable groups to airborne contaminants, such as infants, children, the elderly, persons with asthma, and those with other respiratory illnesses. Human health impacts can be experienced at lower concentration levels, but these are more unique occurrences and for specific predisposed health reasons. HOW ARE AEGLS CREATED? AEGL values were considered final when the NAC/AEGL Committee reached consensus on scientific validity and conformance to the National Academies’ guidelines of the AEGL values and supporting technical documentation. Once



Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) 7

finalized, AEGL values are used on a permanent basis by all federal, state, and local agencies and private organizations as well as internationally. It is possible that new data will become available from time to time that challenges the scientific credibility of final AEGLs. If that occurs, the chemical will be resubmitted to the National Academies for review. According to the EPA (2018b), by 2011, AEGLs were completed for all but 5 of the 329 chemicals listed in the AEGL Chemical Priority Lists. In that same year, according to the EPA, budget constraints resulted in redirecting funding toward the finalization of AEGLs through the National Academies. As a result, the NAC/ AEGL Committee was eliminated for future work on the AEGL Program. The new process without the committee focused on finalizing interim AEGL chemicals through the National Academies with the limited resources available. The EPA (2018a) reports that when the NAC/AEGL Committee’s federal advisory committee charter expired in October 2011, a process was developed to finalize interim AEGLs. The steps required to finalize the work included (1) the development of scientifically valid AEGL values for use in chemical emergency planning, prevention, and response programs; (2) a comprehensive identification of published and unpublished information sources used to set AEGLs; (3) the adoption of consistent emergency planning both domestically and internationally; (4) the transparency of program methods and information through public participation at meetings and by commenting on Federal Register notices; and (5) the inclusion of the National Academies as the final peer reviewer of AEGL values and methods. In 2001, the National Academies published procedural guidance to ensure that the continued development of AEGLs were systematic, consistent, documented, and transparent to the public. Some significant differences between the previous work by the NAC/AEGL Committee occurred to complete the process without the committee. Under the old process, the National Academies’ recommendations resulting in changes to AEGL values were debated and approved by the NAC/AEGL Committee. A response to NAS comments for a particular AEGL chemical was taken to the NAC/AEGL Committee for deliberation and approval. Under the current process, the NAC/AEGL Committee is no longer available. Therefore, the new approach after 2001 engages the federal stakeholders using a different approach than in the past. Under this process, the National Academies’ comments and responses are used to review the AEGL. A response and the revised technical support documents are then sent to the federal stakeholders for a fourteen-day review cycle. After consensus, the response and the revised technical support documents are sent to the National Academies. Under the EPA (2018a) guidelines, if consensus cannot be reached, the differences are written and presented to the National Academies for their resolution. Note that changes to the documents are not posted on the AEGL website until they are finalized by the National Academies. Thus, the resultant process eliminates the committee work and much of the collaboration among the diverse participants. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Bhopal Disaster (1984); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

8

Acute Toxicity versus Chronic Toxicity

Further Reading

National Research Council. 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Chemicals. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018a. “Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Airborne Chemicals.” Accessed February 19, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­aegl. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018b. “Process for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline Levels.” Accessed June 22, 2020. ­https://​­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​ /­production​/­files​/­2015​- ­09​/­documents​/­sop​_ final​_standing​_operating​_ procedures​ _2001​.­pdf.

Acute Toxicity versus Chronic Toxicity Toxicity can be classified into two categories that are based on the duration of the exposure: acute toxicity and chronic toxicity. Chronic exposure is characterized as long-term exposure to a toxic substance that can have several adverse impacts to humans. These may include disease and malfunctions of the body at different points of the duration exposure or postexposure. The result of this exposure can be mortality. Pesticides and other chemicals used for agriculture are examples of products that may have neurotoxic effects that occur during chronic exposure. The impacts of chronic toxicity usually occur over time and can include impacts to all the systems of the body. Chronic toxicity often involves exposure to lower concentrations of a toxic substance that manifests into adverse health conditions over time. For example, exposure to secondhand smoke and the habitual use of tobacco products are known to be high risk factors for developing lung cancer or other respiratory issues when the exposure occurs over time. Another example of chronic toxicity is the impact of the long-term abuse of alcohol recreationally; this can lead to significant liver damage. It is the cumulative damage over time from repeated exposures to these toxic substances that causes adverse health impacts. In the workplace, the inhalation of low concentrations of benzene over long durations of time has shown to lead to liver cancer. Additionally, there are other common chronic conditions, such as bronchitis, skin rashes, and sensitivities to certain chemicals, that may develop over time. Unlike chronic toxicity, acute toxicity produces adverse health effects over a shorter period of time. Usually, this is a result of higher concentrations of exposure to a toxic substance. For acute toxicity, even onetime exposures can illicit adverse health responses within the human body. This can be exposure to a chemical that occurs from a single event, such as an accidental spill or release. It can also be the result of several exposures over a short period of time that often occurs from the improper handling of a toxic substance. There are specific responses to acute exposure that can remediate and even prevent the adverse impact if taken immediately. When ingestion of a toxic substance occurs, medicines can be used to remove a harmful toxic substance by having the chemical bind to the medicine to eliminate it from the body. Stomach pumping or induced vomiting may also be performed to remove an ingested toxic



Acute Toxicity versus Chronic Toxicity 9

substance. When dermal contact with a toxic substance occurs, water showers for the removal and dilution of the exposure can be helpful. Likewise, the acute exposure impact of a toxic substance to the eyes can often be alleviated if they are rinsed immediately. When inhalation of a toxic substance occurs, treatment of the lungs and a supply of oxygen is sometimes the most expedient manner to address the acute exposure. The adverse health impacts from acute toxicity usually occur immediately after exposure. One example is the 1989 Bhopal accident in India. After an accidental release of methyl cyanate, thousands of people died or became extremely disabled from the event. Several chemicals are known acute toxic chemicals that can be lethal. These include hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulfide. Ricin (a poison found naturally in castor beans), nitrogen dioxide, and arsenic are also extremely dangerous acute toxic substances. Some well-known chemicals that can cause chronic toxicity include mercury, lead, and formaldehyde. The determination of toxicity is generally performed by animal testing research. However, there have been some recent changes to this approach. The National Research Council (NRC), along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has proposed toxicity testing that is less reliant on laboratory results using animal testing. The new strategy proposed by these agencies focuses on in vitro methods that evaluate changes in biologic processes using cells, cell lines, or cellular components, preferably of human origin. To test for acute toxicity, laboratory animals generally receive a single dose of the toxic substance. Historically, a primary objective of acute toxicity testing was to determine an LD50 dose: the dose that would be lethal to 50 percent of the animals treated. Multiple doses of the chemical can be used, but they are usually given within a twenty-four-hour period. Acute toxicity tests are used to establish the relative toxicity of a substance; a low LD50 means that a smaller amount of the substance is needed to cause death. This results in a more dangerous toxic substance to human health. For testing chronic toxicity, laboratory animals are monitored for changes in behavior after a repeat dose for a longer period of time (this can be repeat exposure for approximately thirty or ninety days or one year). Chronic toxicity tests are based on the lowest observable adverse effects level (LOAEL) and the no observable adverse effects level (NOAEL). These levels are defined as the lowest dose at which adverse effects are seen (LOAEL) or the dose at which no adverse effects are seen (NOAEL). Some conventional toxicity tests take months or years to conduct and analyze and can cost from thousands to millions of dollars. Several agencies are responsible for providing information on acute and chronic toxicity of chemicals to the public and workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) generally focuses on the concern for toxicity exposure in the workplace. The EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) are also major contributors in providing information on chronic and acute exposure impacts of toxic substances to the public and environment. In the United States, any individual or organization can nominate a substance to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for inclusion on its lists for testing as a toxic

10

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)

substance. In Europe, toxicological testing is under the both the European Commission and a group of independent agencies. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Bhopal Disaster (1984); Lethal Dose 50% (LD50); Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAEL); National Toxicology Program (NTP); No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL); Secondhand Smoke; Tobacco Smoke

Further Reading

Gross, Liza, and Linda S. Birnbaum. 2017. “Regulating Toxic Chemicals for Public and Environmental Health.” PLoS Biology 15(12). ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1371​/­journal​.­pbio​ .­2004814. National Research Council. 2007. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and is an organization of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It is an independent federal agency that works closely with other public health agencies and state and local agencies. ATSDR’s mission is to serve the public through responsive public health actions to promote healthy and safe environments and prevent harmful exposures. It is a scientific agency that focuses on public health and toxicology, provides expert studies, and advises on hazardous substances. ATSDR was created as an advisory organization to assist communities with public health issues associated with hazardous substances. It was created under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, also referred to as Superfund). This legislation addresses emergency responses and remediates abandoned contaminated sites that are some of the most dangerous in the United States. Under Superfund, ATSDR is required to perform assessments of public health at Superfund sites, provide health advice regarding hazardous substances, and maintain information on health in terms of risks to exposure. The ATSDR also assists during releases of hazardous substances. From an educational aspect, ATSDR supports research regarding public health assessments and provides training on impacts and protection from hazardous substances. It claims to have kept “more than 6,000 communities across the United States protected from hazardous substances in their environment” (ATSDR 2014). The director for ATSDR is also the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another agency under HHS. ATSDR is also associated with the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health. A frequent misunderstanding about the ATSDR is its role in the federal government. It does not have regulatory authority like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is limited to



Air Contamination 11

providing advice and recommendations to those agencies as well as to states and local communities. The ATSDR (2018), along with the Superfund legislation, was partially created in response to a major environmental public health exposure event that captured the nation’s attention. In 1978, residents of Love Canal, New York, had to be relocated by President Carter’s emergency order because a school and homes were being built on or next to a former landfill of toxic chemicals and carcinogens. As a result, the impact of hazardous waste was placed as a salient issue on the national agenda. The United States had no national programs to protect human health and communities from past disposal of hazardous substances. It also had no existing program to clean up these dangerous sites. The Superfund program was passed by Congress to address these types of issues, and among other provisions, it created the ATSDR to assist with public health issues pertaining to hazardous substances. ATSDR developed several initiatives for assisting communities. One is the Cluster Program, which is publicly available software to help identify when there is a statistically significant risk that a cluster of negative health symptoms exist in a community. The agency has also developed ToxFAQs, which posts information about some of the most dangerous hazardous substances. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2014. “About ATSDR.” Accessed September 19, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­docs​/­Introducing​_ ATSDR​_FactSheet​_508​.­pdf. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2018. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​ .­gov.

Air Contamination Throughout the world, air contamination originates from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Some of the sources of natural air pollution are volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and hot springs; however, most air pollution results from human activities. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the primary sources of anthropogenic air contamination include fuel combustion from motor vehicles (e.g., cars and heavy-duty vehicles); heat and power generation (e.g., oil and coal power plants and boilers); industrial facilities (e.g., manufacturing factories, mines, and oil refineries); municipal and agricultural waste sites and waste incineration/burning; and residential cooking, heating, and lighting with polluting fuels (WHO n.d.). In the United States, major efforts to protect air quality began with congressional passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, which required the U.S. Environmental

12

Air Contamination

Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science. The EPA set air quality standards for six common “criteria pollutants”: particulate matter (also known as particle pollution), ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead (EPA n.d.-a). Particulate matter (PM) is inhalable and respirable particles composed of sulphate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, black carbon, mineral dust, and water. The major sources of PM include combustion engines (both diesel and gasoline), solid-fuel (coal, lignite, heavy oil, and biomass) combustion for energy production in households and industry, and other industrial activities (building, mining, smelting, and manufacture of cement, ceramic, and bricks) (WHO n.d.). Black carbon, also known as a “short-lived climate pollutant,” is a major component of particulate matter and one of the largest contributors to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2). It is also known to decrease agricultural yields and accelerate glacier melting (WHO n.d.). Ground-level ozone is one of the major components of photochemical smog and a key health risk that has been linked to breathing problems, asthma, reduced lung function, and respiratory diseases. Ozone is produced when carbon monoxide (CO), methane, or other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are oxidized in the presence of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sunlight. Major sources of NOx and VOCs include emissions from motor vehicle exhaust, industrial facilities, and chemical solvents. Major sources of methane include waste and the fossil fuel and agricultural industries (WHO n.d.). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is an important constituent of PM and ozone. There is some evidence that also suggests that NO2 may be responsible for health issues linked to premature mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (WHO n.d.). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is mainly produced from the burning of fossil fuels (coal and oil) and the smelting of mineral ores that contain sulfur. Exposure to SO2 can affect the respiratory system and aggravate asthma and chronic bronchitis. SO2 also combines with water in the air to form sulfuric acid—the main component of acid rain (WHO n.d.). Carbon monoxide (CO), the main sources of which include motor vehicle exhaust and machinery that burns fossil fuels, can impair the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream to critical organs (WHO n.d.). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), exposure to CO limits the ability of blood to deliver oxygen throughout the body. As a result, carbon monoxide poisoning via prolonged exposure to automobile emissions can lead to death (CDC and ATSDR 2019). As for atmospheric lead (Pb), the phaseout of leaded gasoline began in the 1950s after several air pollution incidents in Los Angeles, London, New York, and Donora, Pennsylvania, awakened interest in public health issues including leaded gasoline. In 1973, the year in which the production of leaded gasoline reached its peak, the EPA announced regulations requiring a gradual reduction in the lead content of each refinery’s total gasoline pool. In the 1970s, studies showed increasing evidence of adverse effects of atmospheric lead on the IQs of children and



Air Contamination 13

hypertension in adults, further prompting public pressure to accelerate the phaseout of leaded gasoline (Newell and Rogers 2003). In the United States, the federal government regulates most air contaminants, particularly total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), through public laws enforced by the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The federal organizations that develop recommendations for toxic substances include the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the CDC, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (CDC and ATSDR 2019). States are also required to implement air standards and are responsible for developing enforceable implementation plans to meet and maintain air quality that meets national standards. Each state’s plan is also required to prohibit emissions that significantly contribute to air quality problems in a downwind state (EPA 2013). According to the EPA, its vehicle emissions standards directly sparked the development and implementation of a range of technologies, particularly the automotive catalytic converter, which is considered to be one of the great environmental inventions of all time. The EPA estimates that for every dollar spent on programs to reduce emissions, the American people receive nine dollars of benefits to public health and the environment (EPA n.d.-b). In the past decade, with increased public concern for the effects of air contamination on global warming, there have been greater efforts toward addressing international flows and sources of air pollutants. Studies have shown that windblown dust from the desert regions of Africa, Mongolia, Central Asia, and China can carry large concentrations of PM, fungal spores, and bacteria that impact health and air quality in remote areas (WHO 2019). The First WHO Global Conference on Air Pollution and Health took place at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, from October 30 to November 1, 2018. The conference was organized in collaboration with UN Environmental Programme, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC), the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the World Bank, and the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The conference included participation from and collaboration with national and city governments, intergovernmental organizations, civil society, philanthropy, research, and academia (WHO 2019). John Munro See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Killer Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania (1948); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2019. “Public Health Statement for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.” September 1999. Accessed August 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­phs​/­phs​.­asp​?­id​= ​­422​&­tid​= ​­75.

14

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

Newell, Richard G., and Kristian Rogers. 2003. “The U.S. Experience with the Phasedown of Lead in Gasoline.” Resources for the Future. Accessed September 15, 2019. ­https://​­web​.­mit​.­edu​/­ckolstad​/­w ww​/ ­Newell​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. “The Clean Air Act in a Nutshell: How It Works.” Accessed September 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­clean​-­air​-­act​ -­overview​/­clean​-­air​-­act​-­nutshell​-­how​-­it​-­works. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-a. “Clean Air Act Requirements and History.” Accessed September 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­clean​-­air​-­act​-­overview​ /­clean​-­air​-­act​-­requirements​-­and​-­history. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-b. “History of Reducing Air Pollution from Transportation in the United States.” Accessed September 15, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­t ransportation​-­air​-­pollution​-­and​-­climate​-­change​/­accomplishments​ -­and​-­success​-­air​-­pollution​-­t ransportation. World Health Organization (WHO). 2019. “Clean Air for Health: Geneva Action Agenda.” Accessed September 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­phe​/­news​/­clean​-­air​-­for​-­health​/­en. World Health Organization (WHO). n.d. “Ambient Air Pollution: Pollutants.” Accessed September 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­airpollution​/­ambient​/­pollutants​/­en.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., is a private manufacturing company of industrial gases founded in 1940. The new global headquarters is in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, which is planned to be completed by 2021. The company provides gases and equipment to a variety of industries involved with refining, petrochemicals, metals, food and beverage, and electronics. It also supplies liquefied natural gas (LNG) technology and equipment. The company has five international divisions, which include markets in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas. The company works with over fifty counties in addition to the United States. The focus of the company is on research and development to design and produce technology from its laboratories primarily located in the United States. It supports research and development at universities and receives research support from the federal government. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., produces oxygen, argon, and rare gases. The equipment for the production and processing of these gases is also part of its manufacturing. These gases are primarily produced through cryogenic generators and air separators. It also provides hydrogen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and syngas (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) for energy production and refining and the chemical and metallurgical industries. The company manufactures equipment for hydrocarbon recovery and purification, natural gas liquefaction, and liquid helium and liquid hydrogen transport and storage. The company is the world’s leading supplier of liquefied natural gas process technology and equipment. The company reports that its 2017 fiscal sales were $8.2 billion, and it has approximately fifteen thousand employees (Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 2018a). It claims to have over 170,000 customers, over 750 production facilities, and 1800 miles of industrial gas pipelines (Air Production and Chemical, Inc. 2018b).



Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 15

In 1940, Leonard Parker Pool founded Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., in Detroit, Michigan, using an on-site concept of producing and selling industrial gases. By World War II, the company had moved its business into the manufacturing of mobile generators to produce oxygen for defense aerospace purposes. After the war, the company expanded to other gases, such as liquid nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, which supported the space program and air force. By 1957, the company had expanded into the international market. This led to a tremendous growth in the company’s manufacturing of industrial gases and chemicals in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1978, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., reached $1 billion in revenue. That same decade, it ventured into cryogenic freezing, which revolutionized the food and restaurant markets. The company is the world’s largest supplier of hydrogen, and it has built leading positions in other gas markets, such as helium and natural gas liquefaction. Today, the company distributes gases via liquid bulk, packages, and on-site venues. According to Forbes, the company is ranked the 101st best employer for women and the 75th best employer for diversity in the United States (Forbes 2018). Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., reports that it is a responsible party to environmental remediation cleanup actions at thirty-two sites in the United States. A few of the sites in Florida, South Carolina, and Texas are highlighted in the report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2017). Several of the sites include both groundwater and soil contamination that requires remediation with enforcement by the states and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For instance, at their former operations in Pace, Florida, remediation of groundwater started under a 1995 consent order issued by the EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Several groundwater recovery systems have been installed to contain and remove contamination from groundwater. As of 2015, the company was part of a new consent order with FDEP to continue the remediation efforts. Contaminated soils have been bioremediated with the treated soils disposed of on-site. The Piedmont site in South Carolina is under active remediation for soil and groundwater contamination caused by a prior owner. At the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), numerous areas of soil contamination have been addressed, and contaminated groundwater is being treated at the Piedmont site. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., estimates that it will take until 2019 to complete remediation, with groundwater treatment continuing through 2029. At this site, monitoring is anticipated to continue through 2047. In 2012, a facility in Pasadena, Texas was closed. It required the pumping and treating of groundwater to control off-site contaminant migration under enforcement by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The company estimates that the pump and treat system will continue to operate until 2042. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Groundwater Contamination; Pump and Treat.

Further Reading

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 2018a. “Air Products Announces Planned Site for New Global Headquarters in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania.” New Release. Accessed

16

Airplane Emissions

August 22, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­airproducts​.­com​/­Company​/­news​-­center​/­2018​/­07​/­0717​­new​-­corporate​-­headquarters​.­aspx. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 2018b. “Company History.” Accessed August 22, 2018. ­http://​­w ww​.­airproducts​.­com ​/ ˜​/­media ​/ ­Files​/ ­PDF​/­company​/­company​-­h istory​.­pdf​ ?­la​= ​­en. Forbes. 2018. “Best Employers for Women.” Accessed August 22, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­forbes​ .­com​/­companies​/­air​-­products​-­chemicals. Reuters. 2018. “Profile: Air Products and Chemical Inc.” Accessed August 22, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­reuters​.­com​/­finance​/­stocks​/­company​-­profile​/­A PD. U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.: Form-K.” September 30, 2017. Accessed August 22, 2018. ­http://​­investors​ .­airproducts​.­com​/­phoenix​.­zhtml​?­c​= ​­92444​&­p​= ​­irol​-­reportsannual.

Airplane Emissions Aircraft are a rapidly growing source of air pollution and greenhouse gases (GHGs) within the transportation sector, which in the United States is second only to the power sector in air pollutant emissions. Aircraft emit significant amounts of a primary GHG: carbon dioxide (CO2). Large commercial aircraft produce about 12 percent of the total transport-related CO2 emissions and 3 percent of the United States’ total annual CO2 emissions. Because of the number of planes flying across the United States every day, it is not surprising that the United States produces nearly half the world’s total emissions. Jet aircraft as well as smaller turboprops also emit nitrogen oxides (NOx), which help form ozone. Aircraft emit vaporized water at high altitudes, creating condensation trails, or “contrails,” that are often visible from the ground. They are an additional cause of global warming, as they increase the number of cirrus clouds that reflect heat back to the surface of the earth. High-altitude GHG aircraft emissions have a greater global warming impact than if the emissions were released closer to the ground. Unfortunately, the closer air emissions are to the surface of the earth, the more significant are their threats to human health, including to children’s developing lungs. Aircraft emissions continue to grow and will triple by midcentury. In December 2007, a coalition of states, regional governments, and environmental groups petitioned the government to address the effects of aircraft pollution under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Unfortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) first response was to ignore the petition. On June 2010, the same coalition was forced to sue the EPA for its lack of response to the climate impacts of airplanes and other modes of transport. In 2011, federal courts sided with the coalition and ruled that the EPA must determine whether pollution from aircraft endanger human health and welfare. Again, the EPA ignored the ruling. Three years later, in August 2014, the coalition signaled it was prepared to sue the EPA over its gross indifference to aircraft-produced environmental pollution. Shortly thereafter, the EPA begrudgingly acquiesced and announced a domestic rulemaking process to determine whether emissions from aircraft



Airplane Emissions 17

endanger the public and environment. In June 2015, the EPA concluded that the U.S. aircraft fleet does harm the climate and endanger human health and welfare, and on July 25, 2016, it issued a finding under the authority of the CAA that aircraft exhausts affect human health and the environment and contribute to climate change. The EPA’s conclusions pertain to carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxides (NOx), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride. All of these chemical combinations have been shown through rigorous scientific means to massively contribute to air pollution and climate change. It is an established fact that GHGs are primarily produced by large commercial jets. Unfortunately, the EPA has yet to follow up with specific rules to enforce reductions in aircraft emissions. Pressure from domestic airline lobbyists may be a factor in the EPA’s lack of response and timeliness; if more rigorous emission requirements were required for solely U.S. carriers, it would put them at a competitive disadvantage to foreign carriers. The long-term solution to aircraft emissions must take place at the international level. Internationally, the United Nations has been involved in the effort to curb airplane emissions. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a UN organization, held a meeting at its Montreal headquarters in late September 2016 with more than two thousand government officials from around the world to adopt the first international mechanism to reduce CO2 emissions from aviation. The ICAO proposed a market-based approach whereby aviation emissions would be measured from a baseline to be set in 2020. Emissions that exceed this level are to be offset by all countries, with the exception of developing nations, unless they volunteer. Sixty-three countries pledged to implement the approach, including the United States, China, Japan, and Canada. The European Union also voiced its support. Subsequently, 103 countries voluntarily submitted their aviation action plans for carbon offsetting and reduction. The ICAO’s first steps are important however, it also appears the organization has backed away from its aggressive approach to reducing aircraft emissions on a worldwide scale. Again, the short-term economic realities of imposing additional environmental regulations on aircraft travel often runs up against the need for countries to maintain a viable aircraft travel industry. John Munro See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change.

Further Reading

Center for Biological Diversity. n.d. “Airplane Emissions.” Accessed October 12, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­biologicaldiversity​.­org​/­programs​/­climate​_law​_institute​/­t ransportation​ _and​_ global​_warming​/­airplane​_emissions. Internal Civil Aviation Organization. n.d. “Climate Change: States Action Plans and Assistance.” Accessed October 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­icao​.­int​ /­environmental​-­protection​/ ­Pages​/­ClimateChange​_ActionPlan​.­aspx. Milman, Oliver. 2016. “United Nations Close to Landmark Deal to Curb Airplane Emissions.” The Guardian, September 30, 2016. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­w ww​ .­t heg uardian​. ­c om ​/ ­e nviron ment ​/ ­2 016​/ ­s ep​/ ­3 0​/ ­u nited​- ­n ations​- ­l and mark​ -­deal​-­airplane​-­emissions.

18

American Chemistry Council (ACC)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “EPA Determines That Aircraft Emissions Contribute to Climate Change Endangering Public Health and the Environment.” News Releases from Headquarters, July 25, 2016. Last updated December 12, 2017. ­https://​­archive​.­epa​.­gov​/­epa​/­newsreleases​/­epa​-­determines​ -­aircraft​-­emissions​-­contribute​-­climate​-­change​-­endangering​-­public​-­health​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft.” Regulations for Emissions from Vehicles and Engines. Last updated August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­regulations​-­emissions​-­vehicles​ -­and​-­engines​/­regulations​-­greenhouse​-­gas​-­emissions​-­aircraft.

American Chemistry Council (ACC) The American Chemistry Council (ACC) serves as one of the most influential trade organizations for the chemical industry. It was originally created in 1872 as the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association and was renamed in 2000. It represents over 170 chemical companies, some which are the largest in the United States. The chemical industry is a significant contributor to the economy of the United States as well as nations around the world. According to the ACC (2017b), the chemical industry represents about 25 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States. This is a quarter of all the goods made in the nation. It also comprises “14 percent of all exports from the United States and over 800,000 jobs” (ACC 2017b). The ACC is active in advocacy through influencing public policy. It is also active in promoting the interests of its member organizations through litigation. It has been effective at advocating for its members through state, national, and international lobbying efforts. The organization is reported to have spent $23 million on federal lobbying in 2013–2014, and it is active in state-level lobbying, both directly and through the American Legislative Exchange Council, a politically conservative organization formed to influence public policy in state legislatures (Union of Concerned Scientists 2015). The ACC has several initiatives for education, awareness, and worker safety. One initiative is called the Responsible Care program. In 1988, Responsible Care was adopted by the ACC as a requirement for membership. The program has helped chemical companies improve their performance in health and safety in addition, and it has uncovered new markets for business. Today, this is an international initiative, with at least sixty countries participating, that claims to have improved energy efficiency and employee safety and reduced hazardous releases and incidents. The ACC has partnered with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to raise worker awareness regarding toxic chemical exposure in polyurethane manufacture, particularly the chemicals known as isocyanates. Polyurethane products include furniture insulation, car seats, and paints. This chemical is the foundation for products such as firm, flexible materials used in foam mattresses, some shoes, and specific adhesives. The toxic chemical class of isocyanates cause respiratory problems, such as asthma, and can irritate skin and mucous membranes in the lungs. The partnership includes employee



Ammonia (NH3) 19

training programs on the safe use of and practice with these chemicals in the workplace. This is an important partnership because the council represents the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry, which includes about 220,000 workers nationwide. Through its partnership with OSHA in the Alliance Program formed in 2017, the ACC partners with unions, trade and professional organizations, businesses, and educational institutions to prevent workplace fatalities, injuries, and illnesses and to provide education and awareness for safety and worker and public health regarding the use of toxic chemicals. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

American Chemistry Council (ACC). 2017a. “About the America Chemistry Council.” Accessed September 16, 2017. h­ ttps://​­www​.­americanchemistry​.­com​/­About. American Chemistry Council (ACC). 2017b. “About: Our Industry.” Accessed September 16, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­americanchemistry​.­com​/­Our​_Industry. American Chemistry Council (ACC). 2017c. “Responsible Care.” Accessed September 16, 2017. ­https://​­responsiblecare​.­americanchemistry​.­com. Goldman, Gretchen, Christina Carlson, and Yixuan Zhang. 2015. Bad Chemistry: How the Chemical Industry’s Trade Association Undermines the Policies That Protect Us. Arlington, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­ucsusa​.­org​/ ­badchemistry. Ink World. 2017. “OSHA, American Chemistry Council Align to Protect Workers from Hazardous Chemical Exposure.” September 15, 2017. Accessed September 16, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­inkworldmagazine​.­com​/­contents​/­view​_breaking​-­news​/­2017​- ­09​ -­15​/­osha​-­american​- ­chemistry​- ­council​-­align​-­to​-­protect​-­workers​-­f rom​-­hazardous​ -­chemical​-­exposure​/­32817. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2017. “Alliance.” Accessed July 31, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­dcsp​/­alliances​/­index​.­html. Office of Communications. 2017. “OSHA, American Chemistry Council Sign Alliance to Protect Workers from Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals.” News Releases, September 13, 2017. Accessed September 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­news​ /­newsreleases​/­t rade​/­09132017. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2015. “Bad Chemistry: How the Chemical Industry’s Trade Association Undermines the Policies That Protect Us (2015).” July 2015. Accessed September 17, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­ucsusa​.­org​/­center​-­science​-­and​-­democracy​/­fighting​ -­misinformation​/­american​-­chemistry​-­council​-­report​#.­W b7obNFryUk.

Ammonia (NH3) Ammonia (NH3) is a compound composed of nitrogen and hydrogen that is usually found in a gaseous or liquid form. It is highly soluble in water. There are two major sources of ammonia: industrial production and biological production found in nature. As a colorless, flammable, alkaline gas with a distinct smell, it exists in a variety of different forms and is abundant in nature. The compound is essential to many biochemical reactions in nature. For instance, it

20

Ammonia (NH3)

is formed in the soil and released as a vapor from the decomposition of plants and animals. It is also found in animal waste production. Ammonia is one of the most abundant nitrogen-containing compounds in the atmosphere. The gastrointestinal system in humans also produces ammonia, which is then metabolized in the liver. The manufactured chemical form of ammonia is frequently used in cleaning solutions. It is also sometimes used during the process of manufacturing pharmaceuticals and industrial compounds and used in fertilizer. At high concentrations, it is considered a hazardous substance and is regarded as a strong caustic agent. Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, facilities that produce, store, or use ammonia in significant quantities are required to report it and take strict precautions in the management of the chemical. At mild concentrations, ammonia is an irritant to humans’ skin, eyes, nose, throat, and lungs. At higher concentrations, it is a flammable gas with acute (immediate impacts) toxicity to aquatic life and may cause severe skin burns and eye damage to humans. Research has linked the excessive formation of ammonia in the brain with elevated blood concentrations in some Alzheimer’s disease cases. The United States is a major producer and consumer of ammonia. In 2016, the chemical was produced in thirty-one plants held by thirteen companies across fifteen states. According to the 2017 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), about 60 percent of total ammonia produced was located in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. From 2012 to 2015, the major import sources into the United States were Trinidad and Tobago (61%), Canada (19%), Russia (7%), and Ukraine (5%). The federal government expects that about five million tons per year of production capacity will be added in the United States. The additional production is anticipated to reduce ammonia imports. The USGS also indicates that global ammonia production is expected to increase by 15 percent during the next four years. Ammonia additions and expansions are expected in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, with the largest growth anticipated for China and Russia (USGS 2017, 118–119). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986).

Further Reading

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). 2017a. “Ammonia, CID=222.” PubChem Database. Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound​/­Ammonia. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). 2017b. “Ammonia, CID=222.” PubChem Database. Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound​/­Ammonia​#­datasheet​= ​­lcss. Shawcross, D. L. 2005. “Ammonia and Hepatic Encephalopathy: The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same.” Metabolic Brain Disease 20(3): 169– 179. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pubmed​/­16167195. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “Mineral Commodity Summaries—January 2016.” Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​­s3​-­us​-­west​-­2​.­amazonaws​.­com​/­prd​-­wret ​/­assets​/­palladium​/­production​/­mineral​-­pubs​/­nitrogen​/­mcs​-­2016​-­nitro​.­pdf.



Antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol) 21

Antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol) Antifreeze (the chemical ethylene glycol) is an additive used to lower the freezing point of any water-based liquid. It is added to an internal combustion engine’s cooling system so that the engine operates when temperatures drop below thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit. During hot days, antifreeze raises the boiling point of engine coolants to prevent overheating. The additive also protects against corrosion, promotes heat transfer, and prevents scale buildup. Most antifreeze is made from ethylene glycol, but it can contain other chemicals and ingredients, including propylene glycol, ethanol, methanol, and isopropyl alcohol. Manufacturers of antifreeze often replace sweet-tasting ethylene glycol, which has been responsible for poisoning thousands of people, pets, and wild animals, with propylene glycol, a nontoxic food additive (Stoye 2015). Acute exposure to ethylene glycol comes from ingesting large quantities of the additive. It causes three stages of health effects: central nervous system depression, followed by cardiopulmonary effects, and then renal damage. Rats and mice exposed to ethylene glycol in their diets over an extended period of time exhibited signs of kidney toxicity and liver effects. Several studies of rodents exposed orally or by inhalation showed ethylene glycol to be toxic to fetuses (NCBI n.d.). ENVIRONMENTAL RISK Environmental contamination can occur when antifreeze is improperly disposed of or handled. Although microorganisms in the environment will eventually break down new antifreeze, many of the contaminants found in used antifreeze will remain intact. Contaminants include copper, lead, zinc, and 1-4 dioxane. Heavy metals such as copper and lead may prevent wastewater treatment plants from meeting their environmental permit discharge requirements. The sludge created at the water treatment plant might also exceed maximum heavy metal content requirements, requiring the sludge to be handled as a hazardous waste. Spent antifreeze poured onto the ground or into septic systems has the potential to contaminate groundwater. Spent antifreeze poured into storm drains, ditches, streams, lakes, and the like will contaminate surface water. Biodegradation of large quantities of ethylene glycol may deplete the levels of dissolved oxygen in the water, resulting in in the deaths of aquatic organisms. Improper disposal may also result in drinking water supplies becoming contaminated. DETERMINING WHETHER ANTIFREEZE IS HAZARDOUS WASTE Normally, antifreeze is not considered to be a listed hazardous waste and, therefore, is not subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste disposal regulations; however, when antifreeze is contaminated by lead, cadmium, and chromium equal to or greater than the regulatory level for toxicity, it is considered a hazardous waste and subject to RCRA disposal regulations.

22

Antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol)

If antifreeze is made from ethylene glycol, it is included on the list of chemicals subject to the reporting requirements of Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). Annual releases and other waste management information for ethylene glycol is required to be reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI is designed to provide stakeholders with release and other waste management information on listed toxic chemicals that are being manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at covered facilities. A facility must report to the TRI if (1) the facility is in a covered Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code or it is a federal facility, (2) the facility has ten or more full-time-equivalent employees, and (3) the facility manufactures (includes importing) or processes more than twenty-five thousand pounds or otherwise uses more than ten thousand pounds of any listed toxic chemical during a calendar year. ANTIFREEZE RECYCLING One of the key ways to avoid the environmental impacts of antifreeze disposal is to establish recycling programs. Because of the many on-site and off-site recycling options available, recycling antifreeze is feasible at most facilities throughout the United States. Waste antifreeze is recycled by three methods: (1) on-site recycling, where waste antifreeze is recycled in quantities purchased by the facility, located on-site, and operated by facility employees; (2) mobile recycling service, where a vehicle equipped with a recycling unit visits a facility and recycles waste antifreeze on-site; and (3) off-site recycling, where waste antifreeze is transported to a specialized recycling company that resupplies the customer facility with recycled antifreeze at a lower cost than new antifreeze. Recycling methods involve two steps: removing contaminants either by filtration, distillation, reverse osmosis, or ion exchange and restoring critical antifreeze properties with additives. Additives typically contain chemicals that raise and stabilize pH, inhibit rust and corrosion, reduce water scaling, and extend the life of ethylene glycol. John Munro See also: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986); Hazardous Waste; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976); Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Further Reading

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. “Antifreeze.” September 2008. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­w ww​.­michigan​.­gov​/­documents​/­deq​/­deq​-­ead​-­tas​-­antifrez​ _320830​_7​.­pdf. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “1,2-Ethanediol, CID=174.” PubChem Database. Accessed October 12, 2018. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​ .­gov​/­compound​/­1​_2​-­Ethanediol. Stoye, Emma. 2015. “Safer Antifreeze Made from Food Additive and Nanoparticles.” Scientific American, March 27, 2015. Reproduced with permission from Chemistry World, March 26, 2015. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­scientificamerican​ .­com​/­article​/­safer​-­antifreeze​-­made​-­f rom​-­food​-­additive​-­and​-­nanoparticles.



Arsenic (As) 23

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. “Hazardous Waste Characteristics: A User-Friendly Reference Document.” October 2009. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2016​- ­01​/­documents​/ ­hw​-­char​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Fact Sheets on Best Practices for Automotive Repair and Fleet Maintenance.” February 2, 2017. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­w ww​.­e pa​.­gov​/­saferchoice​/­facts​-­sheets​-­best​-­practices​-­automotive​-­repair​ -­and​-­fleet​-­maintenance.

Arsenic (As) Arsenic (As) is a heavy metal known for being a confirmed human carcinogen and poison. It appears as a brittle, odorless, metallic gray or tinny white solid that turns black upon exposure to air. It is insoluble in water and extremely toxic when ingested. When arsenic is burned, it produces a white smoke that is poisonous. Arsenic occurs in the earth’s crust and throughout the universe in the form of metallic arsenides, and it can combine with oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur to form inorganic arsenic compounds. Arsenic in animals and plants often combines with carbon and hydrogen to form organic arsenic compounds (ATSDR 2011a). The inorganic compounds are more toxic than the organic compounds. What is unique about arsenic is that its organic compounds can be converted to inorganic compounds after they are absorbed in biological systems. Arsenic has a long history of being used as a poison and medicine, and during World War I, it was used as a gas agent weapon. There is evidence arsenic has been used throughout history as a potent poison to assassinate emperors, kings, and pharaohs. For instance, Nero used it to murder his stepbrother to ensure he was not a competitor for becoming the emperor of Rome (Frith 2013). The odorless and tasteless properties of inorganic arsenic compounds, such as arsenic trioxide (white arsenic), made it an easy poison in the royal realm of society. White arsenic is easily made by heating arsenic ore. This produces a white water-soluble powder not discernible in foods or liquids. Once poisoned with an arsenic compound, most people conclude it is food poisoning because the symptoms are initially similar. As a medicine, arsenic was widely used in the treatment of the parasite trypanosomiasis, which causes “sleeping sickness,” and syphilis, and it was commonly used in medicinal agents in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In 1918, the U.S. Army used arsenic for chemical warfare. It created two warfare chemicals called lewisite and adamsite, both of which are fatal poisons to humans. Lewisite has the aroma of geranium flowers and is caustic to the eyes and respiratory system, producing blisters with skin contact and systemic poisoning upon absorption. It was dispersed by aerosol into the air or as a liquid into water. Effects are felt immediately on exposure, and death can occur with high or prolonged exposure (Frith 2013, 12). The other arsenic-based war chemical, adamsite, is a less potent respiratory and eye irritant that also induces vomiting. Lewisite and adamsite were produced too late to be used in World War I; however, these chemicals were produced and then stockpiled for use in future conflicts. During World War II, they were found to not be as effective as other

24

Arsenic (As)

chemical agents and so were not employed in battle. During and after World War II, many countries stockpiled chemical weapons, particularly the United States and the former Soviet Union, which held the largest stockpiles. In 1997, the Chemicals Weapons Convention prohibited the development, use, and stockpiling of chemical warfare weapons. The remaining stockpiles of lewisite and adamsite are still of international concern and are listed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as potential bioterrorism agents. A more recent use of arsenic is wood preservation. Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) is used to make “pressure-treated” lumber. CCA is an inorganic pesticide that is also water-soluble and used to make wood resistant to termites and fungi, which cause decay over time (ATSDR 2011b). Because CCA was used in residential decks and playgrounds, there is concern that arsenic can leach into the soil from existing structures and that it may expose children to toxins by direct contact. The CCA can adhere to hands or clothing during play, which can then be brought indoors and expose others. Another major concern is exposure to CCA that has leached into the soil, as treated wood is subjected to rainwater and weathering. As of 2002, CCA in the United States is no longer allowed for residential use. Arsenic is often found in the soils around smelters. Arsenic compounds are still used to make certain glass materials, semiconductors, pesticides, and certain paints and dyes. According to the Center for Public Integrity (2014), arsenic is commonly found in the food and drinking water humans consume as well as groundwater. During 2012–2016, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2017, 26), the United States predominantly imported arsenic metal from China (89%) and Japan (10%). China and Morocco lead the global production of arsenic trioxide, accounting for 87 percent of the estimated world production and supplying almost all of the U.S. imports of arsenic trioxide in 2016. China is the leading world producer of arsenic metal. The United States has not produced arsenic metal domestically since 1985. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); Heavy Metals; Pesticides.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011a. “Arsenic.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011b. “Arsenic: CCA Treated Wood.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxfaqs​/ ­FS​.­asp​?­id​= ​­1202​&­tid​= ​­3. Center for Public Integrity. 2014. “How Politics Derailed EPA Science on Arsenic, Endangering Public Health.” Politics of Poison. Last updated June 28, 2014. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­publicintegrity​.­org​/­2014​/­06​/­28​/­15000​/ ­how​-­politics​ -­derailed​-­epa​-­science​-­arsenic​-­endangering​-­public​-­health. Frith, John. 2013. “Arsenic—The ‘Poison of Kings’ and the ‘Savior of Syphilis.’” Journal of Military and Veteran’s Health 21(4): 11–17. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­jmvh​ .­org​/­w p​-­content​/­uploads​/­2014​/­02​/­John​-­Frith​-­Vol​-­21​-­Issue​- ­4​.­pdf.

Asbestos 25 National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Arsenic, CID=5359596.” PubChem Database. Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound​/­A rsenic. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “Arsenic.” Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2017: 26–27. Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​­s3​-­us​-­west​-­2​.­amazonaws​.­com​ /­prd​-­wret​/­assets​/­palladium​/­production​/­mineral​-­pubs​/­arsenic​/­mcs​-­2017​-­arsen​.­pdf.

Asbestos Asbestos is a mineral in the form of a fiber that is mined and officially not considered a chemical that is manufactured. Six different fibers are commonly known as asbestos: actinolite, amosite, anthophyllite, chrysotile (the majority of the fiber type in products), crocidolite, and tremolite. Asbestos is a carcinogen when its fibers are inhaled or ingested. Once in the lungs, they become trapped and accumulate, as the body is rarely able to expel the fibers and they do not break down. Over time, they cause scar tissue and thickening of the lungs’ linings, possibly causing serious breathing conditions, such as asbestosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or malignant diseases, such as lung cancer and mesothelioma, a different form of cancer than that caused by smoking tobacco. Asbestos is useful because of its strong ability to resist heat, which makes it a superb insulating material and fire retardant in many applications. According to Povtak (2017b), there are early accounts of ancient Egyptians and Romans using asbestos in their homes and palaces for fabrics such as tablecloths, napkins, and shrouds. During the industrial revolution in the early 1900s, the United States began to widely use asbestos in building and construction materials, floor tiles, and paints and later in drywall. It was the main insulation in boiler rooms for many buildings, such as schools, museums, hospitals, and government buildings. The military used it widely across its bases, ships, tanks, and aircrafts. In trains and ships, it helped protect engines and electrical equipment, and in coal and oil furnaces, it provided fire protection and insulation. It even used to be common in oven mitts and hot plate holders. Today, asbestos can be found in most buildings around pipe fittings and in attic and roof insulation, and car brakes and clutches. It is identified by its white fibrous coating that easily crumbles and then can become airborne and inhaled, the most dangerous risk of asbestos. Because of predominant military and industrial uses of asbestos, males are more likely than women to have asbestos-related illnesses, with veterans at a higher risk. Although the industrial revolution in the United States spurred the reliance on asbestos, the peak of asbestos mining was actually in the 1970s. One of the first asbestos mines began operation at Sall Mountain, in White County, Georgia, in the late 1890s. It was not until 2002 that the last asbestos mine closed (Maurney 2017a). One of the more well-known cases of asbestos litigation is associated with the Johns Manville Corporation, which used asbestos in its roofing and construction

26 Asbestos

materials. From the 1960s to 1980s, the company experienced thousands of individual and class action lawsuits from asbestos-related illnesses, resulting in bankruptcy. The company later formed the Manville Personal Settlement Trust for employees and others impacted by asbestos (Maurney 2017c). Asbestos control and regulation has a controversial policy history, and it began with the modern environmental movement in the United States. In 1970, the Clean Air Act classified asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant, which means that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took the lead in creating asbestos use and disposal regulations. At this time, the EPA implemented a ban on spray-applied asbestos products. In 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) created restrictions on asbestos use in products. Because schools were identified as being one of the largest users of asbestos in their buildings, Congress created the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) in 1986 to focus on standards for inspecting and removing asbestos in schools. In 1989, the EPA issued the most comprehensive policy on asbestos under the Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Rule (ABPR). This regulation banned the manufacture, importation, processing, and sale of asbestos-containing products. The ban was opposed by the asbestos industry, which claimed it would have significant impacts to employment and negative economic consequences to several industries that were dependent on asbestos. As a result, the affected companies filed a lawsuit in 1991 to reverse the restrictions on asbestos. According to Povtak (2017a), the court of appeals in the landmark case Corrosion Proof Fittings v. Environmental Protection Agency overturned the ban, “claiming the EPA failed to demonstrate that a ban was the ‘least burdensome alternative’ to regulating asbestos.” The United States continues to import and use asbestos and has no policy initiative on the agenda for returning to a more restrictive ban. Today, only spray-applied asbestos and certain limited products containing asbestos are banned in the United States. All other uses of asbestos, such as automotive brake pads and gaskets, roofing products, and fireproof clothing, are considered legal. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Maurney, Matt. 2017a. “Asbestos Mining.” Edited by Walter Pacheco. ­Asbestos​.­com. Last modified February 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­asbestos​.­com​/­occupations​/­mining. Maurney, Matt. 2017b. “History of Asbestos.” Edited by Walter Pacheco. ­Asbestos​.­com. Last modified August 6, 2018. h­ ttps://​­www​.­asbestos​.­com​/­asbestos​/ ­history. Maurney, Matt. 2017c. “Johns Manville.” Edited by Walter Pacheco. ­Asbestos​.­com. Last modified June 18, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­asbestos​.­com​/­companies​/­johns​-­manville. Mesothelioma Research Foundation of America. 2016. “Asbestos History.” Westlake Village, CA: MESORFA. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­mesorfa​.­org​/­exposure​ /­history​.­php. Povtak, Tim. 2017a. “No Ban in the US.” Edited by Walter Pacheco. ­Asbestos​.­com. Last modified August 6, 2018. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­asbestos​.­com​ /­legislation ​/ ­ban.

Asthma 27 Povtak, Tim. 2017b. “What Is Asbestos?” Edited by Walter Pacheco. ­Asbestos​.­com. Last modified August 6, 2018. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­asbestos​.­com​ /­asbestos. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Asbestos.” Last updated August 9, 2018. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­asbestos.

Asthma Asthma is a chronic lung disease involving the inflammation of air pathways inside the lungs. Over time, asthma rates have been increasing in the United States. The American Lung Association (2017) reports that approximately “26 million Americans have asthma, including 6.1 million children.” People of all ages are impacted by asthma; however, it is quite common for the disease to begin in childhood, most likely before the age of five. Asthma is the third-leading cause of hospitalizations for children. There is no cure for asthma, only treatment and management. It causes repeated coughing, shortness of breath, wheezing, and chest tightness that makes it difficult to pull air into the lungs. This can occur anytime, but it is most likely in the mornings, at night, and after exposure to a trigger. When airways become inflamed, the muscles surrounding them constrict. This narrows the airways, preventing less air to enter the lungs, and can lead to swelling of the passages and the wheezing or coughing that is known as an asthma attack. People with family histories of allergies or asthma are more likely to become asthmatic in their lifetimes. There is a frequent relationship between allergies and asthma: having untreated allergies can often cause a person to develop asthma. In the Scientific American, Marla Cone (2010) has reported on studies that detail how children who sleep in bedrooms containing fumes from water-based paints and solvents are two to four times more likely to suffer allergies or asthma. These chemicals in paints are called propylene glycol and glycol ethers, which are in the class of chemicals known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). They were found in children’s furniture and toys located in their bedrooms, creating a close environment for chronic exposure. A specific type of asthma, called occupational asthma, is caused by inhaling toxic fumes, gases, or dust from the workplace. Occupational asthma has become the most common work-related lung disease in developed countries, according to Thanai Pongee (2017), writing on behalf of the American Academy of Asthma Allergy and Immunology (AAAAI). Up to 15 percent of asthma cases in the United States may be job related. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA 2017) “estimates that 11 million workers in a wide range of industries and occupations are exposed to at least one of the numerous agents known to be associated with occupational asthma.” With this type of asthma, it is exposure at the workplace that triggers the attack, so when employees are exposed and experience asthmatic symptoms, the symptoms dissipate when they leave the workplace. Unfortunately, symptoms return upon reentering the workplace.

28 Asthma

People with a family history of allergies or asthma are more likely to develop occupational asthma. Workplace chemicals that can trigger asthma include hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and many types of metals and are usually found in industrial workplaces. This type of asthma generally develops after months or years of exposure. For instance, “5 percent of medical clinical professionals tend to develop asthma from breathing in powder from latex gloves” (Pongee 2017). Another type of typical occupational asthma can come from long-term exposure to plastics, resins, paints, insulation, rubbers, and foams. Insecticides, herbicides, and pesticides as well as other agricultural chemicals are often asthma triggers in farm workers and families living nearby. Smoking tobacco products and breathing secondhand smoke places people at a greater asthma risk. Some building materials and home furnishings emit formaldehyde gases that in closed environments can trigger asthma in some infants and children. Cleaning products, such as chlorine bleach and ammonia, and several hazardous air pollutants can also be triggers. Across the United States, widespread residents in communities downwind from coal-fired power plants have suffered asthma. Coal-fired power plants emit particulate matter (PM) known as soot and often mercury and other chemicals. This is the dark smoke seen coming out of plant smokestacks. These substances permeate the air, soil, and water, impacting residents and often nearby schools. These plants also emit sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are two major air pollutants that can irritate asthmatics. Many studies have linked the proximity of coal-fired power plants in urban communities to higher asthma rates in children. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Secondhand Smoke; Tobacco Smoke; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

American Lung Association. 2017. “Lung Health and Diseases: Learn about Asthma.” Accessed September 12, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­lung​.­org​/­lung​-­health​-­and​-­diseases​/­lung​ -­disease​-­lookup​/­asthma​/­learn​-­about​-­asthma. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017. “Asthma and Secondhand Smoke.” Tips from Former Smokers campaign. Accessed September 12, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­tobacco​/­campaign​/­tips​/­diseases​/­secondhand​-­smoke​-­asthma​ .­html. Chicago Physicians for Social Responsibility. 2017. “Coal-Fired Power Plants and Health.” Accessed September 12, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­chicagopsr​.­org​/­environment​-­health​/­coal​ .­html. Cone, Marla. 2010. “Volatile Organic Compounds May Worsen Allergies and Asthma.” Scientific American, October 20, 2010. Accessed September 12, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­scientificamerican​.­com​/­article​/­volatile​-­organic​-­compounds. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. 2017. “Asthma.” Accessed September 12, 2017. ­https://​­w ww​.­n hlbi​.­nih​.­gov​/ ­health ​/ ­health​-­topics​/­topics​/­asthma.



Automobile Emissions 29

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2017. “Occupational Asthma.” Accessed September 12, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­occupational​ asthma. Trotto, Sarah. 2017. “Exploring Occupational Asthma.” Safety and Health, March 26, 2017. Accessed September 12, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­safetyandhealthmagazine​.­com​ /­articles​/­15409​-­exploring​-­occupational​-­asthma.

Automobile Emissions Automobile emissions have played a considerable role in multiple public health problems throughout the history of the United States. And the problems caused by automobile emissions are not slight. In the most severe circumstances, they can lead to nervous system problems as well as the inability to efficiently circulate oxygen throughout the body. As a result, governments, most notably the federal government, introduced tight but eventually meetable mandates requiring limits on automobile emissions. Eventually, these were met by the introduction of catalytic converters, which oxidized the exhaust from automobiles, resulting in a less dangerous exhaust. However, there were still trouble spots, including the delivery of unleaded fuel and the effect that unleaded fuel had on cars predating the mid-1970s. Automobile emissions refer to a class of by-products from the use of automobile engines that are normally emitted via a tailpipe. These emissions consist of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Hydrocarbons are the by-product of leftover fuel found in both gasoline and diesel engines. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), exposure to hydrocarbons via inhalation affects the human nervous system, and if the concentration of hydrocarbons is sufficiently high over an extended period, it can lead to death. Carbon monoxide is also a by-product of diesel and gasoline engines, and exposure to it results in more dire health consequences. Overexposure to carbon monoxide limits the ability for blood to deliver oxygen throughout the body. As a result, carbon monoxide poisoning via prolonged exposure to automobile emissions can lead to death. However, if a person who has been exposed to high levels of carbon monoxide is removed from that environment, the symptoms dissipate, and in many cases, the health consequences are not long-lasting or permanent. To limit the potential public health consequences of automobile emissions, various levels of government in the United States regulate the by-products of gasoline and diesel engines used in automobiles. Surprisingly enough, California became the first government in the United States to regulate automobile emissions in the 1960s. However, soon after California’s emissions regulation program was enacted, the federal government began its own regulation program, which was absorbed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when it was established in 1970. The EPA wanted to show Americans that the newly created agency would represent a force in American politics. As Tim Palucka (2004) recounts,

30

Automobile Emissions

The agency opened on December 2, and Assistant Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus became its first Administrator. Nine days later he issued orders to the mayors of Cleveland, Atlanta, and Detroit to clean up their waterways in six months or face court action. He wanted to show that the new agency had teeth. In less than a month Congress passed and Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act of 1970, giving the EPA the power to establish national air-quality standards. The act took dead aim at automobile emissions, requiring a device that would clean a car’s exhaust gases for at least 50,000 miles.

At the beginning of the mandate, most of the automobile industry struggled to find a way to implement the changes in a way that would keep the automobile industry afloat. At that time, cars used large amounts of fuel. Automakers made automobiles with large gasoline engines and did not concern themselves with the impact the emissions might have on both the environment and public health. The automobile companies lobbied and complained to Congress that they would not be able to keep the automobile industry alive with the stringent dictates from the EPA. They also heaped blame on Congress for not reeling in the EPA and its strong dictates and warned that the mandates could lead to considerable job losses. However, the doom and gloom expressed by the automobile industry would not come to fruition. And one of the main reasons for the automobile industry being able to meet the mandates while not sacrificing the industry and automobile workers was the development of the catalytic converter. Even more, the introduction of catalytic converters enabled the automobile industry to reach the previously lofty goal of reducing the 1968 emission levels by 90 percent by 1975. Catalytic converters reduced the amount of automobile emissions by inducing an oxidizing chemical reaction with exhaust from automobiles. The concept behind catalytic converters was not necessarily a new development. As early as 1958, Eugene Houdry, a French engineer, had developed the framework that would become the catalytic converter used in cars today. He developed a process for using a set of porcelain rods inside a rectangular box that would oxidize the harmful emissions and turn them into a less damaging chemical (Palucka 2004). Even with the positives presented by the catalytic converter, it still had some flaws. First, the United States would have to transition the fuel delivery system from leaded to unleaded gasoline. This presented a problem not only because gas stations needed to dramatically change their contracts but also because it became more difficult to find fuel that would power automobiles made after the mid-1970s. In fact, when California banned the sale of all leaded gasoline in 1991, it hurt owners of cars from before that date. The Los Angeles Times (1991) ran a story on those affected by the ban and interviewed a man who was upset by the change: “Hall, 46, an Eagle Rock schoolteacher, owns two 1960s-era Corvairs, which he keeps mainly because they’re easy to work on. ‘There’s a generator and a carburetor and six cylinders; you don’t have all that garbage on the engine,’ Hall explained. ‘It’s simple, and I can fix it.’” Although oil companies tried to convince the public that even older cars would run just as well on unleaded gasoline, many were skeptical. However, for the most part, it was a small price to pay. Catalytic converters became one of the main reason for the reduction of emissions from automobiles.



Automotive Manufacturing 31

Although it is not the only reason, the introduction of catalytic converters and the reduced emissions played a huge role in reducing the number of smoggy days experienced by Americans in many of the large cities across the country. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. “Public Health Statement for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.” Toxic Substances Portal, September 1999. Accessed August 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­phs​/­phs​.­asp​?­id​= ​­422​ &­tid​= ​­75. Lee, Patrick. “Drivers Sputter as Leaded Gas Phaseout Nears.” Los Angeles Times, December 19, 1991. Accessed August 28, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­latimes​.­com​/­archives​ /­la​-­xpm​-­1991​-­12​-­19​-­m n​-­851​-­story​.­html. Palucka, Tim. 2004. “Doing the Impossible.” Invention and Technology Magazine 19(3). Accessed August 28, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­inventionandtech​.­com​/­content​/­doing​ -­impossible​-­0.

Automotive Manufacturing Automotive manufacturing in the United States is one of the largest automotive markets in the world and is home to many global components. This is a major industry in the United States, which is the world’s second-largest market for vehicle sales and production. In 2017, it supported over four million jobs either directly or indirectly (International Trade Administration 2019). Automotive manufacturing is uniquely one of the sectors that is directly linked to fluctuating prices for fuel, consumer preferences, and fuel efficiency—all of which tend to change over time. The automotive industry is the nation’s largest consumer of raw materials. These include oil, rubber, iron, carpeting, electronics, and iron. It is also one of the nation’s largest polluters, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (n.d.), a nonprofit research and education organization for environmentally sound economic development established in 1974. According to an industry market report, over the past five years, there has been an employee loss of 2.4 percent, and the industry has declined by 5.5 percent. In 2019, revenues were $99 billion (IBIS World 2019).

AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING AND TOXIC CHEMICALS Automotive manufacturing involves various toxic chemicals. Chemical Watch (2020) is an organization established in 2007 that provides information on chemical requirements worldwide. Common toxic chemicals used in automotive manufacturing include a vast array of heavy metals, pigments, refrigerants, flame retardants, plastics, metal finishing products, surface coatings, cleaning solvents and degreasers, and many other hazardous substances.

32

Automotive Manufacturing

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2011), automobile manufacturing has forty-nine facilities report into the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). This industry pollutes the air, water, and land. Most of the pollution in this sector is produced on-site and goes into the air as emissions. The sector is able to recycle about half of its production-related wastes (EPA 2011). According to the TRI report for 2014, the automotive industry has decreased its total releases by 52 percent (EPA 2011). The highest releases have included xylene, butyl alcohol, toluene, zinc, styrene, copper, and chromium, among others. Many of the metals used in the materials for production are not easily substituted, so there have not been significant gains in source reductions in several of the chemicals. Sandra Gaona (2016) reports that according to the EPA Toxics Release Inventory Program, the chemicals with the highest human health risk in the industry include chromium, nickel, cobalt, benzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and glycol ethers .The EPA has a database available to the public under TRI to examine pollution prevention by different industrial sectors, including the automotive sector. The Institute for Local Reliance has advocated for using chemicals from plant matter as a cost-effective and environmentally sound alternative to petroleum-based chemicals that are currently used in the manufacturing process. Instead of using highly toxic chemicals, the organization also suggests substitutes for the industry, such as soybean, coconut, and rapeseed oils or grain-derived alcohol. One of the more rigorous regulations on automotive manufacturers is associated with the European Union, which has established a program called REACH: Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals. This program serves as a regulatory framework that includes chemicals used in manufacturing in the automotive industry. Because automobiles are not manufactured in a single country, but contain components from several continents, this is a major regulation for the overall industry. It is estimated that close to three thousand suppliers are involved in manufacturing vehicles with more than eight thousand major components (Environmental Management Solutions 2019). REACH extends to any automotive manufacturers of goods produced or imported to the European Union. The International Material Data System (IDMS) is a global database that contains all the materials present throughout the manufacturing process, including hazardous and controlled substances. An international group of manufacturers and supplies called the Global Automotive Stakeholder Group has produced a list that also helps form the basis for declaration into the IMDS. THE IMPACT OF FUEL PRICES AND EFFICIENCY Transportation takes up 29 percent of the consumption of energy in the United States (EIA 2018). In the United States, energy consumption from the transportation sector is predicted to continue to decline from 2019 to 2037 because of increases in fuel economy rather than the number of miles traveled. It is estimated that these decreases could be as large as 26 percent from 2018 to 2050 according



Automotive Manufacturing 33

to the Environmental Information Administration (EIA 2019, 118). In the United States, automotive travel continues to increase and is also predicted to increase for both light-duty and heavy-duty trucks through 2050. This is occurring at the same time that the automotive industry is achieving tremendous gains in fuel efficiency and that there are overall lower fuel prices due to trends in energy production. Sales of more fuel-efficient cars are expected to continue to increase through 2050. Hybrid and electric vehicles and alternative-fueled cars have gained significant market shares due to their popularity among consumers, although cars dependent on fossil fuels remain dominant in the marketplace. Carbon dioxide emissions are one of the major air contaminants produced by automotive transit. It is expected that the overall decline of carbon emissions from transportation should be 5 percent from 2019 to 2050, although this sector remains the highest when compared to industry, residential, and commercial sectors (EIA 2019, 26). John Munro See also: Beryllium (Be); Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Further Reading

Chemical Watch. 2019. Company. Accessed June 22, 2020. ­https://​­home​.­chemicalwatch​ .­com​/­company​/. Environmental Information Administration (EIA). 2018. “Use of Energy in the United States Explained.” May 23, 2018. Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­eia​.­gov​ /­energyexplained​/?­page​= ​­us​_energy​_transportation. Environmental Information Administration (EIA). 2019. Annual Energy Outlook 2019 with Projections to 2050. January 2019. Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­eia​ .­gov​/­outlooks​/­aeo​/­pdf​/­aeo2019​.­pdf. Environmental Management Solution. 2019. “Chemical Tracking in the Automotive Industry.” Accessed April 16, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­era​-­environmental​.­com​/ ­blog​ /­chemical​-­t racking​-­in​-­the​-­automotive​-­industry. Gaona, Sandra, 2016. “The TRI P2 Search Tool: Industry Analysis to Identify Action to Reduce Toxics.” Toxics Release Inventory Program, October 19, 2016. Accessed April 25, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2016​-­11​/­documents​ /­gaona​_tri​_ p2​_search​_tool​_industry​_analysis​_101716​.­pdf. IBIS World. 2019. “Car and Automobile Manufacturing Industry in the US.” Industry Market Research Report, February 2019. Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­i bisworld​. ­c om​/ ­i ndustry​- ­t rends​/ ­m arket​- ­r esearch​- ­r eports​/ ­m anufacturing​ /­t ransportation​-­equipment​/­car​-­automobile​-­manufacturing​.­html. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. n.d. Biochemicals for the Automotive Industry. Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­e pa​.­ohio​.­gov​/­portals​/­41​/­p2​/ ­biochemicals automotiveindustry​.­pdf. International Trade Administration. 2019. “Automotive Spotlight.” SelectUSA. Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­selectusa​.­gov​/­automotive​-­industry​-­united​-­states. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. “Industry Sector Profile—Automobile Manufacturing.” 2011 TRI National Analysis Overview. Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­e pa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­documents​/­2011​_tri​_ na​_overview​_ auto​.­pdf.

B Basel Action Network(BAN) The Basel Action Network (BAN) is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) established in 1997 to address the export of hazardous waste to developing countries. “BAN’s mission is to champion global environment health and justice by ending toxic trade, catalyzing a toxics-free future, and campaigning for everyone’s right to a clean environment” (BAN 2015a). It is named after the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, otherwise known as the Basel Convention, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1989 and implemented beginning in 1992 (see more below). BAN’s headquarters is located in Seattle, Washington. It is led by Jim Puckett, who founded the Asia Pacific Environmental Exchange, which also focused on the transfer of toxic waste to areas in Asia prior to BAN. BAN actively advocates for policies that protect human health and the environment through promoting self-sufficient waste management by all countries. Its policy advocacy includes providing research, building consensus, and helping to monitor the policies of the Basel Convention. The goal is to give developing countries a voice in the prevention of toxic dumping from other countries. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Environmental Program’s (UNEP) Chemicals Program, and the UNEP Governing Council have worked closely with BAN (BAN 2015b) in addition to other NGOs and interest groups. In the 1980s, the trade of hazardous materials being shipped primarily to developing countries became an international policy issue. This type of shipment was coined as “toxic trade.” As a result, in 1989, the United Nations created the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (Basel Convention). This treaty created a new set of policies for international transport and disposal of hazardous wastes. It requires that informed consent be obtained from the importing country prior to transportation. Before an export can take place, the exporting country must provide the importing country with detailed information on the transport and shipment. The transfer can only occur when all countries involved have given their written consents. The Basel Convention also provides for cooperation between parties, ranging from exchange of convention-related information to technical assistance. The Secretariat of the Basel Convention is required to facilitate and support all consents and cooperation between countries involved in toxic shipments, plus it serves as the information base. In the event transboundary movements of hazardous wastes have been executed illegally, the convention does provide some regulatory action:

36

Basel Action Network (BAN)

the responsible party will be identified, and fines will be imposed to ensure safe disposal, with the option to return the waste to the generating country. The convention established fourteen centers for training and technology transfer within their respective regions. Countries can “enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements on hazardous waste management . . . provided that such agreements are ‘no less environmentally sound’ than the Basel Convention [requirements]” (Basel Convention 2011). The convention requires that any unprohibited shipments be environmentally sound solutions, and they must be nondiscriminatory and implemented in accordance with the convention’s regulatory system. BAN has made significant accomplishments in the areas of electronics-generated waste, called “e-waste,” and ship disposal. One of the success stories for BAN was a campaign that included a coalition of Cambodia, Taiwan, the United States, and Europe to make Formosa Plastics stop shipping to Cambodia and return its mercury-containing waste to Taiwan (Tremblay 1999). In 2000, BAN helped prevent Japan from exporting polychlorinated biphenyl (commonly known as PCB) waste to the United States and Canada (BAN 2015c). BAN works to ensure ships are not dismantled and left for disposal on beaches or in oceans and restricts the trade of toxic wastes that are being disposed of. In the past, the U.S. military disposed of aging ships by submerging them in the ocean or having them transferred to developing countries. The vessels would be sailed to a beach and left. When the tide receded, people from the local communities would come to dismantle the ship without the necessary health and safety protections. Aging ships have a variety of toxic components, such as lead, mercury, oil sludge, PCBs, and other hazardous substances to the environment. The Basel Convention recognizes these ships as hazardous waste. BAN reported this activity happening in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India, which caused the United States to develop ship recycling facilities in Texas, Louisiana, and Maryland for proper, safe disposal. In 2003, BAN, along with other environmental groups, prevented the export of nine old naval military vessels to the United Kingdom. Today, BAN’s work includes electronic waste (e-waste) in the definition of hazardous waste because it contains toxic metal components, such as lead and mercury. In 2002, BAN released a documentary titled Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia (BAN 2002). This information exposed the reality of e-waste disposal in Asian countries. BAN led a program called the Pledge to True Stewardship, which was a commitment by companies to not export of vessels to other counties for disposal. A film released by BAN in 2005 titled The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-Use and Abuse to Africa (BAN 2005) was also influential in calling attention to the e-waste being disposed of in Africa. BAN gained national attention when CBS’s 60 Minutes aired an episode on November 6, 2008, called “The Electronic Wasteland” that featured e-waste exports (CBS News 2008). More recently, in 2010, BAN launched the e-Stewards Certification Program, which certifies the most socially and environmentally responsible e-recyclers. By 2011, this program had over one hundred facilities meeting the certification standards.



Benzene (C6H6) 37

BAN has been one of the most active advocates of the Basel Convention and continues to play a significant role in its implementation. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Hazardous Waste; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Toxic and Hazardous Substances; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Basel Action Network (BAN). 2002. “Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia.” Produced by Jim Puckett. Accessed April 19, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?­v​= ​­yDSWGV3jGek. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2005. “The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-Use and Abuse to Africa.” Produced by Carol Geertsema of Twisp River Films. Accessed April 19, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​= ​­8tVdTBnBXw0. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2015a. “About Us.” Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­www​ .­ban​.­org​/­about​-­us. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2015b. “Basel Advocacy.” Accessed April 19, 2018. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­ban​.­org​/­advocacy. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2015c. “History.” Accessed April 19, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­ban​ .­org​/ ­history. Basel Convention. 2011. “Overview.” Accessed April 23, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­basel​.­int​ /­TheConvention​/­Overview​/­tabid​/­1271​/ ­Default​.­aspx. CBS News. 2008. “Following the Trail of Toxic E-waste.” 60 Minutes. November 6, 2008. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­cbsnews​.­com​/­news​/­following​-­the​-­t rail​-­of​ -­toxic​-­e​-­waste. e-Stewards. n.d. “Digital Equity Program.” Accessed April 19, 2018. ­http://​­e​-­stewards​.­org​ /­learn​-­more​/­digital​-­equity. Tremblay, Jean-François. 1999. “Formosa Plastics Claims Mercury Waste Shipped to ­Cambodia Is Harmless.” Chemical & Engineering News Archive 77(2): 6.

Benzene (C6H6) Benzene (C6H6) is a clear, colorless liquid with a slightly sweet odor. It is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that rapidly evaporates into the air and is highly flammable, but it only mildly dissolves in water. It is composed of six carbons in a ring, referred to as a benzene ring. Benzene is a known carcinogen that can cause neurological or immunological symptoms and blood disorders, including leukemia. In the 1800s, benzene was first discovered in coal tar. Today, it is mostly made by the petroleum industry as an industrial chemical solvent, and it is widely used in the United States in manufacturing plastics, resins, and nylon and synthetic fibers. Benzene is also used to make some types of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides and is a component in glues, adhesives, cleaning products, and paint strippers. Benzene’s natural sources include gases from volcanoes and forest fires. It is a component of crude oil and gasoline, which is the main natural source of benzene produced today, plus cigarette smoke and the more recent e-cigarettes that are operated at high power.

38

Beryllium (Be)

Benzene can transfer through air, precipitation, snow, and soil, which makes it a difficult chemical to eliminate in the environment. Controversy swirls over benzene’s role in childhood leukemia for affected children living near petrochemical plants, which deny any connection. Several federal agencies oversee human protection from benzene exposure: the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates exposure to benzene in the workplace, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the percentage of benzene allowed in drinking water and gasoline, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the amount of benzene in bottled water, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) requires products have special labeling for benzene. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. “Benzene.” Toxic Substances Portal, August 2007. Last updated January 21, 2015. Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­phs​/­phs​.­asp​?­id​= ​­37​&­tid​= ​­14. American Cancer Society. 2016. “Benzene and Cancer Risk.” Last revised January 5, 2016. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​/­cancer​/­cancer​-­causes​/ ­benzene ​.­html. Lombardi, Kristen. 2014a. “Benzene: One Family’s Long Fight to Prove Link to Leukemia in Children.” The Guardian, December 8, 2014. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­theguardian​.­com​/­environment​/­2014​/­dec​/­08​/ ­benzene​-­link​-­leukemia​ -­children. Lombardi, Kristen. 2014b. “Benzene and Worker Cancers: ‘An American Tragedy.’” Exposed: Decades of Denial on Poisons. Center for Public Integrity, December 4, 2014. Last updated December 7, 2014. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­publicintegrity​.­org​/­2014​/­12​/­0 4​/­16320​/ ­b enzene​- ­a nd​-­worker​- ­cancers​- ­a merican​ -­t ragedy. National Cancer Institute. 2015. “Benzene.” March 20, 2015. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­gov​/­about​-­cancer​/­causes​-­prevention​/­risk​/­substances​/ ­benzene. Portland State University. 2017. “Cancer-Causing Benzene Found in E-Cigarette Vapors Operated at High Power.” Medical Xpress, March 8, 2017. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­medicalxpress​.­com​/­news​/­2017​-­03​-­cancer​-­causing​-­benzene​-­e​-­cigarette​-­vapors​ -­high​.­html.

Beryllium (Be) Beryllium (Be) is a strong and lightweight gray metal found in mineral rocks, coal, soil, and volcanic dust that is commercially mined in Utah, Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, and Nevada. It is frequently used as an alloy with copper, aluminum, magnesium, and nickel. Beryllium alloys are used in automobiles, computers, golf clubs, bicycle frames, and dental bridges. Copper-beryllium alloy is commonly used to make bushings,



Beryllium (Be) 39

bearings, and springs. Because of its high heat capacity, Beryllium oxide is used in specialty ceramics for electrical and high-technology applications. Beryllium’s purified form is used in nuclear weapons and reactors, aircraft and space vehicle structures, instruments, X-ray machines, and mirrors. The U.S. Department of Defense values this metal because of its strength and lightweight properties in addition to its high heat capacity and transparency in X-rays, and it has classified beryllium as a strategic and critical material because of its uses in the aerospace, telecommunications, information technology, defense, medical, and nuclear industries; however, beryllium is a human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to beryllium can increase the risk of developing lung cancer and a debilitating disease of the lungs called chronic beryllium disease (CBD). Beryllium dust can enter the air from the combustion of coal and oil. This dust eventually settles over the land and water, but it tends to attach to the soil without leaching into the water. The most common risk of exposure comes in the workplace through inhalation in processing or skin contact in handling beryllium. As a result, there are strict regulations on the control of beryllium dust, fumes, and mists in the workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA n.d.) “estimates that approximately 62,000 workers are potentially exposed to beryllium in approximately 7,300 sites in the United States. While the highest exposures occur in the workplace, family members of workers who work with beryllium also have potential exposure from contaminated work clothing and vehicles.” U.S. defense and national laboratory employees are one group of workers exposed to beryllium. As a result, the Worker Health Protection Program (2013a) was created under the Defense Authorization Act of 1993 to provide free medical screening for former and current workers of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Automotive Manufacturing; Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2002. “Beryllium.” Toxic Substances Portal, September 2002. Last updated June 3, 2015. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxfaqs​/­tf​.­asp​?­id​= ​­184​&­tid​= ​­33. National Cancer Institute. 2015. “Beryllium.” March 20, 2015. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­h ttps://​­w ww​. ­c ancer​. ­g ov​/­a bout​- ­c ancer​/­c auses​- ­p revention​/ ­r isk​/­s ubstances​ /­beryllium. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Beryllium.” Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/ ­beryllium. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “Beryllium.” Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2017: 34–35. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­minerals​.­usgs​.­gov​ /­minerals​/­pubs​/­commodity​/ ­beryllium​/­mcs​-­2017​-­beryl​.­pdf. Worker Health Protection Program. 2013a. “About WHPP.” Accessed August 18, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­worker​-­health​.­org​/­aboutwhpp​.­html. Worker Health Protection Program. 2013b. “Beryllium Testing.” Accessed August 18, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­worker​-­health​.­org​/ ­berylliumtesting​.­html.

40

Beyond Pesticides

Beyond Pesticides Beyond Pesticides, formerly the National Coalition against the Misuse of Pesticides, is a nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC, that was established in 1981 “to protect healthy air, water, land, and food for [today’s population] and future generations” (Beyond Pesticides n.d.-a) against the chemical industry that manufactures pesticides. As a member of the National Organic Coalition, it advocates for protecting pollinators and the ecosystem, supporting safe workplaces, and promoting protective communities for vulnerable population groups, such as children and those with preexisting health conditions who could be adversely affected by these chemicals. Beyond Pesticides spends approximately 96 percent of its total expenses on programs and services (Charity Navigator 2017). Beyond Pesticides has taken a holistic approach to advancing sustainable practices and policies and solving the pesticide poisoning and contamination problem through the adoption of organic policies and practices. Through activities such as identifying and interpreting hazards associated with pesticide use as well as promoting the design of safe pest management programs, the organization helps people make informed choices when it comes to using pesticides in community areas such as parks, schools, and gardens. Beyond Pesticides has historically taken what it claims as a two-pronged approach to the pesticide problem by identifying the risks of conventional pest management practices and promoting nonchemical and the least toxic management alternatives. The organization’s primary goal is to effect change through local action by assisting individuals and community-based organizations in stimulating discussions on the hazards of toxic pesticides while providing information of safe alternatives. Community action through the local citizenry in addition to national policy advocacy are primarily how the organization advocates. A significant portion of its work focuses on providing information to people about how to avoid the use of pesticides. This includes how to select alternative choices in homes and schools and for pets. It also maintains a pesticide-induced disease database to facilitate epidemiological and laboratory studies that link public health impacts to pesticides. The organization sponsors the scientific exchange of practices for organic approaches at the National Pesticide Forum that is held annually. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Pesticide Action Network (PAN); Pesticides.

Further Reading

Beyond Pesticides. n.d.-a. Accessed April 23, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­beyondpesticides​.­org. Charity Navigator. 2017. “Beyond Pesticides.” August 1, 2017. Accessed April 23, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­charitynavigator​.­org​/­index​.­cfm​?­bay​= ​­search​.­summary​&­orgid​= ​­7110. Huber, Don. 2017. “Keynote Address.” Healthy Hives, Healthy Lives, Healthy Land: Ecological and Organic Strategies for Regeneration, filmed April 29, 2017 at



Bhopal Disaster 41 University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, MN. 35th National Pesticide Forum. YouTube Video, May 15, 2017. Accessed April 23, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­youtube​.­com​ /­watch​?­v​= ​­dwlTZRwlJYU.

Bhopal Disaster(1984) The “Bhopal disaster” refers to events that occurred on the night of December 2 and morning of December 3, 1984, after approximately forty-one metric tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC) and other toxic gases leaked from the pesticide plant of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. In just a few hours, nearly four thousand people died, and over a half million were injured as a result of the disaster. The Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation was formed in 1917 following the acquisition of four earlier companies: the Linde Air Products Company; the National Carbon Company; the Prest-O-Lite Company, Inc.; and the Union Carbide Company. The company became known as the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in 1957. In the early twentieth century, the company manufactured such products as helium, ferrozirconium, and activated carbon. Following World War I, while retaining its chemicals business, it moved into the consumer field and became one of the first companies to use market research in its development of consumer products to discover potential consumer needs; it created such products as the first antifreeze, Prestone (introduced in 1927), and the first batteries for portable radios, under the Eveready brand (introduced in 1959). Throughout the mid-twentieth century, Union Carbide continued to produce plastics, industrial gases, metal and carbon products, and electronics and medical products. UCC began operations in India in the late 1920s. In the 1960s, UCIL began pesticide production, which was part of India’s larger “green revolution” campaign to modernize agriculture. In 1969, UCIL’s Agricultural Products Division began operating at the Bhopal plant, eventually producing Sevin, a carbaryl-based diluted powder that was produced by a direct reaction of alpha-naphthol and methyl isocyanate. In 1974, UCIL was granted an industrial license to manufacture pesticides. Initially, the plant was only approved for the manufacture of pesticides made from component chemicals such as MIC; however, industry competition led to the manufacture of raw materials and intermediate products for formulation of the final product within one facility—a more hazardous process (Broughton 2005). By 1977, UCIL had begun construction of a second plant, but before construction was finalized, problems appeared that would require several modifications. The plants would never operate at full capacity. Adding to this difficulty of underutilized capacity was the fact that the pesticides industry in general had become highly crowded and competitive, leading manufacturers to cut costs and improve productivity. By the early 1980s, Union Carbide had become the seventh-largest chemical company in the United States. It employed over one hundred thousand people

42

Bhopal Disaster

and operated businesses in forty countries, including India. Widespread crop failures and famine throughout India led to increased indebtedness and decreased capital for farmers to invest in pesticides. Also, owing to the increased competition within the chemical industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s and its own lackluster performance at the time, Union Carbide had divested itself of several business units and product ventures, which allowed the company to redeploy funds into divisions that dealt with such things as industrial gases and consumer and specialty products. Despite these efforts, and along with other financial setbacks, the company planned a major restructuring; however, these plans had not been implemented at the UCIL plant by the time of the accident. Plans were made to close the plant, but when no buyers were found, UCIL then planned to dismantle some key production units for shipment to other countries (Broughton 2005). The Bhopal plant’s safety record was generally good. In 1983, there were two million work hours without a serious accident. However, prior to that year, there had been a worker who died from phosgene poisoning in December 1981 after he removed his gas mask, and two weeks later, twenty-four workers inhaled phosgene gas but were not killed. In October of that year, a MIC leak injured a number of workers. In the wake of these phosgene accidents, safety inspectors were sent in to advise on improvements to the Bhopal plants. Although many of the deficiencies were addressed, a few remained uncorrected, particularly the refrigeration unit designed to cool MIC. In addition, an earlier inspection team in 1979 had criticized UCIL’s safety program and warned management that it should develop a contingency plan for altering and evacuating the nearby civilian population. Bhopal’s municipal authorities had objected to the continued use of the UCIL plant at its original location, arguing that the plant site had originally been designated for light industrial use and not for hazardous industries. The municipal authorities were overruled, however, largely owing to the fact that UCIL was the twenty-first-largest company in India, with five operating divisions employing more than ten thousand people, and it was one of the best-paying employers in India. UCIL management had told workers that the Bhopal plant had been designed and built on the basis of twenty years’ experience in making MIC in one of UCC’s West Virginia plants (Chouhan 2005). After the accident, workers at the plant would say that one of the problems concerning safety was that management did not encourage complete understanding of the MIC process, and they had used operators who had failed tests. By late 1984, only half of the original twelve operators and only one plant superintendent (of the original two) were working with MIC on each shift. There were no night-shift maintenance supervisors by the time of the accident (Kurzman 1987). Added to this was the fact that over the previous fifteen years, the plant had been run by eight different managers, many of whom came from nonchemical-industry backgrounds and had little or no experience dealing with hazardous technologies (Shrivastava 1987), and no one was familiar with procedures concerning potential runaway reactions (Chouhan 2005).



Bhopal Disaster 43

The control room’s board at the Bhopal plant had seventy-five dials, many of which did not work, which made it difficult to understand what was happening at any given time. Several pressure, temperature, and MIC-level gauges had been malfunctioning for nearly a year (Weick 2010). Throughout 1984, morale at the plant had plummeted, and as a result, discipline had lapsed; thus, safety had become far less of a concern, with workers rarely wearing their helmets, goggles, masks, boots, and gloves when handling toxic substances. Spontaneous inspections of pipe weldings were rare (Weick 2010). The toxic leak leading to the Bhopal disaster occurred because water and catalytic materials, such as iron and rust, had entered one of the MIC storage tanks, which led to increased pressure in the tank. Around 8:30 p.m. on the night of December 2, 1984, workers at the plant began the exercise of washing filters, which had been choked with solid sodium salts deposits. The person who was the MIC supervisor that evening had only been in that position for the previous month and was not yet familiar with maintenance and operation procedures. One of the valves on MIC tank 610 was malfunctioning and in an open position (Chouhan 2005). The vent-gas scrubber, which was designed to neutralize toxic discharge from the MIC system, had been turned off three weeks before, and a thirty-ton Freon 22 refrigeration unit that normally served as a safety component to cool the 610 tank had been drained of its coolant for use in another part of the plant. A shift change had occurred around 11:00 p.m., and some in the oncoming team had thought they could smell MIC; however, that was soon dismissed as the smell of mosquito spray. Pressure within the tank was ten pounds per square inch (psi), which was still within the operating range of two to twenty-five psi (Shrivastava 1987). Sometime later, one of the operators noticed a leak in the 610 tank that had caused a small brownish pool of water surmounted by a small cloud. Some workers’ eyes were beginning to water. The flushing water was eventually turned off around 12:15 a.m., about four hours after the flushing procedure had begun. No one had realized that water had backed up into the 610 tank, where it was mixing with MIC, leading to a buildup in heat and pressure (Weick 2010). Within an hour, forty-two tons of MIC in tank 610 were contaminated with water and catalytic material, causing an exothermic reaction that would soon vent into the atmosphere. Supervisors soon suspended operation of the MIC plant and sounded a toxic-gas alarm to warn the community near the plant. However, the alarm was turned off within a few minutes, which left only the plant siren to warn workers inside the plant. (No plant workers were killed in the accident.) Apparently, according to some plant workers, the company thought that continuing the alarm would only create panic and that the leak would be quickly fixed. Critics would later argue that management did not want to bring public attention to the plant’s safety lapses (Kurzman 1987). Operators turned on firewater sprayers to douse the stack and the gases, but the spray could only reach 100 feet and did not reach the gases, which were

44

Bhopal Disaster

emitted at a height of 120 feet. Supervisors would then attempt to cool the tanks with the plant’s refrigeration system, but owing to the fact that the Freon 22 coolant had already been drained five months before, the attempt failed. There was no backup refrigeration unit on hand. There was a thought to use the plant’s flare tower to ignite the gas, but it was not lit at the time of the accident because part of the tower was under repair. In addition, the supervisors were unsure whether lighting the flare tower could cause a massive explosion. The safety valve would remain open for two hours (Kurzman 1987; Shrivastava 1987). Among the first to die in the disaster would be those who, living nearest the plant, heard the alarm, thought the plant was on fire, and then rushed out to watch the spectacle. There was no evacuation plan for the neighboring community. The plant’s public address system did not go off that night. Panic soon ensued, with people vomiting and defecating as they groped through the poisoned fog. Several would be trampled to death. Initial estimates were that 3,800 people died immediately (Broughton 2005). As the early morning went on, victims started to show up at the Hamidia Hospital, located less than three miles from the plant, about 1:15 a.m. Within a few minutes, after the gas had spread over an area about twenty-five square miles, nearly 300 people had arrived. By about 2:30 a.m., the number would reach 4,000—in a hospital with only 750 beds. By noon that day, 25,000 victims would surround the hospital’s grounds (Kurzman 1987). Because there was no known antidote to MIC poisoning at the time, victims were only treated for burning eyes and choking lungs. They were told that a wet cloth placed over the face would stop penetration into the skin. However, because no one knew to do this, the MIC broke down and lodged itself in vital tissues (Mukerjee 1995). Estimates place the number of people eventually killed at nearly ten thousand, with fifteen thousand to twenty thousand premature deaths occurring in the next two decades. The Indian government reported that more than a half million people were exposed to the gas (Broughton 2005). It is not known what exactly leaked into the atmosphere during the accident. When MIC is exposed to two hundred–degree (F) heat (which apparently occurred at Bhopal), it forms degraded MIC, which contains the more deadly hydrogen cyanide (HCN). The fact that some of the victims had a cherry-red color to their blood and viscera was characteristic of acute cyanide poisoning (Broughton 2005). Two days after the accident, scientists from India’s Air Pollution Control Board found cyanide near the plant’s MIC tank. UCC would deny the possibility of cyanide poisoning, which many would claim was because the toxicity of cyanide was well known (as opposed to the unknown MIC) and would have expanded the scope of legal claims (Mukerjee 2005). Four days after the accident, on December 7, an American attorney filed a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit in U.S. courts. The Indian government later enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act with the intent of ensuring that claims arising from the accident would be dealt with equitably. In a settlement mediated by the Indian Supreme Court, UCC agreed to pay $470 million to the

Bioavailability 45

Indian government to be distributed to claimants as a full and final settlement (Broughton 2005). By October 2003, according to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department, compensation had been awarded to 554,895 people for injuries received and 15,310 survivors of those killed (Broughton 2005). Thirty-two years after the accident, in 2016, aquifers as far as nearly two miles away were still contaminated with toxic wastes. Cleanup efforts have been slowed because of Dow Chemical’s purchase of UCC in 2001. Residents in the area have reported a large number of illnesses as well as a large number of babies born with birth defects. Landowners near the plant sued UCC for causing injuries that were attributed to the plant’s inadequate response and management system. Bhopal’s residents await their justice (Sohrabji 2016). Robert L. Perry See also: Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN); Pesticides.

Further Reading

Broughton, Edward. 2005. “The Bhopal Disaster and Its Aftermath: A Review.” Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source. Accessed October 5, 2018. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­ehjournal​.­net​/­content​/­4​/­1​/­6. Chouhan, T. R. 2005. “The Unfolding of Bhopal Disaster.” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18: 205–208. Kurzman, Dan. 1987. A Killing Wind: Inside Union Carbide and the Bhopal Disaster. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Mukerjee, M. 1995. “Persistently Toxic. The Union Carbide Accident in Bhopal Continues to Harm.” Scientific American 272(6): 16–17. Shrivastava, Paul. 1987. Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company. Sohrabji, Sunita. 2016. “Bhopal Victims Launch Final Try to Get Union Carbide to Clean Up Mess.” India West. Accessed November 1, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­indiawest​.­com​ /­news​/­global​_ indian​/ ­bhopal​-­v ictims​-­launch​-­f inal​-­t ry​-­t o​-­get​-­u nion​- ­carbide​-­t o​ /­article​_108e7564​- ­43a7​-­11e6​-­8537​- ­47e43bb75108​.­html. Trotter, R. Clayton, Susan G. Day, and Amy E. Love. 1989. “Bhopal, India and Union Carbide: The Second Tragedy.” Journal of Business Ethics 8(6): 439–454. Weick, Karl E. 2010. “Reflections on Enacted Sensemaking in the Bhopal Disaster.” Journal of Management Studies 47(3): 537–550.

Bioavailability Bioavailability is generally defined as the degree to which a substance can be readily available through ingestion, absorption, or inhalation, causing adverse effects following exposure. The term is used in a variety of disciplines, such as medicine, pharmacology, and nutrition, and when considering the impact of a toxic chemical on either people or the environment. It is used in both human health and ecological risk assessments in the environmental disciplines. When using the term in relation to impacts of a toxic chemical, there are varying definitions of bioavailability, depending on the organism involved, the type of chemical, and its location (soil, water, or air).

46 Bioavailability

BIOAVAILABILITY IN HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT STUDIES In human health risk assessment studies, bioavailability is an adjustment factor that can be broadly described as a fraction of a toxic chemical that has entered and is interacting with the human body. It is sometimes referred to as F, which, according to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2009), equals “the fraction of the total amount of chemical in contact with a body portal-of-entry (lung, skin, gut) that enters systemic circulation and may interact with the target tissue (internal dose).” Bioavailability is directly related to exposure and risk. For example, risk assessments conducted at polluted sites must identify how people are exposed, which is critical to understanding and calculating risks. To achieve accurate risk scenarios and probabilities, risk assessments change pollutants’ concentrations to account for exposure rate and absorption (through dermal contact, ingestion, or inhalation). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require these adjustments, so risk assessments must convincingly justify these changes. Some studies in which bioavailability is considered are chemical specific, such as for the metals lead, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic. In Superfund risk assessments, the EPA outlines the use of adjustments for absorption efficiency.

ABSOLUTE BIOAVAILABILITY (FA) AND RELATIVE BIOAVAILABILITY (FR) Bioavailability is impacted by the properties of the toxic chemical and its environment and includes how it transmits to people and their ability to absorb it. “Absolute Bioavailability (FA) is a ratio of the amount of a substance entering the blood via a particular route of exposure (e.g., ingestion) to the total amount administered by this route (e.g., amount of lead ingested with soil)” (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2009). “Relative Bioavailability (FR),” according to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2009), “refers to the ratio of two absolute bioavailability values. Relative Bioavailability represents a comparison of the absorption of a chemical in two different forms (e.g., availability of a contaminant relative to purified reference) or under two sets of circumstances (e.g., availability of a chemical from soil relative to its availability from water).” Relative bioavailability is a factor used to adjust the concentration variable of a toxic chemical to account for unique pathways that impact absorption and may be measured experimentally and expressed as a fractional relative-absorption factor. This describes the fraction of an absorbed chemical from a particular source of exposure relative to the fraction of an absorbed chemical from a particular dosing vehicle used in the toxicity study for that compound. The reasoning for using this FR value is to ensure a valid and accurate calculation is made for the risks associated with exposure to a toxic chemical that has unique site-specific issues. Usually, the EPA has to approve these values when used in risk assessments.

Bioavailability 47

Bioavailability information can modify the results of human and ecological risk assessments. For instance, when toxic chemicals are in soil, the bioavailability of likely exposure by aquatic life or humans has significant impacts on the concentrations and exposure pathways. These modify the probabilities of risk from exposure. This bioavailability analysis provides a more accurate and precise understanding of contaminant toxicity and pathways of exposure to better protect human health and the environment. Without the modifications from bioavailability calculations, the probabilities of risk will always be overestimated, which can yield unnecessary and wasteful solutions in protecting public health. BIOAVAILABILITY IN MEDICINE AND PHARMACOLOGY Bioavailability in medicine and pharmacology refers to the rate at which a nonintravenous drug is absorbed systemically by the human body and determines the correct dosage for the drug. It is a key factor measured in clinical research trials and in the development of pharmaceuticals. In medicines and pharmacology, bioavailability can vary because it is affected by physiological factors such as weight, health, and preexisting conditions, such as disease, that may prevent absorption or the body’s ability to process the drug. It is also impacted by the presence of other drugs or foods. Additional factors are the type of drug, whether it is extended or immediate release, metabolism, and a person’s age. When a drug is administered intravenously, it has a bioavailability of 100 percent. BIOAVAILABILITY IN FOOD NUTRIENT STUDIES Bioavailability in the field of nutrition refers to the proportion of a food’s nutrients that the body utilizes for normal function; specifically, it is the measurement of a nutrient’s absorption from the digestive tract into the rest of the body, which is similar to how bioavailability is measured in toxic chemical exposures. It reflects how easily a nutrient transports from the food source to the body. A nutrient with high bioavailability means the nutrient is readily absorbed most of the time. Likewise, weak bioavailability maintains a weak absorption. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Risk Assessment.

Further Reading

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. “Application of Bioavailability in the Assessment of Human Health Hazards and Cancer Risk.” August 2009. ­Columbus: Ohio EPA. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­epa​.­ohio​.­gov​/­portals​/­30​/­r ules​/­Application​ %­2 0of ​% ­2 0Bioavailability​% ­2 0in​% ­2 0the​% ­2 0Assessment​% ­2 0of ​% ­2 0Human​ %­20Health​%­20Hazards​%­20and​%­20Cancer​%­20Risk​.­pdf. Stone, Kathlyn. 2017. “What Is Bioavailability?” The Balance, February 4, 2017. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­thebalance​.­com​/­what​-­is​-­bioavailability​- ­4041140. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. “Guidelines for Exposure Assessment.” Risk Assessment Forum, 600/Z-92/001. Washington, DC: EPA. Last updated August 17, 2010. Accessed February 23, 2018. ­https://​­cfpub​.­epa​.­gov​/­ncea​ /­risk​/­recordisplay​.­cfm​?­deid​= ​­15263.

48 Biomarkers

Biomarkers Biomarker is an abbreviation of biological marker, which is a collection of medical “signs or observations” that can indicate illness. The term is used in relation to the molecular or cellular events that link a specific environmental exposure to a health outcome. Biomarkers can be used to predict clinical outcomes across a diversity of human treatment and populations. Biomarkers are observable characteristics (not symptoms) that are measured and can serve as a diagnostic tool. “A joint venture on chemical safety, the International Programme on Chemical Safety, led by the World Health Organization (WHO) and in coordination with the United Nations and the International Labor Organization, has defined a biomarker as ‘any substance, structure, or process that can be measured in the body or its products and influence or predict the incidence of outcome or disease’” (Strimbu and Tavel 2010, 1). The key point here is the interaction between the human biological system and a toxic chemical. Common biomarkers include blood pressure, pulse rate, and blood tests. Biomarkers have been used in clinical trials to serve as an interim measure before a fatal health outcome. There is concern about the acceptance in the scientific community of the validity of these biomarkers as a substitute for a definitive outcome. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses biomarkers in clinical treatments in the developmental process during early pharmaceutical drug trials. This approach plays an important role in the development of treatment drugs. Since the 1980s, biomarkers have been used in drug trials for cancer and heart disease. However, these are not substitutes for clinical endpoints that are more definitive in approach. According to the FDA, examples of biomarkers can be molecular (blood glucose), radiographic (tumor size), or physiological (blood pressure). Biomarkers can be used in monitoring diseases and diagnostics; they indicate susceptibility of risk. Biomarkers are used in the medical movement toward personalized medicine that is targeted to the patient’s body. For instance, cancer biomarkers can include structural changes within the DNA of human genes. According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2019), these genetic biomarkers can be used to assess a person’s chances for developing cancer in the future. Other cancer biomarkers are used for early detection (screening) and identification (diagnosis) of cancer. After a cancer diagnosis, biomarkers can be used to plan the best treatment. For example, biomarker testing is sometimes used to find out whether a targeted therapy would treat a cancer. Biomarkers may also be used to track treatment results or cancer growth, if not on a treatment. It is anticipated that as the human genome research becomes more sophisticated, biomarkers will play a key role in human health prevention and treatment. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Breast Cancer; Cancer Alley (Louisiana); Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers; Dermal Exposure; Household Exposure; International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); Workplace and Occupational Exposure.

Bioremediation 49

Further Reading

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2019. “Biomarker Testing.” Patient and Caregiver Resources. Accessed March 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nccn​.­org​/­patients​/­resources​ /­life​_with​_cancer​/­treatment​/­biomarker​_testing​.­aspx. Strimbu, Kyle, and Jorge A. Tavel. 2010. “What Are Biomarkers?” Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS 5(6): 463–466. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2019. BEST (Biomarkers, Endpoints and Other Tools) Resource. Accessed March 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­books​/ ­NBK326791.

Bioremediation Bioremediation is a general category of how a contaminated area can be cleaned up and restored. While there are multiple remediation technologies and approaches used for different environmental pollutants, bioremediation focuses on using plants and microbes, such as bacteria, to remove or detoxify contaminants. Using bioremediation as a form of cleanup of a contaminated site is considered a “green remediation best practice because it uses the natural processes of biota to eliminate the pollutant (EPA 2010). One of the more well-known bioremediation processes was used for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill and the 2010 Gulf of Mexico–Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Biello 2015). Bioremediation has become more acceptable as a remediation approach over the years. It has been used in addressing contaminated wastewater, sediments, groundwater, and radioactive wastes. It has been used in treating releases of petroleum products, solvents, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, toluene, and pesticides. Bioremediation has also been used as a treatment at many Superfund sites. It was originally used in the mid-1800s in the treatment of domestic wastewater. It was then further developed in the 1980s for the remediation of petroleum releases.

PHYTOREMEDIATION Phytoremediation is a type of bioremediation that uses plants as a means for gathering contaminates. Plants are used to remediate soil, air, and water contamination. Plants are used to extract the contaminant from the ecosystem. This is particularly used with heavy metals and organic chemicals. This approach gathers the chemicals via absorption through the root system of a plant in the soil or groundwater. It collects the nearby contaminants and serves to stabilize their migration. Plants can also introduce bacteria to accelerate the decomposition of the contaminants. Some deep-rooted plants, such as trees, can be used to tackle groundwater contaminants. One example of this is Poplar trees that have been used to contain a groundwater plume of methyl tertiary butyl ether, commonly known as MTBE, which was added to gasoline to lower emissions as a substitute to leaded gasoline. Plants then store the contaminants in their roots, stems, and

50 Bioremediation

leaves. The plants then often have to be disposed of or incinerated after cumulating the contaminants. Some pollutants can be metabolized by the plant tissues or microbes and detoxified. There are usually specific conditions needed for the bioremediation using microbes in the environment (in situ bioremediation). This form of bioremediation was first use in the 1972 Sun Oil pipeline spill in Pennsylvania. In situ bioremediation of petroleum products then gained popularity in the 1970s and 1980s at Superfund sites. Another option is to remove the contaminated soil or water, treat it with bioremediation techniques in a separate area (ex situ remediation), and then return the cleaned soil. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2013, 1), in situ bioremediation of groundwater has become of the most widely used techniques for treatment because of the relatively low costs, adaptability, and efficacy for cleanup. These techniques usually use bacteria populations already present in the environment to metabolize the contaminants. When used in bioremediation, microbes can metabolize, decompose, detoxify, and transform the contaminant rather than physically collecting the pollutant; this can be performed in both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. To stimulate the bioremediation processes, biostimulators are often added, such as nutrients and other accelerating materials called “amendments,” to enhance natural microbial action. These amendments can be air or other organics to enhance the process. Bioremediation is considered a more affordable option than other technologies, and it is more environmentally friendly because it has less disturbance to the contaminated area being treated. It relies on the natural processes of biota with fewer by-product contaminants than other techniques. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Benzene (C6 H6); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010); Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989); Pesticides; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Further Reading

Biello, David. 2015. “How Microbes Helped Clean the BP’s Oil Spill.” Scientific American, April 28, 2015. Accessed April 19, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­scientificamerican​.­com​ /­article​/­how​-­microbes​-­helped​-­clean​-­bp​-­s​-­oil​-­spill. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. “Use of Bioremediation at Superfund Sites.” September EPA42-R-01-019. Accessed April 19, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­e pa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­f iles​/­2015​- ­08​/­documents​/ ­bioremediation​_ 542r01019​ .­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. “Green Remediation Best Management Practice: Bioremediation.” March EPA42-F-12-003. Accessed April 19, 2019. ­https://​­semspub​.­epa​.­gov​/­work​/ ­HQ​/­147895​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. “A Citizen’s Guide to Bioremediation.” September EPA 542-F-12-003. Accessed April 19, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​ .­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2015​- ­04​/­documents​/­a ​_citizens​_ guide​_to​_bioremediation​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. “Introduction to In Situ Bioremediation of Groundwater.” December EPA 542-F-12-018. Accessed April 19, 2019.



Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2) 51

h­ ttps://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2015​- ­04​/­documents​/­introductiontoinsit ubioremediationofgroundwater​_dec2013​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Contaminated Site: Clean-Up Information.” February 7, 2019. Accessed April 19, 2019. ­https://​­clu​-­in​.­org​ /­techfocus​/­default​.­focus​/­sec​/ ­Bioremediation ​/­cat​/­Overview.

Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2) Used in food packaging since the 1960s, Bisphenol A (C15H16O2), commonly known as BPA, is a chemical that strengthens plastics and resins in food and drink packaging, water bottles, infant sippy cups, compact discs, impact-resistant safety equipment, and medical devices. BPA used in resins includes products such as lacquers to coat metal items, which includes the inside of food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. It has also been used in grocery store and bank machine receipts and in some dental sealants and composites. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS 2017), BPA is considered an endocrine disruptor that can mimic the hormone to interfere with natural human hormones. It is also a suspected contributor to prostate cancer, infertility, asthma, heart disease, and a number of neurodevelopmental disorders. Infants and young children are said to be especially sensitive to the effects of BPA. The primary source of exposure is through ingesting food and water. BPA can leach into food and water when a container breaks down from heat or age. Some precautions have been suggested to prevent BPA exposure. For instance, do not use plastic food containers in the microwave or boil water in BPA-containing containers. Use glass, stainless steel, or porcelain containers instead, and buy food packaged in something other than cans lined with BPA. Based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) analyses, BPA is approved for use in food containers and packaging, but there is controversy between the FDA and consumers about the safety of using BPA in children’s food and liquid containers (Main 2015). As a result of public concern, many companies now market BPA-free water bottles, and the industry has agreed to no longer use the chemical in children’s bottles; however, the FDA’s present policy is that BPA is safe at the current levels. Recently, the American Chemistry Council requested that the FDA amend its food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of certain BPA-based materials in baby bottles, sippy cups, and infant formula packaging because the public had stopped using them. The FDA granted the petition. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: American Chemistry Council (ACC); Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Further Reading

Main, Douglas. 2015. “BPA Is Fine, If You Ignore Most Studies about It.” Newsweek, March 4, 2015. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­newsweek​.­com​/­2015​/­03​/­13​ /­bpa​-­fine​-­if​-­you​-­ignore​-­most​-­studies​-­about​-­it​-­311203​.­html.

52

Bleach (NaOCl)

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 2017. “Bisphenol A (BPA).” Last reviewed July 31, 2017. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­niehs​ .­nih​.­gov​/ ­health ​/­topics​/­agents​/­sya​-­bpa​/­index​.­cfm. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2010. “Bisphenol A (BPA): Use in Food Contact.” Last updated June 27, 2018. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­fda​.­gov​ /­newsevents​/­publichealthfocus​/­ucm064437​.­htm.

Bleach (NaOCl) Bleach is a chemical used widely in industrial, commercial, and residential settings. It is formally described as sodium hypochlorite, or NaOCl, and is usually found in retail as a disinfectant, diluted in water to a 3–6 percent solution. Bleach is an irritant; yet, it is popular as a whitener and relatively inexpensive. Bleach can be used to whiten paper and clothes because it is a strong oxidizing agent that destroys colored pigments. Other formulas of bleach are used as cosmetics to lighten hair, skin, and teeth. Some bleaches are used to whiten flour and preserve dried fruit. It has been used to remove stains in glass and as a chemical to extend the freshness of cut flowers for the home. Bleach is very effective at killing bacteria found in homes and hospitals as well as protozoa-type parasites. As such, it is used on surfaces in hospitals and medical clinics; in households, primarily in kitchen and bathroom cleaners; and commercially in restaurants on equipment and in most food preparation areas. In 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) supported the use of bleach to help kill and contain the Ebola virus in Africa to keep it from spreading. After flooding events, bleach is recommended by local public health agencies for disinfecting. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulate the use of bleach in food preparation in hospitals, clinics, and other health-care facilities to protect people from foodborne pathogens. “The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] specifies the concentration of chlorine bleach required to disinfect countertops, floors, tonometer heads, needles, syringes, laundry, dental appliances, hydrotherapy tanks, water distribution systems in hemodialysis instruments, and regulated medical waste prior to disposal” (Nursing Spectrum Nurse Wire 2003). Extreme caution is needed when mixing bleach with any other chemical. When mixed with ammonia, it makes a highly toxic gas called chloramine. Bleach combined with acids such as vinegar (acetic acid) creates chlorine gas. There are other chemical compounds that are referred to as bleach because of their strong oxidizing reactions, though they do not contain chlorine. These have become more popular in retail because of their less toxic results when mixing with other chemicals. In the past, people used the terms bleach and chlorine interchangeably; however, these two chemicals are different. Chlorine is a halogen element that can exist as a compound as a liquid or gas; it reacts easily with other elements to produce chemical compounds. Bleach is a compound that can have different formulas that may or may not include chlorine. When people talk about “bleach,” they are



Blood Alcohol Toxicity 53

generally referring to the liquid compound. When referring to “chlorine bleach,” chlorine is merely an ingredient of bleach. A significant portion of the chlorine produced in the United Sates is used for the production of bleach to disinfect drinking water and wastewater. According to Nursing Spectrum Nurse Wire (2003), since 1908, when the United States started treating water with chlorine, deaths from typhoid fever, cholera, and hepatitis A have drastically reduced. Both household bleach and chlorine, similar chemicals applied at different concentrations, help maintain safe waters in swimming pools and outdoor spas. While household bleach is usually 3–6 percent diluted in water, the chlorine in pool chemicals is usually 10–12 percent. Bleach is an irritant to the respiratory system, skin, and eyes and can cause chemical burns and breathing problems. Children are often told to rinse their eyes with cold water to remove the sodium hypochlorite if they become irritated from swimming pool water. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chlorine Gas (Cl2); Halogens.

Further Reading

Nursing Spectrum Nurse Wire. 2003. “The Disinfecting Power of an Old Standby: Chlorine Bleach.” American Chemistry Council. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​ ­chlorine​.­a mericanchemistry​.­com ​/­T he​-­Disinfecting​-­Power​-­of​-­a n​-­Old​-­Stand​-­by​ -­Chlorine​-­Bleach​/.

Blood Alcohol Toxicity Blood alcohol toxicity, or alcohol poisoning, occurs when a large volume of alcohol has been consumed at a rate faster than the body can process. This can be a result of consuming different types of alcohol products either accidentally or intentionally. The most common type of alcohol toxicity results from drinking ethyl alcohol recreationally in liquors. According to the Mayo Clinic (2018), other forms of alcohol poisoning result from accidental consumption of isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) or methanol or ethylene glycol, which is found in antifreeze, paints, and solvents. Ingestion of these varieties of alcohol chemicals can cause vomiting, seizures, and the inability to operate an automobile or machinery, and it can lead to hyperthermia, unconsciousness, and even death. RECREATIONAL DRINKING One form of blood alcohol toxicity is a consequence of alcohol overdose from binge drinking. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2019), recreational drinking can involve drinking alcoholic beverages at a rapid pace, which can lead to alcohol overdose. During an overdose, the parts of the brain controlling basic functions such as breathing, heart rate, and temperature become impaired from excessive amounts of alcohol in the blood. This condition can lead to permanent brain damage and death. Intoxication from recreational

54

Blood Alcohol Toxicity

drinking is influenced by body weight, body mass, and gender. People have different tolerances and metabolisms that impact the blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Generally, females and people with lower body mass tend to more easily reach a high BAC at an accelerated rate than their counterparts. MIXING ALCOHOL WITH MEDICINES Many people do not realize the damage from alcohol toxicity that can occur from consuming prescription drugs such as sleep medications, antianxiety pharmaceuticals, and even simple antihistamines with alcohol. Mixing alcohol with drugs such as opiates, morphine, or heroin can suppress brain function with moderate alcohol consumption. MEASURING BLOOD ALCOHOL TOXICITY The main determination test for blood alcohol toxicity is blood alcohol concentration (BAC). When the BAC of a person is 0.08 percent or higher, it is considered over the legal level for intoxication. Typically, a woman or man consuming more than four or five drinks in two hours is at risk for a high BAC level (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 2019). As a person reaches higher levels of BAC, significant impairments occur to stimulus response systems of the body, and judgment is impaired while operating automobiles and machinery. These risks occur at the early levels of 0.05 percent BAC. Other impacts include loss of speech, attention, and memory. Intoxication can increase aggression in some people and significantly impact reasoning and rational judgment in decisionmaking. Coordination and reaction time are significantly impacted at the higher levels of BAC, and there may be a loss of consciousness. BAC AND OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE In the United States, police authorities can test drivers with a breathalyzer device to measure BAC. Every state has passed a BAC of 0.08 percent for operating a vehicle. If a driver exceeds the state-mandated level, he or she may be ticketed or arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). Several states have limits on the number of DUI tickets that a driver can receive before a more severe penalty is imposed, such as imprisonment or loss of the state-issued motor vehicle license. A breathalyzer can be attached to a car’s ignition to prevent an intoxicated driver from starting the car. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Methyl Alcohol or Methanol (CH4O or CH3OH).

Further Reading

Mayo Clinic. 2018. “Alcohol Poisoning.” October 2018. Accessed June 29, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­mayoclinic​.­org​/­d iseases​-­conditions​/­alcohol​-­poisoning​/­symptoms​-­causes​ /­syc​-­20354386.



BlueGreen Alliance 55

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. 2019. “Understanding the Dangers of Alcohol Overdose.” Accessed June 29, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­niaaa​.­nih​.­gov​ /­p ublications​ / ­b rochures​ -­a nd​ -­f act​ -­s heets​ /­u nderstanding​ -­d angers​ -­of​ -­a lcohol​ -­overdose.

BlueGreen Alliance Established in 2006, the BlueGreen Alliance is a partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations whose mission is to create good jobs and a clean environment and infrastructure while promoting a fairer economy. One of the only independent 501(c)(3) organizations of its kind, it began as a partnership between the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers and has grown to include thirteen of the nation’s most influential environmental organizations and labor unions. With nearly sixteen million members, this unique partnership addresses global economic and environmental challenges by bringing together these two common opponents in seeking practical solutions to environmental challenges to create and maintain quality family-sustaining jobs while building the economy. the BlueGreen Alliance believes Americans do not have to choose between economic prosperity and environmental sustainability; they can, and should, have both. The BlueGreen Alliance Foundation is considered the umbrella foundation over the BlueGreen Alliance. Its partners include the Amalgamated Transit Union; the American Federation of Teachers (AFT); the Communications Workers of America (CWA); the Environmental Defense Action Fund; the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (BAC); the National Wildlife Federation (NWF); the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART); the Sierra Club; the Union of Concerned Scientists; the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters (UA); the Union Sprinkler Fitters; the United Steelworkers (USW); and the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA). The organization designs public policies, performs research, and runs public education campaigns to advocate for practical solutions. Most importantly, the organization facilitates dialogue between environmentalists, union members, and other stakeholders. It serves to educate American labor union members and environmentalists about the economic and environmental impacts of climate change and the job-creating opportunities of environmental protections. In 2011, Charlotte Brody, of the BlueGreen Alliance, was an important advocate for earlier versions of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act of 2016. The goal was to modernize and improve safety from toxic chemicals originally provided for under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. With the variety of parties involved, the alliance’s work has not always been seamless. In 2012, BlueGreen Alliance members were conflicted about the rejection of the Keystone Pipeline by then president Barack Obama. As a result, the

56

Breast Cancer

Laborers’ International Union of North America (NiUNA) left the BlueGreen Alliance, citing a disagreement with the group’s members over the pipeline. In 2015, the BlueGreen Alliance advocated against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) because the organization had identified four key problem areas, which included a risk to American manufacturing jobs, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system, and labor and environmental standards. Today, the BlueGreen Alliance fosters discussions among diverse groups and continues to be a strong policy advocate for a clean environment and infrastructure as well as fair trade and a strong economy. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Brody, Charlotte (1948–); Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016).

Further Reading

BlueGreen Alliance Foundation. 2016. “About Us.” Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­bluegreenalliance​.­org​/­about. GuideStar USA. 2017. “BlueGreen Alliance.” Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­g uidestar​.­org​/­profile​/­26​- ­4086284.

BPAs (see Bisphenol A) Breast Cancer Breast cancer is a disease caused by abnormal cells that grow in a lump in the breast to form a tumor. Lumps can be detected in self-exams or mammograms. Some are benign and do not spread beyond the breast. However, malignant cancerous tumors will grow and migrate, so all lumps need to be examined by a doctor for proper identification. Malignant cells can spread throughout the body, causing additional tumors in and around other organs. This migration is known as metastasis, and this is how the cancer travels. The location in the breast and the metastasis characteristics define different types of breast cancer. The causes of breast cancer are under investigation by several organizations. Suspected causes include genetics and lifestyle behaviors; however, one suspected cause is exposure to certain chemicals. BREAST CANCER PROFILE AND STATISTICS According to the American Cancer Society (2017c), one in eight women experience breast cancer. In the United States, except for skin cancer, it is the most common cancer in women and is the second ranking cause of death in women following lung cancer. For 2018, the American Cancer Society (ACS 2017c) estimated that about 266,120 new cases of breast cancer would be diagnosed, and 40,920 women would die from the disease. As of 2018, the United States had over 3.1 million breast cancer survivors.



Breast Cancer 57

Breast cancer studies show there is a difference between races, genders, and ages. Black women have lower survival rates than white women. Women’s health is significantly impacted, and while men also have health impacts from breast cancer, the rates are much lower than in women. Older women are more likely to develop breast cancer than younger women. According to the American Cancer Society, Eighty-one percent of breast cancers are diagnosed among women ages fifty years and older, and 89 percent of breast cancer deaths occur in this age group. The median age at diagnosis for all women with breast cancer is sixty-two years; the median age at diagnosis is younger for black women than for white women; and the median age at breast cancer death is sixty-eight years overall (seventy years for white women and sixty-two years for black women). (ACS 2017b)

Early detection of breast cancer is critical for treatment. Because of education on the importance of breast self-exams and mammograms to detect early signs of cancer, in addition to medicines and treatment options, there has been a decrease in breast cancer death rates since 1989 by nearly 40 percent (Lardieri 2017). Current guidelines as recommended by the American Cancer Society is yearly mammograms for women ages forty-five to fifty-four who have an average risk of breast cancer and mammograms every two years for women ages fifty-five and older. RISK FACTORS AND THE ROLE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS While the causes of breast cancer are not yet fully known, studies have identified some risk factors. One test for identifying a genetic component of breast cancer is called the BRCA1. There is evidence that breast cancer can occur in families over generations, meaning some women have inherited genes that increase their risk of breast cancer. However, according to recent studies on breast cancer, “only 5–10 percent of breast cancers are a result of high-risk inherited genes. Furthermore, around 80 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer are the first in their family to develop the disease” (Rudel et al. 2014a). Researchers suspect there are other factors in the development of breast cancer. A 2014 study by Rudel et  al. (2014a) in Environmental Health Perspectives evaluated 216 chemicals that increase mammary gland tumors in laboratory animals. They found that some of the same chemicals that caused breast cancer in the test animals were also suspects for the disease in humans. They narrowed down the chemicals into categories (Rudel et al. 2014b) that include common products people are exposed to on a regular basis, such as gasoline, water treatment by-products, spray-in insulation, vehicle exhaust, grilled meat and charred food, coatings, grains and nuts, cigarette smoke, medicines, and food packaging, among others. SUSPECTED CHEMICALS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN FOR BREAST CANCER Chemicals of particular concern are butadiene, acrylamide, aromatic amines, benzene, halogen compounds such as methylene chloride, ethylene and propylene

58

Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP)

oxides, flame retardants, heterocyclic amines, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, PFOAs, mycotoxins, and styrene (Rudel et  al. 2014b). Additional suspected chemicals linked to breast cancer because of their endocrine disrupter properties are phthalates, parabens, and bisphenol A (BPA) in plastics and a variety of other products, such as personal care products and cosmetics. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2); Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP); Endocrine Disruptors; Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Gasoline; Phthalates.

Further Reading

American Cancer Society (ACS). 2017a. “About Breast Cancer: What Is Breast Cancer?” Last revised September 21, 2017. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​ .­org​/­cancer​/ ­breast​-­cancer​/­about​/­what​-­is​-­breast​-­cancer​.­html. American Cancer Society (ACS). 2017b. “Breast Cancer Statistics, 2017.” Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­pressroom​.­cancer​.­org​/ ­BreastCancerStats2017. American Cancer Society (ACS). 2017c. “How Common Is Breast Cancer?” Last revised January 4, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​/­cancer​/ ­breast​-­cancer​/­about​/ ­how​-­common​ -­is​-­breast​-­cancer​.­html. American Cancer Society (ACS). 2017d. “How Does Breast Cancer Start?” Last revised September 21, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​/­cancer​/ ­breast​-­cancer​/­about​/ ­how​-­does​ -­breast​-­cancer​-­form​.­html. ­Breastcancer​.­org. 2017. “Research News.” Accessed October 4, 2017. ­http://​­www​ .­breastcancer​.­org​/­research​-­news. Lardieri, Alexa. 2017. “Breast Cancer Deaths Drop Almost 40 Percent from 1989.” US News & World Report, October 3, 2017. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­u snews​.­com​/­news​/ ­health​- ­care​-­news​/­a rticles​/­2017​-­10​- ­03​/ ­breast​- ­cancer​- ­deaths​ -­drop​-­almost​- ­40​-­percent​-­f rom​-­1989. Rudel, Ruthann A., Janet M. Ackerman, Kathleen R. Attfield, and Julia Green Brody. 2014a. “New Exposure Biomarkers as Tools for Breast Cancer Epidemiology, Biomonitoring, and Prevention: A Systematic Approach Based on Animal Evidence.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122(9): 881–895. ­http://​­dx​.­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1289​/­ehp​.­1307455. Rudel, Ruthann A., Janet M. Ackerman, Kathleen R. Attfield, and Julia Green Brody. 2014b. “Table 2. Priority Chemicals for Breast Cancer-Relevant Epidemiology and Biomonitoring.” In “New Exposure Biomarkers as Tools for Breast Cancer Epidemiology, Biomonitoring, and Prevention: A Systematic Approach Based on Animal Evidence.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122(9): 881–895. Siddique, Harron. 2014. “Breast Cancer Drug Tamoxifen Has Long-Term Effect, Study Finds.” The Guardian, December 11, 2014. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­t heguardian​.­com​/­society​/­2014​/­dec​/­11​/ ­breast​- ­cancer​- ­d rug​-­t amoxifen​-­long​-­term​ -­preventative​-­effect.

Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP) The Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP) is located at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. It is formally a collaboration at the University of Wisconsin–Madison between the Carbone Cancer Center in the School of



Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP) 59

Medicine and Public Health along with the Department of Population Health Sciences. BCERP is funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health ­Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The BCERP includes windows of susceptibility projects, a Coordinating Center at the University of Wisconsin, and various working groups and community partners. The focus of BCERP is to raise awareness about the relationship between environmental exposures and breast cancer. BCERP is one of eight sites in the United States to study specific time periods in a woman’s life when she should be protected from exposure to environmental chemicals to reduce increased risk to breast cancer. These time periods are referred to as “windows of susceptibility.” One example of a window of susceptibility is Japanese women who were exposed to high levels of radiation during puberty from the atomic bombs that were dropped to end World War II. They showed higher rates of breast cancer when they reached their fifties and sixties than women who were not exposed (University of Wisconsin Health 2011). BCERP’s research examines three periods in a woman’s life that may increase her chances of breast cancer upon exposure. These three windows of susceptibility are childhood, adolescence, and perimenopause. The research is aimed at determining whether there is a relationship between environmental exposures during these time periods and breast cancer. According to the NCI, breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in American women today (BCERP 2018a), with one out of every eight women developing breast cancer during her lifetime and about forty thousand women dying annually from breast cancer. Risk factors for breast cancer include personal and family health history, genetics, menstrual and reproductive history, race, and lifestyle choices. Certain things in the environment may change the way a girl’s body develops as she grows and make her more vulnerable to developing breast cancer as an adult. The research includes environmental factors, such as the air the girl breathes, the food she eats, the water she drinks, and things she comes in contact with or may put on her skin. BCERP explores the life span of the female by focusing on specific exposure points to a host of potential triggers for breast cancer. The BCERP was created when the NIEHS convened a specific workshop to address environmental factors in relation to breast cancer. One outcome that was acknowledged from that workshop was the need to promote research that included environmental exposures over the lifetime that could contribute to the risk of developing breast cancer. Because of this identified need in breast cancer research, the NIEHS and the NCI created the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Centers Network in 2003. According to BCERP (2018b), the research focus of this consortium was specifically on the impact of prepubertal exposures that may affect pubertal development and predispose a woman to breast cancer later in life. Pubertal development is one period of the life span considered to be a window of susceptibility; the developing breast may be more vulnerable to environmental exposures (e.g., chemicals, diet, social factors).

60

Brockovich, Erin

From 2003 to 2010, BCERP (2018b) reported $35 million that had been dedicated for funding. The NIEHS and NCI supported cooperative agreements to form the BCERP in 2009, which is considered groundbreaking transdisciplinary research. This is one of the first major research programs that includes the interaction of chemical, physical, biological, and social environmental factors along with genetics during specific windows of susceptibility. The principal investigator, Dr. Amy Trentham-Dietz, is responsible for the activities of the BCERP to integrate the project with the federal funders as well a breast cancer advocates, community partners, and external stakeholders. As a professor in the Department of Population Health Sciences and project leader at the Carbone Cancer Center, Trentham-Dietz has produced over a hundred publications focused on breast cancer and is a leader in this field. Some early BCERP (2018b) results published in 2010 claim that there is a trend toward earlier breast development and breast cancer. These results found that 10 percent of white girls, 23 percent of African American girls, 15 percent of Hispanic girls, and 2 percent of Asian girls in the study started developing breasts by the early age of seven. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Breast Cancer; International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Further Reading

Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP). 2018a. “About.” Accessed August 27, 2018. ­https://​­bcerp​.­org. Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP). 2018b. “The Puberty Connection.” Fact Sheet. Accessed August 27. 2018. ­https://​­bcerp​.­org​/­w p​-­content​ /­uploads​/­2017​/­01​/­3​_BCERP​_Outreach​_ThePubertyConnection​_NEW​_508​-­1​.­pdf. University of Wisconsin Health. 2011. “News and Events.” University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Authority. Updated June 2, 2011. Accessed August 27, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­uwhealth​.­org​/­news​/­uw​-­researchers​-­look​-­for​-­womens​-­w indows​- ­of​ -­susceptibility​-­to​-­breast​-­cancer​/­31575.

Brockovich, Erin(1960–) Erin Brockovich was born June 22, 1960, and raised in Lawrence, Kansas; her father was an industrial engineer, and her mother was a journalist. In 1991, she was a single mother of three young children, all under the age of seven, when she went to work as a file clerk for a lawyer, Ed Masry, who had represented her in a personal injury legal case. A Hinkley, California, resident came to the law office to inquire about the health exposure and property issues in town and ignited a curiosity in Brockovich that led to further investigation and the largest direct-action lawsuit of its kind. Because of her work, in 1996, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG & E) was required to pay damages of $333 million to more than six hundred residents of Hinkley (Erin Brockovich n.d.). The details of Brockovich’s well-known case begin with an unlikely course of events. Brockovich is not a trained lawyer or scientist. She left Kansas and traveled to California and Nevada, where she attended some college classes, won a beauty pageant, did a variety of jobs, and was married three times before settling



Brockovich, Erin 61

in California following a traffic accident in Reno. There she met Ed Masry, of the legal firm Masry and Vititoe, who won her a small settlement for the accident and then employed her as his file clerk. After the concerned townsperson of Hinkley came into her office, Brockovich began working with local people who may have had property contamination and been exposed. Brockovich’s investigations uncovered that PG & E had been improperly disposing of the toxic chemical and carcinogen referred to as hexavalent chromium, a heavy metal used in industrial operations to inhibit rust. Until 1966, PG & E had stored the chemical in unlined pools, and by 1972, it had released an estimated 370 million gallons of the chemical into the environment. In 1987, PG & E had paid $12.5 million in cleanup, and in the early 1990s, the company started offering to buy properties where contamination was at its highest concentration. By 1993, Brockovich had pieced together enough information to prove that PG & E had been responsible for polluting the drinking water of Hinkley, California, for over thirty years. In 2008, as part of the ruling by the State of California, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a remediation order that required the company to prevent the migration of chromium to other locations that were below legal concentration levels. In 2010, it became evident that the chromium was migrating, which caused an additional fine of $3.6 million in 2012. PG & E was providing bottled water to residents whose homes were in the contaminated areas, but the program ended in 2014 because concentrations of chromium were below state limits. According to news reporter Paloma Esquivel (2015) of the Los Angeles Times, Hinkley’s residents are still afraid of polluted water fifteen years after the Brockovich victory. Nearly two decades after the town settled with PG & E, less than a third of the original residents remain in the town. In May 2000, Brockovich’s experience aired as a movie titled after her, Erin Brockovich, that propelled the case into national awareness and won Oscars. In 2001, she published the book Take It from Me: Life’s a Struggle but You Can Win, which became a New York Times best-seller, and in 2003, she hosted a television series for three seasons titled Final Justice with Erin Brockovich that highlighted women like her who had also succeeded over significant challenges. Brockovich will be featured in the forthcoming film The Devil We Know about the toxic chemical C8 used by DuPont to make Teflon, commonly used as the nonstick coating in cooking pans, and other household items; the chemical has now been found in almost all humans. Today, Brockovich is affiliated with the law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., and is president of the Brockovich Research & Consulting Company. Although she is considered an environmental advocate, she refers to herself as a consumer protection advocate and works with communities across the United States, internationally, and in tribal nations. She also created the Erin Brockovich Foundation, whose goals are to provide hope and solutions where traditional methods have failed. She has expanded her work to include not only victims of environmental contamination but also medical devices and pharmaceuticals. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chromium (Cr); Nonstick Teflon Cooking Pan Coatings.

62

Brody, Charlotte

Further Reading

Erin Brockovich. n.d. “My Story.” Accessed September 16, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­brockovich​ .­com​/­my​-­story. Esquivel, Paloma. 2015. “15 Years after ‘Erin Brockovich,’ Town Still Fearful of Polluted Water.” Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2015. Accessed September 16, 2017. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­latimes​.­com​/­local​/­california​/­la​-­me​-­hinkley​-­20150413​-­story​.­html. Pearl, Mike. 2015. “The Town Erin Brockovich Rescued Is Basically a Ghost Town Now.” VICE, April 15, 2015. Accessed September 16, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­vice​.­com​/­en​_us​ /­a rticle​/­xd7qvn​/­t he​-­town​- ­erin​-­brockovich​-­rescued​-­is​-­now​-­almost​-­a​-­g host​-­town​ -­992.

Brody, Charlotte(1948–) Charlotte Brody was born on August 4, 1948, and she completed a nursing degree at the University of Tennessee in 1974. She has spent her career linking social justice issues to environmental and public health solutions, and from the beginning, she has served as a community organizer and advocate regarding public health and social justice surrounding toxic chemicals, advocating for healthier alternatives to environmental and occupational exposures to toxic chemicals. She started her career in the Department of Public Health, serving the Appalachian area of Georgia. Her career has taken her to organizations such as the Carolina Brown Lung Association, Planned Parenthood, Green for All, Commonweal, Health Care without Harm, and, more recently, the BlueGreen Alliance. In 1982, after Brody had moved to North Carolina, she became the state public affairs director for Planned Parenthood affiliates in North Carolina. For twelve years, she worked to provide health care services for women while advocating for increased access to family planning services across the state. Brody became one of the founders of Health Care without Harm, which was founded in 1996 and is a global coalition of more than four hundred organizations in fifty-two countries that is working to make health care more environmentally responsible and sustainable in the use of chemicals and waste disposal. This organization has led successful campaigns to eliminate mercury in thermometers and reduce the incineration of hospital waste, which facilitated significant policy changes worldwide. Brody has collaborated and built networks with nursing organizations, physician groups, the chemical industry, worker’s unions, and other public health organizations. To inspire nurses to work for cleaner, safer, and healthier environments, Brody helped launch the Luminary Project in 2005. The mission of the Luminary Project is to encourage nurses to light the way to environmental health by relaying narratives from nurses on how to improve human health by improving the health of the environment through safe hospitals, communities, and places of employment. Since 2010, Brody has worked at the BlueGreen Alliance. She brings together national labor unions and environmental organizations focused on building a cleaner, fairer, and more competitive American economy. Her recent efforts include organizing and advocating for Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations to



Bullard, Robert 63

improve the safety of oil refineries, which were scheduled for implementation in late 2017. Brody is married to Tom Schlesinger and is the mother of two sons. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: BlueGreen Alliance; Dioxins; Mercury (Hg).

Further Reading

Appalachian State University. 2017. “Charlotte Brody, RN Environmental Activist.” North Carolina Nursing History. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­nursinghistory​ .­appstate​.­edu ​/ ­biographies​/­charlotte​-­brody​-­r n​-­environmental​-­activist. Health Care without Harm. 2017. “History and Victories.” Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­noharm​-­uscanada​.­org​/­content​/­us​-­canada​/ ­history​-­and​-­victories. The Luminary Project. 2005. “The Luminary Project.” Accessed August 18, 2017. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­theluminaryproject​.­org (website discontinued). Physicians for Social Responsibility. 2017. “Charlotte Brody.” Accessed August 18, 2017. ­http://​­w ww​.­psr​.­org​/­environment​-­and​-­health​/­environmental​-­health​-­policy​-­institute​ /­charlotte​-­brody​-­rn​.­html​?­referrer​= ​­https://­www​.­google​.­com (web page discontinued).

Bullard, Robert(1946–) Robert Bullard was born December 21, 1946, in Elba, Alabama. He is considered one of the founding leaders of the environmental justice movement in the United States. He received a doctorate degree from Iowa State University in sociology. He has held several distinguished positions in academe; he is the former dean of the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas, and is currently a distinguished professor of urban planning and environmental policy at that university. He also was the founding director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University. In 2010, the Grio, a popular African American news media website, named him as one of the 100 Black History Makers in the Making, and the Planet Harmony news and media website, which covers health and environmental issues that impact communities of color, named him as one of the Ten African American Green Heroes. In 2008, Newsweek named Bullard as an Environmental Leader of the Century. Bullard has authored many important pieces on environmental justice. He has written eighteen books that deal with topics such as sustainable development, climate and environmental justice, smart growth, and other topics surrounding urban land-use issues. His most well-known book, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality (2000), brought national attention to the environmental justice issues. More recent books include Race, Place and Environmental Justice after Hurricane Katrina (2009) and Environmental Health and Racial Equity in the United States (2011). Many of Bullard’s books have received national recognition and awards. In 2013, The John Muir Award given by the Sierra Club, which is titled after the interest group’s founder, was awarded to Bullard. He was the first African American to receive the award. The following year, the Sierra Club created an

64

Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound

Environmental Justice Award named after Bullard. In 2017, the Children Environmental Health Network presented him with the Child Health Advocate Award. Bullard was one of the founders of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit in 1991 in Washington, DC. This summit created the infamous organizing principles of modern environmental justice. Bullard was also a contributor to the 1994 Executive Order 12898 under the Clinton administration that ensures the federal government considers any disproportionate impact to overburdened communities. Bullard has most recently worked on building a collaboration with the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice and the United Church of Christ Environmental Ministries to host the annual Historical Black Colleges and Universities Climate Change Conference in 2018. Bullard has stated that historically black colleges and universities play a significant role in training African Americans and other leaders of color in all fields. According to Bullard (2014), more than 80 percent of these 104 colleges are located in the Gulf Coast and Southern region of the United States, which are two of the most vulnerable areas to climate justice and environmental racism impacts. Climate-related disasters in these areas have outnumbered those in other regions in both scale and magnitude by a ratio of almost 4:1 during the past decade. The Southern region is vulnerable not only because of its physical location but also because of its high prevalence of concentrated poverty, uninsured households, income and wealth inequality, health care disparities, and food insecurity. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Environmental Movement (1970s); Overburdened Community.

Further Reading

Black Entertainment News. 2018. “16 Black Environmentalists You Should Know.” Accessed August 15, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­bet​.­com​/­news​/­national​/­photos​/­2011​/­04​ /­top​-­black​- ­environmentalists​.­html​#!­0 42111​-­news​-­national​- ­environment​-­robert​ -­bullard. Bullard, Robert. 2014. “Why HBCUs Must Lead on Climate Justice.” Blog, September 5, 2014. Accessed August 15, 2018. ­http://​­drrobertbullard​.­com​/­category​/ ­blog. Bullard, Robert D. 2018. “Dr. Robert Bullard: Father of Environmental Justice.” Accessed August 15, 2018. h­ ttp://​­drrobertbullard​.­com. Dicum, Gregory. 2006. “Meet Robert Bullard, the Father of Environmental Justice.” Grist, March 15, 2006. Accessed August 15, 2018. ­https://​­grist​.­org​/­article​/­dicum. First National People of Color Environmental Leadership. 1991. “Principles of Environmental Justice.” Held October 24–27, 1991, in Washington, DC. Accessed August 15, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­ejnet​.­org​/­ej​/­principles​.­html.

Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound The Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound refers to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–designated Superfund site in Idaho that operated as a silver mine from roughly 1897 to 1981. One of the main concerns with the Bunker Hill Site include the high levels of lead on the Coeur d’Alene River. For years, the



Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound 65

compound deposited remarkably high levels of lead and zinc into the local rivers and forests. However, the Baghouse fire in 1973 exposed residents to remarkably high levels of lead and zinc both through the river and the air. The most common place this was evident was in the tests of children that began in earnest in 1974. Eventually, a large portion of the Coeur d’Alene River basin was designated a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Superfund site. Even though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the site on the National Priorities List (NPL) and it became a Superfund site, some became frustrated with the lack of progress in cleaning up the site. As a result of this frustration, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe filed suit in 1991 in federal court against the various mining companies that operated in the area. Eventually, in 2011, the tribes and the federal government reached consent degrees with the relevant companies to help with the cleanup of the site. However, like many other Superfund sites, recent cuts to the EPA budget have imperiled the total cleanup of the Coeur d’Alene River basin. The Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound originally operated using a jig concentrator to extract the metal from the ore. One of the problems with this approach to extracting the metal is that it is an inherently inefficient process that leads to a substantial amount of waste. Before the advent of environmental protection regulations, many times—and in the case of the Bunker Hilling Mining Compound—these excess chemicals found their way into the water supply. In the case of Bunker Hill, this resulted in excess deposits of sulfur and lead finding its way into the local water supply through small streams and the Coeur d’Alene River. Acute exposure to sulfur causes several health effects. Sulfur irritates the eyes and in the most extreme cases can lead to corneal damage. If sulfur is exposed to the skin, it causes pain in the form of a burning sensation. Breathing sulfur fumes can lead to choking, as it causes the airways to constrict, but sulfur exposure can also present as sneezing and a runny nose. Although sulfur only represents a partial health and toxicological effect on both humans and wildlife, lead poisoning presents serious health consequences for humans. Lead poisoning represents more serious health effects for children, with the Mayo Clinic (2019) reporting that some lead poisoning symptoms in children include “developmental delay, learning difficulties, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, vomiting, hearing loss and seizures.” However, the effects of lead poisoning and exposure in adults are no less severe, with symptoms that include “high blood pressure, joint and muscle pain, difficulty with memory or concentration, abdominal pain and miscarriage, and stillbirth in pregnant women” (Mayo Clinic 2019). Although some of the residents of the Coeur d’Alene River area with low levels of lead in their blood could see improvement merely by removing harmful lead products from their homes and environment, others, especially children, would need a more vigorous treatment to eliminate the toxic levels of lead in the blood. Eventually, many residents of the area began to notice significant lead in the river and tributaries—so much so that local resident began calling the Coeur

66

Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound

d’Alene River “lead river.” Other residents reported that certain areas of the river looked as though the color of the water was gray rather than clear or muddy. However, it was not just local residents that began complaining about the pollution and contamination emanating from the Coeur d’Alene River; government entities began reporting contamination effects independent of the river. The U.S. Forest Service complained that airborne zinc pollutants killed a considerable number of trees in the Coeur d’Alene National Forrest (Aiken 2005), which is an extremely large forest measuring over eleven hundred square miles (U.S. Forest Service 2007). By 1975, spurred by the county health department and the high rate of illness and symptoms of lead poisoning in the area, children began to be tested. Bollier (2003) reports that 26 percent of the two-year-olds in the region exhibited high levels of lead in their blood. Although the continual deposits of the waste certainly caused its share of longtime problems for the area, a fire at the Bunker Hill Compound in 1975 exacerbated the environmental and toxicological problems of the site. The compound used a baghouse to stop some of the dust and particles from being emitted into the area during the extraction process. However, the 1973 fire destroyed the baghouse, and it required more than two years to fix and replace it. In that same time period, the Bunker Hill facility actually produced more silver than before the baghouse fire (Quivic 2004). In 1981, Bunker Hill would become one of the nation’s first, largest, and most extensive Superfund sites. A Superfund site refers to a part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) passed into law in 1980. The legislation established a $1.6 billion trust to fund the cleanup of hazardous chemical contaminations across the United States. In 1986, the trust size had increased to $8.5 billion. As it pertains to the actual cleanup of the site, the EPA (2019) documented the following steps to address the environmental problems at Bunker Hill: Cleanup of this large and complex site includes many activities. This includes removing and replacing surface soil in people’s yards, public playgrounds, parks, commercial properties, and other areas. It also includes cleaning up mine waste at non-operating mine and mill sites in the Upper Basin. Other examples of activities include paving certain roads to block contamination, taking steps to keep cleaned up areas clean, and continuing public outreach and education.

But one of the biggest problems with the site is that the waste made its way into the water supply. As a result, the EPA (2019) addressed the necessary corrective steps: Soil from cleanups of residential and commercial properties contains metals—like lead and arsenic—that can harm people. This soil needs a place where it can be safely contained. These waste repositories are carefully chosen and engineered to securely contain contaminated soil and reduce impacts to people and the environment. Waste repositories are managed long after they are closed to be sure the contaminants remain contained and secure. Waste repository locations for Bunker Hill include: Lower Burke Canyon Repository, Canyon Creek Complex Repository, East Mission Flats Repository, Big Creek Repository and its Annex, Page Waste Repository.



Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound 67

Part of the legislation stipulates that the companies operating the sites could be held liable for financial and monetary damages for the costs of the cleanup. In 1991, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe filed a lawsuit against the mining companies that operated in the area, with the two largest companies being Hecla Mining Company and the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO). The tribes argued that the actions of these companies polluted the entire region for decades, and so they should pay for the cost of the cleanup for the environmental disaster in the Coeur d’Alene River basin. Although the companies fought the charges in federal court in Boise, Idaho, both were found responsible for a certain portion of damages and for financing a large part of the cleanup costs. As the U.S. Department of Justice (2011) stated, The lawsuit was originally brought against Hecla and other mining companies by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe in 1991 and was joined by the United States in 1996. The state of Idaho joined the lawsuit today in order to participate in the settlement and resolve its claims against Hecla. The lawsuit sought damages for injuries to natural resources such as clean water, fish and birds caused by millions of tons of mining wastes that had been released into the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River and its tributaries. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Idaho have been performing cleanup work in the Coeur d’Alene Basin since the early 1980s, and the suit also sought to recover cleanup costs.

Eventually, ASARCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. In doing so, it agreed to sell off its operating assets of roughly $42.6 billion to an Indian firm that agreed to move $1.79 billion dollars to a public trust to fund the building and cleanup of the sites. Even after the massive costs of cleanup and the tireless work of the EPA and state regulators, the river basin has not seen a complete cleanup or revitalization of the area. Although the EPA expanded the Superfund location to include a fifteen hundred square mile area of the river basin, Lake Coeur d’Alene is still contaminated with lead (Christian 2016). One of the main perpetrators of the sustained problems in the Coeur d’Alene River basin is natural disasters. The area has undergone floods that allowed toxic and hazardous lead deposits to travel from high ground into the water supply. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 1996 floods of the Idaho Panhandle resulted in more than one million pounds of lead deposits finding its way into the Coeur d’Alene River (USGS 2014). In 2011, a flood struck the area again and resulted in increased levels of lead in the water supply, with more than 352,000 pounds of lead contaminants finding its way into the river (Kramer 2011). In 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice came to an agreement finalizing the damages owed by the Hecla Mining Company to pay for the cleanup of the Superfund site in the amount of $263 million. However, even today, the cleanup of the Coeur d’Alene River basin remains in doubt. That is because the Superfund trust that holds the funds used to clean up sites like the Coeur d’Alene River basin has essentially run dry. In 2017, the Washington Post reported that taxpayers are currently footing the bill for the cleanup at almost all Superfund sites, including Coeur d’Alene:

68

Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound

The Superfund program, established in 1980, was meant to hold industries and businesses—such as landfill operators, chemical companies and manufacturers— accountable for polluting communities across the country. Many firms responsible for contamination have paid billions toward cleaning up some sites. For years, however, petroleum, chemical and corporate taxes imposed by Congress funded the vast majority of the Superfund program, including expensive cleanups. Since the Superfund taxes expired in 1995, the burden of paying the costs shifted dramatically. Today, most of the program’s funding comes through taxpayer dollars, according to data reviewed by News21, a national investigative reporting project. (Anderson 2017)

Adding to the problems associated with the sunsetting in 1995 of the chemical tax that funded a part of the Superfund project, political realities have forced administrations to lower the level of financial resources hampering cleanup efforts and the day-to-day operations of the EPA. Under the Trump administration’s proposed budgets, these cuts would intensify, as the drafts have called for a reduction of the EPA’s budget by roughly 30 percent. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Hudson River Superfund Site (1984).

Further Reading

Aiken, Katherine. 2005. Idaho’s Bunker Hill: The Rise and Fall of a Great Mining Company, 1885–1981. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Anderson, Bryan. 2017. “Taxpayer Dollars Fund Most Oversight and Cleanup Costs at Superfund Sites.” The Washington Post, September 20, 2017. Accessed June, 22, 2020. ­https://​­w ww​.­washingtonpost​.­com​/­national​/­taxpayer​-­dollars​-­f und​-­most​-­oversight​ -­a nd​- ­cleanup​- ­c osts​- ­at​- ­s uperfund​- ­sites​/­2017​/­0 9​/­20​/­a edcd426​- ­8209​-­11e7​-­9 02a​ -­2a9f2d808496​_story​.­html. Bollier, David. 2003. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. London: Psychology Press. Christian, Sena. 2016. “Bunker Hill Superfund Is Still a Toxic Mess, with Legacy of Suffering.” Newsweek, June 12, 2016. Accessed July 22, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­newsweek​ .­c om​/­2016​/­0 6​/­24​/ ­bunker​-­h ill​- ­s uperfund​- ­silver​-­valley​-­lead​- ­p oisoning​- ­4 69222​ .­html. Kramer, Becky. 2011. “Flooding Spiked Lead Levels in Lake Coeur d’Alene.” Spokesman-Review, March 24, 2011. Accessed July 22, 2019. ­http://​­www​ .­spokesman​.­com​/­stories​/­2011​/­mar​/­24​/­flooding​-­spiked​-­lead​-­levels. Mayo Clinic. 2019. “Lead Poisoning: Symptoms and Causes.” Accessed July 22, 2019. ­h ttps://​­ w ww​.­m ayoclinic​ .­o rg​ /­d iseases​ -­c onditions​ /­lead​ -­p oisoning​ /­s ymptoms​ -­causes​/­syc​-­20354717. Quivik, Fredric. 2004. “Of Tailings, Superfund Litigation, and Historian as Experts: U.S. v. Asarco, et al. (the Bunker Hill Case in Idaho).” Public Historian 26(1): 81–104. U.S. Department of Justice. 2011. “Hecla Mining Company to Pay $263 Million in Settlement to Resolve Idaho Superfund Site Litigation and Foster Cooperation.” Accessed August 16, 2020. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr​/ hecla​-mining-comp​a​ ny-pay-263-million-settlement-resolve-idaho-superfund-site-litigation-and. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. “Case Summary: ASARCO 2009 Bankruptcy Settlement.” Accessed June 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­enforcement​/­case​-­summary​-­asarco​-­2009​-­bankruptcy​-­settlement.



Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound 69

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Complex Smelterville, ID Cleanup Activities.” Accessed June 27, 2019. ­https://​ ­cumulis​.­epa​.­gov​/­supercpad​/­cursites​/­csitinfo​.­cfm​?­id​= ​­1000195. U.S. Forest Service. 2007. “NFS Acreage by State, Congressional District and County.” Accessed August 21, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­fs​.­fed​.­us​/­land​/­staff​/­lar​/­2007​/­TABLE​_6​ .­htm. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. “Sources, Transport, and Trends for Selected Trace Metals and Nutrients in the Coeur d’Alene and Spokane River Basins, Northern Idaho, 1990–2013.” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5204.

C Cadmium (Cd) Cadmium (Cd) is a soft bluish-white metal that is found in trace amounts in soil, rocks, coal, and some mineral fertilizers. It exists as cadmium oxide, cadmium chloride, cadmium sulfate, and cadmium sulfide when combined with oxygen, chlorine, or sulfur, respectively. Most cadmium used in the United States is extracted during the production of other metals, such as zinc, lead, and copper. Cadmium was originally used in pigments to produce vibrant yellows, oranges, and reds. It does not corrode easily, so it is useful in batteries, solar cells, and plastic stabilizers and in manufacturing electrical conductors, metal coatings, and plastics. It is also used as a neutron absorber in nuclear reactors. Cadmium is a highly toxic carcinogen and neurotoxin that targets the cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, neurological, reproductive, and respiratory systems. Exposure primarily occurs as a by-product of mining and processing iron, nickel, and other metals. Welders and industrial workers can be exposed from inhalation, which causes cadmium fume fever. Industrial processes that include electroplating, metal machining, welding, and painting can also be sources of exposure. Employees working on recycling cadmium-containing parts, such as electronics, plastics, and Ni-Cd batteries, are also at risk. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA 2017) estimates that five hundred thousand workers are annually exposed to cadmium in the United States. Other human exposure to Cadmium can come from contaminated water from mining or manufacturing that impacts food. Post–World War II, there was an increase in a disease characterized by bone fractures called “ouch-ouch” disease on rice farms in rural Japan. This disease attacks the skeletal system by softening the bones. The irrigation water used for the rice farms was contaminated by cadmium. Fish, plants, and soils can readily be contaminated with cadmium, which tends to remain stable in the environment and binds strongly with soil. In addition, smoking cigarettes and breathing in secondhand smoke can also expose a person to cadmium. Tennessee and Ohio are the only states that produce cadmium. Globally, cadmium is also produced in China, South Korea, and Japan. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Neurological Toxicity.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Cadmium.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­15.

72

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Cadmium, CID=23973.” PubChem Database. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound​/­Cadmium. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2020. “Cadmium.” U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed on June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/ ­Publications​ /­3136​- ­08R​-­2003​-­English​.­html​#­introduction U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “Cadmium.” Mineral Commodity Summaries (January 2016): 42–43. Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​­s3​-­us​-­west​-­2​.­amazonaws​ .­c om ​/­p rd​-­w ret​/­a sset s​/­p allad iu m ​/­p roduct ion ​/­m i neral​-­p ubs​/­c ad m iu m​ /­mcs​-­2016​-­cadmi​.­pdf.

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is a nonprofit advocacy organization that focuses on educating people about the toxic chemicals in personal care products and reforming the cosmetics industry to provide safe cosmetics. The organization has been successful in advocating for the transparency of chemical ingredients in cosmetics as well as the substitution of those toxic chemicals. This has generated a growth in the demand and marketing of organic cosmetics. STORY OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR SAFE COSMETICS In the early part of 2000, there was a growing concern about the toxic chemicals in personal care products. As a result, in 2004, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics was formed by a national coalition of environmental health and women’s groups. This coalition was led by the Breast Cancer Fund (now the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners). One of the initial projects of the newly formed organization was to reform the use of toxic chemicals in cosmetics. Its first target was the toxic chemical phthalate. This chemical is often called a plasticizer because it makes plastic products less easy to break and more flexible, or malleable. This chemical was widely used in personal care products such as soap, shampoo, hair spray, nail polish, and cosmetics. The chemical is also used in children’s toys and vinyl products, such as plastic packaging, garden hoses, storage containers for blood products, and medical tubing. In 2004, the organization put together a letter signed by about fifty environmental, women’s, and health groups that was mailed to 250 cosmetic companies. The letter specifically asked the companies to remove phthalates from their products. It also requested the companies enter into an agreement called the Compact for Safe Cosmetics. This was a promise to eliminate toxic chemicals from their products. The compact was effective, with one hundred companies signing in 2004 and an additional two hundred companies the following year. By 2010, over fifteen hundred companies had signed on. Unfortunately, the major cosmetic companies the campaign had originally targeted did not sign; however, in response to the letter, L’Oréal and Revlon agreed to remove the chemicals already banned in the



Campaign for Safe Cosmetics 73

European Union in the cosmetics sold in the United States. In 2011, the agreement signed by the companies transformed into the Safe Cosmetics Business Network.

TOXIC CHEMICALS IN COSMETICS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS POLICY REFORMS The advocacy work of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics led to several policy reforms in the industry. In 2005, the state of California enacted the Safe Cosmetics Act. This act requires cosmetic companies to report the use of chemicals linked to cancer and birth defects. The next year, in 2006, through the campaign’s work, some of the major manufacturers of nail polish, such as OPI, Orly, and Sally Hansen, elimimated three of the most toxic chemicals from their products: formaldehyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalate. In 2007, organic cosmetic and personal care products arrived in stores, among them major retailers were Target, CVS, and Walgreens. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics also advises whole foods retailers on their premium organic personal care products. The organization conducted independent laboratory tests on lipsticks. Of thirty-three lipsticks tested, it found about two-thirds of them contained the heavy metal lead. The tests also revealed petroleum by-product carcinogens in children’s bath products. This was particularly concerning because petroleum was not listed on the product labels. Since its creation as an organization, the Campaign for Safe Comestics has issued many reports about the mixture of toxic chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products. One of the more well-known books on the toxicity of chemicals in cosmetics is by author Stacy Malkan, one of Campaign for Safe Cosmetics’s founders. Published in 2007, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry highlights the history of policy reforms created by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and it became one of many accounts citing the problems with toxics not being adequately regulated by the government. Reports from the organization document toxics found in fragrances, children’s bath products and toys, cosmetics used in costumes and the performing arts, and other products, such as shampoos and antibacterial hand cleaners. In 2009, one of the more alarming reports regarding children focused on Halloween and costume face paints. These products contained toxic heavy metals such as lead, nickel, cobalt, and chromium but had misleading claims about being “hypoallergenic” and “FDA compliant.” Another report in 2011 found formaldehyde preservatives in Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, which caused the company to eliminate the chemical from its baby and adult cosmetics in fifty-seven countries around the world. Some of the more recent reports have focused on test results that show the toxic chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (commonly known as PFOA) in antiaging products from the cosmetic brands Garnier and CoverGirl. What most people in the United States do not realize is that there are no strict regulations on or control of toxics in cosmetics and personal care products. In fact, it is one of the least regulated industries in the United States.

74

Cancer Alley (Louisiana)

The European Union has more stringent and protective laws for cosmetics than the United States. In 2003, with a revision ten years later, the European Union Cosmetics Directive banned 1,328 chemicals from cosmetics that are known or suspected to cause cancer, genetic mutation, reproductive harm, or birth defects. In comparison, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bans or restricts only eleven chemicals from cosmetics. The European Union also prohibits animal testing for cosmetic products and requires safety assessments before cosmetics are sold in the marketplace. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of; Phthalates.

Further Reading

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. 2017. “About Us.” Accessed September 28, 2017. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­safecosmetics​.­org​/­about​-­us. Made Safe. 2018. “About.” Accessed August 25, 2018. ­https://​­madesafe​.­org. Malkan, Stacy. 2007. Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry. British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Cancer Alley (Louisiana) Cancer Alley is an eighty-five-mile Gulf Coast area along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, in the River Parishes of Louisiana. This area is home to many industrial plants, particularly for petrochemicals and refineries. It has long been known to be an area of suspected higher risk for contaminants from industries that line the riverbank (Blackwell et  al. 2017). It is also home to a large African American community, which has connected this overburdened community to the environmental justice movement. The area is home to over 140 chemical plants and is widely reported to have the highest rate of developing cancer from air pollutants (Sheldon 2019). The title of “Cancer Alley” started in the 1980s when it was suspected that there was a cluster of cancer incidences in the region. However, the Louisiana Chemical Association (2019) has taken the position that the Cancer Alley label is an environmental myth. There have been ongoing concerns by local citizens of the area, some of which include lawsuits. In early 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit over the refusal by the federal government to release records from the Formosa Plastics facility, which was seeking to increase plastics production by 40 percent over the next decade from the use of natural gas from fracking (Center for Biological Diversity 2019). A film documenting the environmental justice concerns of the women of Cancer Alley was released in April 2019. This film examines the impact of the industries in the region on African American women in this community. It explains how the ability to refine over five hundred thousand barrels of crude oil per day into products such as gasoline and diesel by a major ExxonMobil plant is a serious health risk for an area with over 50 percent African American population (Willis 2019). The film highlights the health issues of this region, particularly for the African American women who were born and raised near these plants.



Car and Household Batteries 75

Robert Bullard, the well-known “father of the environmental justice movement,” claims that that there is a reason for why this riverbank was labeled Cancer Alley. In 1985, the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice showed that the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) recorded a production of 700 million points of emissions. By 2012, this amount had significantly decreased to 102.4 million pounds because of the actions of various environmental activist groups (Lu Baum 2019). According to Courtney Keehan (2018), the Clean Air Act is an example of an environmental law that fails to protect vulnerable communities such as those in Cancer Alley because the design and administration of the associated regulations are influenced by pro-industry interests. Cancer Alley, unlike other industrial zoned areas in the United States, is densely populated and situated amid the industrial facilities. Moreover, Cancer Alley is best characterized as a product of failures in regulatory design that are intended to protect communities but instead created a toxic landscape (Keehan 2018, 369). Specifically, the costs of implementing cleaner technologies often take priority over public health protection and the promotion of state-friendly policies to protect or create jobs and a tax base. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Bullard, Robert (1946–); Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism.

Further Reading

Blackwell, Victor, Wayne Drash, and Christopher Lett. 2017. “Toxic Tension in the Heat in ‘Cancer Alley.’” CNN, October 20, 2017. Accessed April 11, 2019. h­ ttps://​­www​ .­cnn​.­com​/­2017​/­10​/­20​/ ­health​/­louisiana​-­toxic​-­town​/­index​.­html. Center for Biological Diversity. 2019. “Lawsuit Seeks US Records on Hugh Plastics Plant in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley.” February 12, 2019. Accessed April 11, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­biologicaldiversity​.­org​/­news​/­press​_ releases​/­2019​/ ­louisiana​-­plastics​-­plant​ -­02​-­12​-­2019​.­php. Keehan, Courtney. 2018. “Lessons from Cancer Alley: How the Clean Air Act Has Failed to Protect Public Health in Southern Louisiana.” Colorado Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law Review 29(2): 342–371. Louisiana Chemical Association. 2019. “Fighting the Cancer Alley Myth.” Accessed April 11, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­lca​.­org​/­resources​/­chemical​-­connections​/­fighting​-­the​ -­cancer​-­alley​-­myth. Lu Baum, Jesse. 2019. “They Don’t Call It Cancer Alley for Nothing.” Big Easy Magazine, April 1, 2019. Accessed April 11, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­bigeasymagazine​.­com​ /­2019​/­04​/­01​/­they​-­dont​-­call​-­it​-­cancer​-­alley​-­for​-­nothing. Sheldon, Meredith. 2019. “Life in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley.” WUFT, March 17, 2019. Accessed April 11, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­wuft​.­org​/­news​/­2019​/­03​/­17​/­life​-­in​-­louisianas​-­cancer​-­alley. Willis, Samantha. 2019. “These Women Documented Louisiana’s Environmental Injustice in New Film Series ‘Women of Cancer Alley.’” Essence, April 11, 2019. ­https://​­w ww​.­essence​.­com​/­feature​/­women​-­of​-­cancer​-­alley​-­documentary.

Car and Household Batteries Batteries play a critical role in modern life and are becoming even more important as countries and households move away from carbon-based fuels toward the use of renewable sources of electricity, including solar and wind energy. To

76

Car and Household Batteries

ensure the viability of renewable energy, new batteries using materials such as lithium and graphene must be developed and manufactured on a gigawatt scale. A gigawatt is equal to one thousand megawatts or one billion watts. These newer batteries will increase the efficiency of electrical storage for those days when the sun is blocked or when the wind is insufficient to turn the electricity-generating wind turbines. Moreover, as households increasingly turn to solar energy panels to separate themselves from the highly vulnerable electrical gird and to save money, they will require highly efficient battery systems that store the electricity from rooftop solar panels for use at night and during cloudy days. New electrical storage technology, which includes solid-state electrical energy storage systems and sodium-ion batteries, are already on the horizon. Large-scale lithium-ion battery production plants are being constructed across the United States to support electric vehicles (EVs) and solar and wind energy use. Currently, the EV industry is concentrating on lithium-ion technologies that can sustain a greater number of recharging cycles than conventional batteries (i.e., lead acid batteries), which have been used in automobiles since the nineteenth century. Patents for new types of lithium-ion batteries are issued almost every month. Despite advances, many batteries in current use require metals and chemicals that are designated as hazardous materials and are subject to hazardous waste regulations developed under the authority of the Resource and Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). States and communities have the primary responsibility for overseeing the day-to-day disposal of battery-based hazardous waste.

HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES Alkaline batteries are commonly used in households. These batteries convert chemical energy into electrical energy. They are not rechargeable and quickly end up in landfills, contributing to the overall solid and hazardous waste disposal problem. Alkaline batteries contain zinc and manganese and are used in a variety of devices, including flashlights and smoke detectors. The environmental impacts of alkaline batteries are a result of materials used in the poles of the batteries. The positive pole (anode) uses zinc, and the negative pole is built from manganese dioxide. Alkaline batteries use an electrolyte of either potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide. When alkaline batteries are damaged, the alkali electrolyte may leak out. If the alkali material contacts skin, it can cause severe chemical burns. RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES Some batteries are often made from materials that enable many recharging cycles. These batteries are made from nickel cadmium, nickel metal hydride, and the aforementioned lithium ion. Rechargeable batteries are used in mobile phones and laptop computers. Although rechargeable, the batteries have a finite number



Car and Household Batteries 77

of recharges and must be remanufactured after reaching their limit. Despite their recyclability, they often find their way into community landfills, sometimes posing a threat to local water supplies. Nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cad) batteries have a cadmium anode and a nickel oxyhydroxide cathode, and they employ a potassium hydroxide electrolyte. The cells of nickel-cadmium batteries typically contain 13–15 percent cadmium and 20–30 percent nickel. The electrolyte is highly caustic and can cause severe burns. Lithium batteries include lithium-manganese dioxide, lithium-sulfur dioxide, and lithium-thionyl chloride. The anode uses lithium, and the cathode is constructed from manganese. The electrolyte is a solution of lithium perchlorate. Lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries contain pressurized sulfur dioxide gas, and lithium-thionyl chloride batteries contain liquid thionyl chloride that rapidly vaporizes upon exposure to air. Both types of batteries use toxic chemicals that can damage the lungs of humans and animals. LEAD ACID BATTERIES The French physician Gaston Planté invented the lead acid battery in 1859. It was the first rechargeable battery for commercial use. Despite its nineteenth-­ century origin, this type of battery continues to be widely used in automobiles and boats. Its popularity is the result of its dependability and inexpensive cost on a per-watt basis. There are few other batteries that deliver electrical energy as efficiently as lead acid batteries. A lead acid battery is significantly less durable than batteries using nickel or lithium. A full discharge causes strain on the battery, and each full discharge of electricity decreases its total storage capacity. This loss is small while the battery is in good operating condition, but once the performance drops by half, the battery becomes unusable. This fading characteristic applies to all batteries in varying degrees. Lead acid batteries have a lead anode, a lead dioxide cathode, and an electrolyte composed of sulfuric acid. The battery cell contains 60–75 percent lead and lead oxide. The electrolyte contains 28–51 percent sulfuric acid, which may cause severe skin or eye burns.

REGULATION OF BATTERY DISPOSAL Forty-seven states are authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to administer their own hazardous waste programs. They have promulgated hazardous waste regulations, which include the regulation of hazardous battery waste. State regulations may be more stringent than federal regulations. For example, states regulate zinc, a major component of alkaline batteries, under the toxicity characteristic of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 261 includes four criteria for determining a hazardous waste: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. Hazardous waste must exhibit at least one of these characteristics.

78

Car and Household Batteries

Certain states use bioassay characterization criteria for determining whether a waste is hazardous under RCRA. Bioassays assess the toxicity of a material by observing its effect on animals, plants, or microorganisms under strict laboratory conditions. Under these criteria, alkaline and carbon-zinc batteries are considered a hazardous waste. Consequently, the waste generator must ensure the most stringent regulations are applied during waste disposal. OTHER BATTERIES Alkaline batteries: An alkaline battery is not regulated under RCRA as a hazardous waste because it does not use an aqueous solution or free liquid and therefore cannot constitute corrosive waste. Carbon-zinc batteries: Carbon-zinc batteries may not be subject to state regulation because the bioassay characterization criteria are generally not met. Lead acid batteries: Lead acid batteries are always considered an RCRA-regulated hazardous waste because of their high toxic lead content. Lithium batteries: Lithium batteries are subdivided into the following categories: • • •

•

Lithium-manganese dioxide batteries are not hazardous solid wastes. Lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries are not hazardous solid wastes. Lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries (multicell) may be a nonhazardous solid waste or hazardous waste. If equipped with a complete discharge device (CDD), the batteries are considered a nonhazardous solid waste after discharge. If not equipped with a CDD, multicell lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries are hazardous wastes due to their inherent ignitability and reactivity characteristics. Lithium-thionyl chloride batteries (multicell) are hazardous wastes. Even when these batteries have a CDD, they are a hazardous waste due to the presence of chromium, which is toxic. Batteries without a CDD are a hazardous waste due to three characteristics: toxicity, ignitability, and reactivity.

Magnesium batteries: Batteries with a 50 percent or greater remaining charge are considered an RCRA-regulated hazardous waste due to the toxicity of chromium. Batteries with a charge of less than 50 percent are not considered a hazardous waste under RCRA. Mercury batteries: Mercury batteries are an RCRA-regulated hazardous waste due to the toxicity of mercury. Ni-Cad batteries: Ni-Cad batteries are an RCRA-regulated hazardous waste due to the toxicity of cadmium. Silver batteries: Silver batteries are considered an RCRA-regulated hazardous waste due to the toxicity of silver and mercury. Thermal batteries: Thermal batteries are considered an RCRA-regulated hazardous waste due to their toxicity characteristics. John Munro



Carbon Disulfide (CS2) 79

See also: Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Battery University. 2018. “BU-201: How Does the Acid Battery Work?” Last updated August 29, 2018. ­http://​­batteryuniversity​.­com​/­learn​/­article​/­lead​_based​_batteries. Bloch, Michael. 2008. “Rechargeable and Disposable Batteries—The Environmental Impact.” Green Living Tips. Last updated September 4, 2013. ­https://​­www​ .­greenlivingtips​.­com​/­articles​/­disposable​-­vs​-­rechargeable​-­batteries​.­html. Pro-Act. 1997. “Fact Sheet: Battery Disposal.” Last updated March 2000. Accessed July 23, 2020. ­https://​­p2infohouse​.­org​/­ref​/­07​/­06033​.­htm.

Carbon Disulfide (CS2) Carbon disulfide is a colorless neurotoxic liquid with a mild scent commercially made from the combination of sulfur and carbon at high temperatures or found naturally in kohlrabi (a purple or green cabbage-like vegetable), in volcanic gases in trace amounts, in wetlands and marshes in low amounts, and in oceans and coastal areas as a natural product of anaerobic biodegradation. The liquid is flammable and explodes easily. It readily evaporates, does not remain in water solutions (and is not used by water organisms), and quickly transports through soils, not accumulating in the ecosystem. As an industrial chemical (the impure version), it appears yellow and has the foul odor of rotting eggs. In the past, carbon disulfide was used as a fumigant pesticide on stored grains and potatoes. It is now used in the manufacture of viscose rayon, cellophane, carbon tetrachloride, dyes, and rubber. Some solvents, waxes, and cleaners contain carbon disulfide. As an industrial chemical, it is not classified as a carcinogen but is considered an endocrine disrupter. Exposure to carbon disulfide occurs mainly in the workplace via inhalation, dermal absorption, and ingestion, with inhalation the most likely pathway. Vapors easily absorb through the lungs and respiratory tract, and liquids absorb through the skin. Carbon disulfide is an eye and skin irritant that causes pain, redness, and blisters, especially on mucous membranes, and it dissolves fatty layers of the epidermis; therefore, second- and third-degree chemical burns may result from direct contact during high-level exposure. At elevated exposures, carbon disulfide is a strong neurotoxin on the central nervous system that can cause convulsions, coma, mania, delusions, and nausea. High exposures can prove lethal from respiratory paralysis. Lower exposure symptoms include headache, fatigue, anorexia, and sleep interruption as well as changes in mood, vision, and functions of the kidneys, heart, and liver, including liver damage. It can act as an endocrine disrupter in women by impacting menses and may lower the sperm count and libido of men. According to James Hamblin’s (2016) article in The Atlantic, early reports in the United States and Europe of men who were exposed during the 1800s describe the health impacts as causing hysterics and insanity. Kelly A. Tzoumis

80

Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4)

See also: Endocrine Disruptors; Neurological Toxicity.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Carbon Disulfide.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­84. Hamblin, James. 2016. “The Buried Story of Male Hysteria.” The Atlantic, December 29, 2016. Accessed October 4. 2017. ­https://​­www​.­theatlantic​.­com​/ ­health​/­archive​/­2016​ /­12​/­testicular​-­hysteria​/­511793. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Carbon Disulfide, CID=6348.” PubChem Database. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​ .­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­compound​/­Carbon​-­disulfide.

Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4) Carbon tetrachloride is a stable hydrocarbon with a sweet smell that can exist as a liquid or, at a high temperature, a poisonous gas. The colorless manufactured chemical, which cannot be found naturally, has been used as a solvent for oils, fats, and resins and in the manufacture of many organic compounds. It is not flammable or water soluble. It has been used in refrigeration, fire extinguishers, and pesticides and as a propellant for aerosols. Most commonly, it is used as an industrial cleaning fluid and degreasing agent and is used in dry cleaning. It is banned in the United States for most uses, with only a few exceptions allowed for industrial processes. Carbon tetrachloride is a probable human carcinogen. Exposure comes through inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption, which can be deadly. It impacts the kidneys, liver, and central nervous system. In the past, carbon tetrachloride, together with the chemical known as Perc, primarily impacted workers at commercial dry-cleaning facilities. It is a significant health risk when it leaks into water used for drinking or recreation. Carbon tetrachloride is considered a climate change gas and problem for the ozone layer. It is used to produce many chlorofluorocarbons, commonly known as CFC chemicals, which deplete the ozone layer and have created a hole above Antarctica. These chemicals were banned in 1987 under the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, with developing countries agreeing to cease their use by 2010. Scientists continue to discover that the carbon tetrachloride today accounts for 10–15 percent of the ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere and that their decline has not been as fast as predicted. When reported emissions were compared against scientists’ atmospheric data, the analysis showed the emissions, at thirty to one hundred times higher than reported, were coming from the same geographic locations as those industries still using the chemicals. The most significant hot spot for carbon tetrachloride emissions was the Gulf Coast region, with smaller emissions in Colorado and California (University of Colorado at Boulder 2016). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change; Montreal Protocol; Ozone Hole; Tetrachloroethylene (Perc).



Carson, Rachel 81

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Carbon Tetrachloride.” Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­35. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Carbon Tetrachloride, CID=5943.” PubChem Database. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​ .­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­compound​/­Carbon​-­tetrachloride. University of Colorado at Boulder. 2016. “When Less Is More: Study Tracks Down Lingering Source of Carbon Tetrachloride Emissions.” February 29, 2016. Accessed August 19, 2017. ­https://​­phys​.­org​/­news​/­2016​- ­02​-­t racks​-­lingering​-­source​-­carbon​ -­tetrachloride​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. “Carbon Tetrachloride.” Last updated January 2000. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​ /­production​/­files​/­2016​- ­09​/­documents​/­carbon​-­tetrachloride​.­pdf.

Carson, Rachel(1907–1964) Rachel Louise Carson was born in 1907 in Springdale, Pennsylvania. She worked as a scientist for fifteen years in the federal government. Later in her career, she became the editor for publications by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She wrote several books, including Under the Sea-Wind (1941), The Sea around Us (1951), and The Edge of the Sea (1955). However, it was Silent Spring (1962) that was credited for helping bring attention to the impacts of toxic chemicals in the human environment. This book examined the role of a widely used pesticide called DDT, which Carson surmised was causing significant damage to bird populations. Carson graduated from Chatham University in 1929 and studied at the Woods Hole Biological Laboratory. In 1932, she earned a master’s degree in zoology from Johns Hopkins University. She was an early pioneer in the field of observational ecology before ecology was a formal profession and discipline. She worked for the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries (the precursor to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to compose radio scripts during the economic depression in the United States and supplemented her income by writing for the Baltimore Sun newspaper on the topics of natural history and ecological issues. It was her book Silent Spring that focused on the problems caused by toxic chemicals in the ecosystem. During post–World War II, the United States was undergoing what was called the “green revolution,” which was a growth in the creation and manufacture of a variety of chemicals and synthetics, such as plastics, insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, rodenticides, and pesticides. The products of the green revolution were higher-yielding crops and chemicals that were perceived as a modern convenience for society. Carson began to make observations about the role of these chemicals in the ecosystem and their link to humans and the environments in which they live. She believed that when nature is poisoned, it will poison humans. In 1963, Carson testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organization regarding the consequences and dangers of chemical contaminants in human health and the environment, especially pesticides.

82

Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ)

Carson was discounted by the pesticide industry for her views regarding the dangerous role chemicals may have in the ecosystem. In fact, Velsicol, a chemical company that produced DDT at the time, threatened to sue both Houghton Mifflin, the publisher of Silent Spring, and The New Yorker for running a series on the book. Velsicol also tried to stop the Audubon Society, the popular bird-watching environmental group, from publishing parts of Silent Spring in its magazine. Moreover, in a New York Times article covering her life, journalist Eliza Griswold found that Rachel Carson was attacked personally as being a communist sympathizer and labeled as a spinster with an affinity for cats. In one threatening letter to Houghton Mifflin, Velsicol’s lawyers insinuated that there were sinister influences involved, implying that Carson was an agent of the former Soviet Union with the goal of reducing Western countries’ ability to produce food. However, Carson’s findings were supported by a science advisory committee appointed by the Kennedy administration. Carson was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Letters and was recognized for her contributions. While living in Silver Spring, Maryland, she died in April 1964 of breast cancer. She had no idea of the impact of her work and the role it would play as one of the catalysts of the modern environmental movement, which produced many pieces of legislation and federal agencies focused on the protection of human health and the environment in the 1970s. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT).

Further Reading

Griswold, Eliza. 2012. “How ‘Silent Spring’ Ignited the Environmental Movement.” New Times Magazine, September 21, 2012. Accessed August 11, 2017. ­http://​­www​ .­nytimes​.­com​/­2012​/­09​/­23​/­magazine​/ ­how​-­silent​-­spring​-­ignited​-­the​-­environmental​ -­movement​.­html. Lear, Linda. 2015. “The Life and Legacy of Rachel Carson.” Accessed August 11, 2017. ­http://​­w ww​.­rachelcarson​.­org. Rachel Carson Council. 2017. “Rachel Carson’s Statement before Congress 1963.” June 4, 1963. Accessed August 11, 2017. ­https://​­rachelcarsoncouncil​.­org​/­about​-­rcc​/­about​ -­rachel​-­carson​/­rachel​-­carsons​-­statement​-­before​-­congress​-­1963.

Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) The Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) is known for not being a lobbying or advocacy organization but a resource for local communities dealing with dangerous chemicals. The core of its mission is “to prevent harm to human health by providing technical and organizing support to individuals and communities facing a toxic hazard” (CHEJ 2016a). The focus is on communities needing justice from the excess burden of environmental dangers who are, often disproportionately, impacted by toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes. CHEJ helps communities mobilize by providing support with scientific technical information, leadership training to build local organizations for mobilization, and mentoring and coaching throughout the mobilization process.



Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 83

CHEJ (2016b) was created out of a community’s struggle for public health and environmental protection against toxic chemicals disposed of in a historical landfill (a former dumping site that is now closed), forcing residents to relocate from their homes due to the health risks. In the 1970s, Lois Gibbs, her husband, and two young children moved to Love Canal, a small community near Niagara Falls, New York. She mobilized the community to petition the State of New York for assistance in managing the carcinogens from the former Hooker Chemical Corporation’s landfill that were located under the elementary school and nearby homes. Gibbs achieved success with an emergency declaration from President Carter to evacuate 833 residents from the area. She then moved to the Washington, DC, area with her children. After Love Canal, Gibbs received thousands of inquiries from people across the United States requesting her recommendations for how to protect their communities from toxic waste chemicals in their neighborhoods. She saw the need for ordinary citizens to obtain basic information on the dangers of these chemicals. As a result, in 1980, she formed the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, which was renamed the Center for Health, Environment & Justice in 1988. According to CHEJ (2016a), the organization works to link local community leaders by providing a forum for exchange. In this way, communities can share strategies, build network alliances and coalitions, and learn effective approaches from each other. At the national and regional levels, CHEJ builds issue-focused campaigns to mobilize grassroots participation into both private-sector and government decision-making processes. CHEJ uses the environmental justice motto to help communities protect where they live, work, learn, play, and pray. It has assisted thousands of grassroots communities with organizing, technical support, and toxic chemical information nationwide. Its work includes leadership training, coaching, and a small grants program for community leaders. More recent work by CHEJ has focused on fracking, climate change, and healthy neighborhoods, and it continues its legacy work concerning children, schools, and toxic chemicals. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Gibbs, Lois (1951–); Love Canal, New York (1976).

Further Reading

Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). 2016a. “Our History.” Accessed July 23, 2020. ­http://​­chej​.­org​/­about​-­us​/­story. Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). 2016b. “Love Canal.” Accessed September 1, 2017. ­http://​­chej​.­org​/­about​-­us​/­story​/­love​-­canal.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. It focuses on public health, safety, prevention, and protection from both domestic and international threats, with an emphasis on communicable diseases

84

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

in the United States, and it maintains public health statistics on diseases and provides technical support to state health departments. The CDC is most known for managing the influenza cases and vaccinations each year and for combating the Ebola virus from West Africa. The CDC was born out of necessity. During World War II, the Public Health Service started a program called the Malaria Control in War Areas, which was headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, mainly because Southern military bases had the highest prevalence of malaria. It was primarily composed of entomologists working on the eradication of the mosquito-transmitted disease. In 1946, after the war, this program morphed into the Communicable Disease Center under the Public Health Service as a narrowly focused agency with a budget of $10 million and fewer than four hundred employees. The organization’s mission was singularly focused on preventing and exterminating malaria related to the impacts of the South Pacific on soldiers during World War II. Dr. Joseph Mountin was the first director of the Communicable Disease Center. He desired to expand the mission of the agency to focus on public health, which meant including more than malaria in its focus. In 1947, the Communicable Disease Center acquired land from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and this is still the headquarters of the CDC today. In 1949, the organization began to work on epidemiological issues with the entry of medical professionals on staff. There were questions about the mission of the CDC post–World War II; however, two major health issues in the 1950s gave the CDC a new policy issue and revived its work. First, in 1955, polio appeared in children who had received the recently approved Salk vaccine, which caused the national polio vaccination program to be cancelled. The CDC assisted with the identification of and the policy approach toward this public health issue. The cases were traced to California and a contaminated batch of the vaccine. With the problem corrected, vaccinations resumed. The second health issue was a massive influenza epidemic in 1957. In the 1960s, the CDC was instrumental in the eradication of smallpox worldwide. In 1962, it established a smallpox surveillance division and worked internationally to vaccinate people across the globe. By 1977, with the help of the World Health Organization (WHO), the international eradiation of smallpox was completed. In 1970, the organization was renamed the Center for Disease Control and then the Centers for Disease Control in 1980. In 1992, as part of a significant reorganization, the words “and Prevention” were added to the title of the organization, but it continued to be referred to as the CDC. During this time, the organization had some profound studies on the impact of vinyl chloride on liver cancer and the role of aspirin in Reye’s syndrome, but it also suffered criticism. Public outcry came in response to the Tuskegee study on the long-term effects of untreated syphilis in black men that was initiated in 1932 and transferred to the CDC in 1957. It came to national attention in 1972 after the public learned through a news story by the Associated Press that the men in the study had not been properly treated for the disease even after penicillin became a standard treatment in 1947. An outside panel also found the men had not been informed of



Centers of Excellence on EHD

85

the study or its true intent. They were not given the option to leave, and they had been denied full disclosure of the facts. They also should have had to give their consent to participate. In 1974, a settlement was reached, with modifications added as late as 1995. Some of the public health campaigns the CDC worked on in the 1980s and 1990s include AIDS, polio, child abuse, the removal of lead from gasoline, toxic shock syndrome from tampons, depression, and education on the use of tobacco products. Since 2000, the CDC has worked on bioterrorism cases involving anthrax, the virus known as SARS, and the H1N1 flu pandemic. It continues work on issues such as the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the fungal meningitis epidemic outbreaks in 2012, the domestic Ebola cases in the latter half of 2014, and the measles outbreak. The CDC has a budget of approximately $6 billion and fifteen thousand employees. Its personnel are stationed in more than twenty-five foreign countries (CDC 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); Centers of Excellence on Environmental Health Disparities Research (EHD); Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers; International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); State Public Health Agencies.

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2018. “Our History—Our Story.” Last reviewed January 19, 2018. Accessed September 11, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​ .­gov​/­about​/ ­history​/­index​.­html. Mahmood, Ahmed. 2015. “From Humble Beginnings: The History of the CDC.” Stethoscope Magazine, March 3, 2015. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­http://​­stethoscopemagazine​ .­org​/­2015​/­03​/­03​/­f rom​-­humble​-­beginnings​-­the​-­history​-­of​-­the​-­cdc​/.

Centers of Excellence on Environmental Health Disparities Research (EHD) The Centers of Excellence on Environmental Health Disparities Research (EHD) program is a collaborative effort supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EHD was largely created in response to growing environmental justice concerns, wherein federal agencies were required to work toward ending the disproportionate exposures of minority and low-income communities to many environmental hazards. EHD centers conduct research concerning disease conditions that are known burdens among low socioeconomic and health disparate populations. The centers define health disparities as “inequities in illnesses that are mediated by disproportionate exposures associated with the social, natural and built environments” (EPA 2017). The EHD supports research in six primary areas: (1) the cumulative effects of multienvironmental, physical, and social stressors; (2) differential exposures;

86

Centers of Excellence on EHD

(3) land-use considerations and health disparities; (4) built environment, housing, and transportation; (5) environmental sustainability and health disparities; and (6) engagement of affected community members and organizations in research. The P50 grants awarded by the EHD help support research at five EHD university centers, each with its own population focus. At the University of Arizona, the Center for Indigenous Environmental Health Research partners with rural and urban American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities to develop research capabilities among the population and evaluate the contributions of chemical and other environmental exposures to health inequities. At the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, researchers with the Center for Native American Environmental Health Equity Research found that arsenic and uranium concentrations exceeded national drinking water standards on the Navajo reservation and that unregulated sources in close proximity (i.e., within 6 km) to abandoned uranium mines yielded significantly higher concentrations of arsenic and uranium than more distant sources. In the wake of the Gold King Mine spill, researchers also investigated the metal stability in the water and sediments of the Animas River watershed. At Johns Hopkins University, the Comparing Urban and Rural Effects of Poverty on COPD project has examined how the interactions of obesity, diet, and air pollution increase susceptibility to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in low-income adults. The study’s researchers focused on one community in urban Baltimore and one in rural Appalachia and found that indoor particulate matter exposure is associated with increased black carbon content in airway macrophages of former smokers with COPD. At Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health, researchers at the Center for Research on Environmental and Social Stressors in Housing across the Life Course (CRESSH) examine the links between EHD and exposure to multiple chemical stressors such as air pollutants, social determinants of health, and nonchemical stressors. At the University of Southern California, researchers with the Maternal and Developmental Risks from Environmental and Social Stressors (MADRES) study whether environmental exposures (including air pollution, metals, water contaminants, and toxic releases), coupled with exposures to psychosocial and built environment stressors, lead to excessive gestational weight gain and postpartum weight retention in women and to perturbed infant growth trajectories and increased childhood obesity risk through altered psychological, behavioral, or metabolic responses. Robert L. Perry See also: Arsenic (As); Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Uranium.

Further Reading

Lenox, Kelly. 2018. “New Centers Work to Lessen Environmental Health Disparities.” Environmental Focus. Accessed on July 19, 2018. ­https://​­factor​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­2018​ /­1​/­community​-­impact​/­ehd​-­centers​/­index​.­htm. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). n.d. “Centers of Excellence on Environmental Health Disparities Research.” Accessed July 19, 2018. ­https://​­w ww​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­research ​/­supported ​/­centers​/­ehd ​/­index​.­cfm.



Chemical Abstracts Service Registry (CAS) 87

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “NIH/EPA Centers of Excellence on Environmental Health Disparities Research.” Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​ ­cfpub​.­epa​.­gov​/­ncer​_abstracts​/­index​.­cfm​/­f useaction​/­recipients​.­display​/­rfa​_id​/­608.

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry (CAS) The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry (CAS), a division of the American Chemical Society (ACS), provides health and safety information to scientists as well as the public. It is a database that contains more than 132 million unique organic and inorganic chemical substances, such as alloys, coordination compounds, minerals, mixtures, polymers, and salts (ACS 2017). Considered the authoritative database on chemical substances, CAS is recognized in the United States as the expert source for the names and structures of chemicals. Today, the registry is available online. It links to a variety of other useful databases associated with the ACS, such as chemical suppliers, chemical regulating organizations, and industry notes about chemicals. The database includes the chemical and common names of substances, molecular structures, and formulas. It also includes the physical properties of the chemicals, such as density, boiling point, and melting point, and advanced information, such as the use of the chemical in protein and nucleic acid sequences and the classes for polymers. Each chemical substance has been assigned a CAS Registry Number that serves as a unique identifier. All this information is widely available to the public. The registry has a long history that began as part of the first publication on chemical substances, Chemical Abstracts, in 1907. This journal served as the early foundation for chemical classification that eventually developed into the registry used today. The editor of Chemical Abstracts, Professor William A. Noyes (1957– 1941), was an organic chemist at the University of Illinois who did analytic work on atomic weights. Originally, the journal was published by the U.S. Bureau of Standards and contained less than twelve thousand abstracts. A few years later, in 1909, the offices moved from the University of Illinois to the Ohio State University; thus, Chemical Abstracts was created and operated at universities in the United States. In 1956, Chemical Abstracts became the part of the ACS called the Chemical Abstracts Service. Today, the journal is published weekly, and each abstract issue contains information on chemical substances by patent number, the chemical substance patent number, type, and author. In 1965, with the tremendous growth in synthetics and new chemical substances, the ACS created the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry System. By 2015, it had reached its 100 millionth chemical substance. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

Further Reading

American Chemical Society (ACS). 2017. “CAS Registry—The Gold Standard for Chemical Substance Information.” Accessed September 6, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cas​.­org​ /­content​/­chemical​-­substances.

88

Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR)

Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR) The Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) mandates that information about certain chemicals be reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by chemical manufacturers and importers as well as companies in industry and commerce and those that consume these chemicals. The purpose of the CDR is so that the EPA can use the data to support risk screening and assessments with priority setting that includes information on the types, amount, end uses, and possible exposure to chemicals in the effort to assess the potential human health and environmental effects. Facilities can file for exemptions to this reporting requirement under the TSCA, such as where chemical information is allowed to be considered Confidential Business Information (CBI) or when a company is considered “small.” Prior to August 2011, the reporting system was called the Inventory Update Reporting system. Information for certain toxic chemicals is required by the TSCA. This information is entered into the electronic database, e-CDX, which is managed by the EPA. There are several requirements dictating which chemicals and facilities have to report under the CDR. Generally, reporting requirements are intended for those companies that use or produce what is defined as a large volume for any of the specific chemicals on the TSCA inventory lists. Companies are required to report if they manufacture or import more than twenty-five thousand pounds of a chemical at any single facility. They must also report certain chemicals under the TSCA at twenty-five hundred pounds or more. Facilities that fail to report are in violation of the TSCA and are subject to enforcement action with significant penalties. Companies are allowed exemptions from reporting based on protections if they qualify certain chemicals as CBI. The CDR data specifically includes national production volume, manufacturing information, and processing and use information, plus information on by-products, health and environmental effects, the number of individuals exposed, and the method of disposal. According to the EPA (2018c), the initial release of the 2016 CDR data included 8,707 chemicals located across 4,917 sites owned by 2,247 companies. The next CDR deadline for facilities to disclose information on their chemicals begins in June 2020. This will include the reporting of chemicals for the years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Generally, facilities have to report in 2020 for each of these four years. In August 2017, the EPA’s Office of Inspector General announced that it planned to begin preliminary research to assess how the EPA was ensuring compliance with the CDR and whether the EPA was using CDR data to identify the potential for human health and environmental risks as intended under the TSCA. CHANGES TO THE CDR RULE IN 2016 The rules for reporting significantly changed in 2016, which yielded more facilities reporting chemical uses. Three of the changes were reductions in the volumes of a chemical that trigger the new CDR reporting requirements, new limitations on certain full or partial exemptions from CDR requirements, and new limitations



Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR) 89

on the “small” chemical manufacturer or importer exemption, which included changes to the definition of small, so now both volumes and sales criteria are used to qualify a facility as small for the exemption. Changes to “small” users are defined as total annual sales, when combined with those of the parent company, of less than $40 million. However, if the annual production or importation volume of a particular substance at any facility is greater than one hundred thousand pounds, the manufacturer or importer cannot qualify as small for eligibility of an exemption. A facility is defined as small if its total annual sales, when combined with those of its parent company, are less than $4 million, regardless of the quantity of the chemical. Some limitations on past exemptions dealt with polymers, microorganisms, and certain forms of natural gas or water, which were significantly changed for chemical facilities, and the partial exemption was also altered. NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING COMMITTEE: CHEMICAL DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR INORGANIC BY-PRODUCTS The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amended the TSCA in June 2016. It required that the EPA establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to develop “a proposed rule for limiting chemical data reporting requirements . . . for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts when such byproducts are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed” (EPA 2018b). Such committees are established by the federal government to allow all affected parties to participate in the development of the regulations in a streamlined process. The goal was to develop new regulations for inorganic by-products under the CDR in a transparent, expedited manner. The committee included over thirty members from those that would be affected by the rule. Members of the committee were appointed by the EPA. In October 2017, this committee determined that it was not able to reach consensus on regulatory approaches and concluded its negotiations. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976); Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Further Reading

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018a. “Chemical Data Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act.” Last updated July 24, 2018. Accessed February 22, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­chemical​-­data​-­reporting. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018b. “Negotiated Rulemaking Committee: Chemical Data Reporting Requirements for Inorganic Byproducts.” Last updated January 19, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­chemical​-­data​-­reporting​/­negotiated​ -­r ulemaking​-­committee​-­chemical​-­data​-­reporting​-­requirements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018c. “2016 Chemical Data Reporting Results.” Last updated April 5, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­chemical​-­data​-­reporting​ /­2016​-­chemical​-­data​-­reporting​-­results.

90

Chemical Footprint Project (CFP)

Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) The Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) was founded by the Clean Production Action, the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Pure Strategies. The mission of the organization is to transform global chemical use by informing and disclosing data on business practices toward using safer chemicals. The organization tracks, disseminates, and provides benchmarks on corporate progress for using safer chemicals in production, manufacturing processes, and supply chains. The organization evaluates companies on the management and use of chemicals. To do this, CFP provides metrics for benchmarking corporations as they reduce their chemical use. CFP has developed an annual, no cost, twenty-question survey that is rated on a one hundred–point scale. The survey is designed for manufacturers and retailers. It includes questions weighted equally, on average, in the areas of management strategy, chemical inventory, footprint measurements, and public disclosure and verification measures. This survey was developed for the sectors that include automotive, building products, consumer packaged goods, medical devices, electronics, and clothing items. The information is used to reward the companies that rank highly and allows consumers to be aware those dedicated to the protection of the public from toxic chemicals. CFP claims that the participants in the survey have $2.8 trillion in assets and stakeholders with over $700 billion in purchasing power that can be leveraged from the results of the survey (CFP 2018, 1). Every year, the survey begins on January 1 and is completed on March 3. Recent key findings have shown that for the last three years, there is a growth in the capacity of business leaders developing and implementing comprehensive chemical policies. Management strategies improved 67 percent from 42 percent three year earlier (CFP 2018, 3). Also, companies are more likely to measure their own chemical footprint now than in the past and are making disclosure and verification information available to the public. CFP states that the health costs from environmental chemical exposures are estimated to exceed 10 percent of the global gross domestic product (GDP) of $11 trillion (CFP 2018, 4). Tracking the trends on the global regulation of items such as climate change, batteries, packaging, product safety, energy, water, and chemical substances show that there is an increased protection from 2003 to 2018. Using the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), CFP evaluates companies on good health (SDG 3), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), and responsible consumption (SDG 12). Some of the well-known companies participating in the CFP survey include Levi Strauss & Co., Seagate Technology, Milliken, Naturepedic, Beautycounter, Humanscale, Walmart, Radio Flyer, California Baby, Ecolab Inc., HP Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and Kimberly-Clark Co. Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the United States, has set a goal to reduce its chemical footprint by 10 percent by 2022. This information provides consumers with the ability to make choices on which products and companies they want to support when their businesses practices



Chemical Manufacturing 91

prioritize the reduction of toxic chemicals use. In the annual report that provides the results of the survey, CFP profiles companies that are succeeding at being stewards of protecting human health from chemical uses in their businesses. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Automobile Emissions; National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

Further Reading

Chemical Footprint Project (CFP). 2018. Chemical Footprint Project Annual Report. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­chemicalfootprint​.­org​/­assets​/­downloads​/­201 8ChemicalFootprintProjectReport​.­pdf. Chemical Footprint Project (CFP). 2019. “About.” Accessed April 11, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­chemicalfootprint​.­org​/­about​/­overview.

Chemical Manufacturing Chemical manufacturing, a subsector of manufacturing and one of the largest industries in the United States, involves taking raw materials to create new products through a chemical process. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce (2018) and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018), more than ten thousand companies are located across the United States, with concentrations in Texas, Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and the Carolinas, and they produce more than seventy thousand products. The U.S. Department of Commerce states that chemical manufacturing accounts for approximately 15 percent of global chemical shipments, and the United States is a world leader in chemical production and exports. The manufacturers estimate their shipments are valued at about $555 billion per year (EPA 2016). Companies reported combined sales in 2016 that exceeded $800 billion in the United States alone. With investments of $91 billion in research and development in 2016 and a record of strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, the chemical industry accounts for a significant portion of patents granted in the United States (U.S. Department of Commerce 2018). Employment in this sector is one of the most stable in the United States, with over 825,000 employees as of 2018 and additional indirect employment of suppliers of more than 2.7 million. The sector only has a 2.3 percent unemployment rate and enjoys an average hourly salary rate of $32.81 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2018).

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY GROUPS AND SUBSECTORS According to the US Census (2017), the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is “the standard used by federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the US business economy,” chemical

92

Chemical Manufacturing

manufacturing is categorized into the following industry groups: (1) basic chemicals; (2) resins, synthetic rubbers and fibers, and filaments; (3) pesticides, fertilizers, and other agricultural products; (4) pharmaceutical and medicine products; (5) paint, coatings, and adhesives; and (6) soaps and cleaning and toilet chemicals. The chemical manufacturing sector itself is divided into the following subsections: basic, specialty, agricultural, pharmaceutical, and consumer products. Companies that produce basic chemicals make products such as plastics, dyes, and resins used in the construction, automotive, and packaging areas. Specialty products include water treatment chemicals, plastic additives, coatings, sealants, adhesives, and catalysts. Agricultural chemicals, like those used in food processing and the production of food supplies, and pharmaceutical chemicals play an important role in the economy and are critical for public health. Pharmaceutical chemicals include not just vaccines, vitamins, and over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription medicines but also biotechnology and diagnostic products. Consumer products such as cleaners, cosmetics, soaps, and toiletries support substantial everyday uses.

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The chemical manufacturing sector produces a variety of significant air, water, and soil pollution. It is a major contributor to accidental releases and one of the biggest polluters that require cleanup under the Superfund program. In addition, it is one of the largest consumers of natural gas for energy and the production of chemicals. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2016), chemical manufacturing facilities collectively emit “more than 1.5 million tons of criteria air pollutants, of which more than 80 percent were carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.” According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study from 1999 to 2008 (Orr et al. 2015), “Chemical manufacturing (23 percent) was the industry with the most incidents; however, the number of chemical incidents in chemical manufacturing decreased substantially over time.” When looking at all chemical releases from facilities as well as transportation, “the most frequently released chemical was ammonia 3,366 (6 percent). Almost 60 percent of all incidents occurred in two states, Texas and New York.” The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) managed by EPA serves as a centralized database of chemicals that primarily come from sources within the chemical manufacturing sector. In 2016, the EPA reported that about 5 percent of the more than ten billion pounds of chemicals listed in the TRI are disposed of or are otherwise released into the air and water, and the rest goes to treatment, energy recovery, and recycling. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).



Chemical Remediation 93

Further Reading

Chemical Engineering Projects. December 15, 2013. “The Anatomy of a Chemical Manufacturing Process.” Blog, December 15, 2013. Accessed February 21, 2018. ­https://​ ­c hemicalprojects​.­w ordpress​. ­c om​/ ­2 013​/­12​/­15​/ ­t he​- ­a natomy​- ­o f​- ­a ​- ­c hemical​ -­manufacturing​-­process. Orr, Maureen F., Jennifer Wu, and Sue L. Sloop. 2015. “Acute Chemical Incidents Surveillance—Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance, Nine States, 1999–2008.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Surveillance Summaries 64, SS02 (April 10, 2015): 1–9. Accessed February 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­m mwr​/­preview​/­m mwrhtml​/­ss6402a1​.­htm​ ?­s​_cid​= ​­ss6402a1​_x. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2018. “Chemical Manufacturing: NAICS 325.” Last updated August 29, 2018. Accessed February 20, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­bls​.­gov​/­iag​/­tgs​ /­iag325​.­htm. U.S. Census. 2017. “North American Industry Classification System.” Executive Office of the President. Washington, DC. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­census​.­gov​ /­eos​/­w ww​/­naics​/. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2018. “Chemical Spotlight: The Chemical Industry in the United States.” Accessed February 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­selectusa​.­gov​ /­chemical​-­industry​-­united​-­states. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Chemical Manufacturing.” Accessed February 20, 2016. ­https://​­archive​.­epa​.­gov​/­sectors​/­web​/ ­html​/­chemical​ .­html (web page no longer maintained).

Chemical Remediation There are several types of remediation options for restoring contaminated areas to human health standards. Some of these options include bioremediation or phytoremediation, pump and treat, institutional and monitoring controls, and in situ treatment, in addition to many others. Remediation techniques must be balanced with what can address the contaminant being treated and also involve cost and safety factors. Remediation using chemical reagents is one of the techniques often used at a contaminated site. A chemical reagent is used to render the contaminant harmless by transforming it so that the pollutant is no longer a public threat. This is most often performed in situ, meaning in place at the contaminated site with minimal disturbance to the location. Chemical remediation is most commonly used with soil and groundwater contamination. It involves the injection of chemicals into the contaminated groundwater and soil. This process can be completed within weeks or in a couple of months, which makes it a desirable option in remediation options. Two main types of chemical remediation focus on the chemical properties of oxidation and reduction. Chemical oxidation is one the more frequently used techniques in this type of remediation. Other techniques are higher in costs and take a longer period of time to transform the pollutant. Many chemical oxidants can be used with several organic contaminants, such as pesticides, organic compounds, fuels, and solvents. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2012), these are

94

Chemical Remediation

permanganate, persulfate, hydrogen peroxide, and ozone. The first three oxidants are typically injected as liquids. Although ozone is a strong oxidant, it is a gas, which can be more difficult to use. As a result, it is used less often. Chemical oxidants have been used to convert petroleum-based hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water. This avoids costly removal of the soil and other time-consuming pump-and-treat options. Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the soil and groundwater are then reduced to public health standards. According to the EPA (2017), although many of the chemical oxidants have been used in wastewater treatment for decades, they have only recently been used to treat hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater and soil in situ. Both hydrogen peroxide and ozone has been used as chemical oxidants to treat hydrocarbon contamination in situ. The EPA (2012) states that using oxidants as chemical remediators in situ poses little risk to the surrounding community. Workers wear protective clothing when handling oxidants, and when handled properly, these chemicals are not harmful to the environment, the community, or site workers. Another type of chemical remediation is through the process of chemical reduction. In this process, chemical reduction transforms organic compounds to potentially nontoxic or less toxic compounds. This approach can immobilize metals such as chromium by adsorption or precipitation. It can also degrade nonmetallic chemicals such as nitrate. The most commonly used reductant is zerovalent iron, which is used to remediate halogenated chemicals, several metals, arsenic, and uranium. Other reductants that treat metals include ferrous iron, sodium dithionite, sulfide salts (calcium polysulfide), and hydrogen sulfide (EPA 2018). Calcium polysulfide is a strong reductant used to precipitate metals in wastewater treatment systems. When injected into the ground, it causes precipitation of pollutant sulfides such as iron, zinc, lead, cadmium, and copper sulfide compounds. Chemical reduction agents can remediate several types of contaminants dissolved in groundwater. This process is used to remediate pollutants called dense nonaqueous phase liquids, such as trichloroethene (commonly called TCE), because these chemicals do not dissolve in groundwater and can be a source of contamination for a long time. Chemical reduction remediators are most often used to address the metal chromium. Like chemical oxidizers used in situ, chemical reduction agents are not harmful to the environment, the community, or site workers. Chemical remediation is often not a stand-alone technique for remediation. It is usually combined with other technologies, such as in the case of a pump-and-treat system with soil vapor extraction. Use of soil vapor extraction in conjunction with chemical oxidation can help alleviate safety issues associated with controlling and recovering off-gas containing volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxygen, oxidants, and other reaction by-products that can be generated by various chemical oxidants. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Institutional Monitoring and Controls; Phytoremediation; Pump and Treat; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976); Vapor Vacuum Extraction of VOCs; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).



Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act 95

Further Reading

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. “A Citizen’s Guide to In Situ Chemical Oxidation.” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 542-F-12011. September 2012. Accessed January 3, 2019. ­https://​­clu​-­in​.­org​/­download​ /­Citizens​/­a ​_citizens​_ guide​_to​_in​_situ​_chemical​_oxidation​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers. Land and Emergency Management. EPA 510-B-17-003. October 2017. Accessed May 3, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​ /­2014​- ­03​/­documents​/­t um​_appx​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Contaminated Site Clean-Up.” Accessed December 17, 2018. ­https://​­clu​-­in​.­org​/­techfocus​/­default​.­focus​/­sec​/­In​_ Situ​_Chemical​_Reduction​/­cat​/­Overview.

Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act(2016) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed by Congress on September 28, 1976, and signed into law by President Gerald Ford on October 11, 1976; the law went into effect on January 1, 1977. As originally stipulated, the TSCA authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to secure information on all new and existing chemical substances (which numbered about seventy thousand at the time) and to control any of the substances that were determined to cause unreasonable risk to public health or the environment (EPA n.d.-c). Prior to the passage of the TSCA, the federal regulation of chemical substances was under the jurisdiction of several different agencies and programs. While there were several chemicals, particularly pesticides, which had been regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of 1938 and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947, there were several thousands of chemicals left largely unregulated, including asbestos, benzene, formaldehyde, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (Vogel and Roberts 2011). One of the major responsibilities for the EPA under the new act was to maintain the TSCA Substances Inventory (usually referred to as simply “the Inventory”), a list of approximately seventy thousand existing chemicals that were already on the market. Chemicals that were not already listed on the Inventory were considered “new chemicals” under TSCA that had to go through a review process before they could be added to the Inventory and become “existing chemicals” (EPA n.d.-b). TSCA policy dictated that data should be developed that showed the effect of chemical substances and that those data should be provided by the manufacturers of those chemical substances and mixtures. The goal behind this policy was that chemical manufacturers would largely bear the responsibility of ensuring that chemicals were closely scrutinized before going on the market (Schierow 2009). Congressional hearings prior to the passage of the TSCA revealed that some chemical manufacturers knew about the carcinogenic effects of chemicals used in their process but intentionally withheld that information from the public and regulators to avoid liability (Eichenberger 2015).

96

Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act

One of the immediate difficulties with the implementation of the TSCA was that, despite its intention to give the EPA greater authority to regulate chemicals prior to their entry into the market, the act allowed existing chemicals to be grandfathered in. As Eichenberger (2015, 131) notes, between 1979 and 1982, the EPA had identified several thousand chemicals already in commerce and had included them in the Inventory, but it had never subjected the chemicals to testing, data collection, or regulation. Another issue with the original TSCA was the separate criteria for introducing new chemicals to the market—something that became quite burdensome for the EPA. Chemical manufacturers were required to notify the EPA by submitting a premanufacture notice (PMN) before marketing their product. The issue was that the PMN did not require the manufacturer to produce a minimum amount of public health and safety data. Added to this was the fact that there were no penalties associated with a lack of data. In 2003, the EPA found that 85 percent of the PMNs lacked data on health effects (Krimsky 2017). As newer chemicals were being developed, the EPA was simply not up to the task of its regulatory responsibilities under the TSCA. According to a 2013 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, between 1976 and 2013, the EPA, under its TSCA authority, had only banned five existing chemicals: fully halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, hexavalent chromium, and asbestos—the latter of which was overturned by the courts (Krimsky 2017). Owing to there being such a backlog of chemical testing to be done, the EPA had to prioritize its efforts by choosing a subset of chemicals based on preliminary toxicological information, production volume, and exposure (Krimsky 2017). Another vexing problem in regulating toxicity, beyond the sheer number of extant chemicals, is that regulators principally rely on animal studies to identify chemical hazards and their degree of toxicity. Agencies such as the EPA often have to extrapolate from the high doses required to produce effects in a small number of animals to the lower doses observed in the environment. Regulators must then extrapolate their findings to humans, who may be more (or even less) sensitive than the animals. Thus, the relevance to humans is subject to constant dispute (Belton and Conrad 2016). Unease with the EPA’s ineffectiveness was common for both chemical industry advocates and environmentalists. The former cited the need for reform to increase public confidence, keep pace with science, and increase both product innovation and uniformity of regulations. The latter group wanted more reforms to increase effective regulation and to reduce risks that the chemical industry could possibly pose to public health and the environment (Eichenberger 2015). Owing largely to both the public’s and the chemical industry’s unease with the TSCA, public confidence continually waned; thus, some states passed their own chemical laws. Pressure also grew in the marketplace to deselect certain products without sound scientific testing. After years of negotiation and with input from industry, environment, public health, animal rights, and labor groups, Congress passed the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (known also as



Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act 97

the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, LCSA, TSCA reform, and amended TSCA). Then president Barack Obama stated at the act’s signing that the act would make it easier for the EPA to review chemicals already on the market as well as the new chemicals scientists and businesses were designing. Obama emphasized that the act would do away with an outdated bureaucratic formula to evaluate safety and instead focus solely on the risks to our health. He concluded that “this is a big deal. This is a good law. It is an important law” (Obama 2016). THE BASICS OF THE LCSA Under the LCSA, the EPA was to prioritize six issues: existing chemicals, new chemicals, confidential business information, sources of sustained funding federal and state partnerships, and mercury export and disposal (EPA n.d.-a). In regard to existing chemical assessments, the EPA was charged with establishing risk-based processes to determine which chemicals it would prioritize for assessment, identifying them as either “high” or “low” priority substances. Those considered high priority would trigger a requirement and deadline for the EPA to complete a risk evaluation on that chemical to determine its safety. Those with low priority would not require further action, although the chemical could move to high priority based on new information. The EPA was also charged with developing a new risk-based safety standard to determine whether a chemical’s use posed an “unreasonable risk.” When such risks were identified, the EPA was required to make a final risk management action within two years, or four years if an extension were needed. Actions on the part of the EPA could include banning and phasing out the chemical in question. The EPA was also charged with implementing a fast-track process to address persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals (EPA n.d.-a). Soon after the passage of the LCSA, the EPA announced the first ten chemicals that it would evaluate for potential risks to human health and the environment. These included 1,4-dioxane; 1-bromopropane; asbestos; carbon tetrachloride; cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD); methylene chloride; N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP); pigment violet 29 (anthra[2,1,9-def:6,5,10-d’e’f’]diisoquinoline1,3,8,10(2H,9H)-tetrone); trichloroethylene (TCE); and tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene). As for new chemicals, the EPA was required to make an affirmative finding on the safety of a new chemical or significant new use of an existing chemical before it was allowed into the marketplace. The EPA could also still take a range of actions to address potential concerns, including banning the chemical, setting limitations, or additional testing. In terms of maintaining confidential business information, the EPA was required to review and make determinations on all new confidentiality claims for the identity of chemicals and a subset of other types of confidentiality claims. It was also required to review past confidentiality claims for chemical identity to determine whether they were still warranted (EPA 2019a).

98

Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act

Under the LCSA, the EPA was allowed to collect up to $25 million annually in user fees from chemical manufacturers and processors when they submitted test data for EPA review, submitted a premanufacture notice for a new chemical or a notice of new use, manufactured or processed a chemical substance that was the subject of a risk evaluation, or requested that the EPA conduct a chemical risk evaluation (EPA n.d.-a). As for federal-state partnerships, the LCSA allowed states to continue to act on any chemical or particular uses or risks from a chemical that the EPA had not yet addressed. The new act also preserved the states’ environmental authorities related to air, water, and waste disposal and treatment. However, state actions were to be preempted if the EPA found that a chemical was safe or if the EPA took final action to address the chemical’s risks. State action on a chemical could also be temporarily “paused” if the EPA’s risk evaluation on the chemical was underway. Nevertheless, states were allowed to apply for waivers from both general and “pause” preemption (EPA n.d.-a). The LCSA also amended requirements of the Mercury Export Ban Act (MEBA) and addressed the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) responsibility to designate a long-term storage facility. The act also required that the EPA create an inventory of supply, use, and trade of mercury and mercury compounds and prohibited the export of certain mercury compounds (EPA n.d.-a). THE LCSA IN ACTION As noted by Belton and Conrad (2016, 82–83), the LCSA would replace the TSCA’s previous “least burdensome” standard with a “softer mandate” to consider costs and benefits before choosing restrictions. This could allow the EPA to improve its assessment processes by leveraging the risk analysis expertise of external parties. In this way, the EPA could retain discretion regarding whether and how to use these evaluations. According to its most recent report (2019), the EPA believes that it is making “steady progress” in meeting its statutory requirements under the LSCA. It initiated prioritization for forty chemicals (twenty low priority and twenty high priority) and expects to have a final priority designation by December 22, 2019 (EPA 2019). Of the ten chemicals listed above that were to be evaluated for potential risks to human health and the environment, in November 2018, the EPA released its first draft risk evaluation on pigment violet 29 (PV29) and provided the public with a sixty–day public comment period as required in the Risk Evaluation Rule (EPA 2019). However, with the advent of the Trump administration, the “pre-prioritization process” that was sought under the Obama administration was dropped, largely owing to opposition from the chemical industry (Sussman 2019). As a result of the Trump administration’s actions, when the EPA released its first draft risk evaluation for PV29 in December 2018, the draft evaluation concluded that this chemical did not present an unreasonable risk of injury, but this conclusion was based on limited hazard and exposure information that most



Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act 99

scientists would consider inadequate to demonstrate the absence of risk (Sussman 2019). The experimental data on PV29 were available for only five of the fifteen critical health effects that the EPA’s Safer Choice program uses to identify nonhazardous chemical products. Similarly, there were no carcinogenicity data used, yet the draft risk evaluation asserted that PV29 was “unlikely to be a carcinogen” (Sussman 2019). Similar criticism of the Trump administration’s motions to stymy scientific research is claimed by the Environmental Defense Fund, which argues that the administration excludes from its analysis known human and environmental exposures to a chemical based on unwarranted assumptions that those exposures are adequately managed by other statutes; claims that workers are protected by assuming universal and universally effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout chemical supply chains; has arbitrarily loosened the EPA’s long-standing risk standards governing when cancer incidences are deemed unacceptably high; and chooses not to exercise its authority to require the submission of information on chemicals’ hazards and exposures, resorting instead to questionable assumptions and relying on voluntarily submitted industry data that are unrepresentative or of poor or indeterminate quality (Denison 2019). While the EPA claims that it is making “steady progress” in meeting its statutory requirements under the LSCA, criticisms of the agency’s assessment methods remain. Singla et al. (2019, 983) assert that the LSCA’s methods are simply “incomplete.” The LSCA’s reviews do not include an explicit method for evaluation of the overall body of each evidence stream (animal, human, mechanistic), nor does it include a method for integrating two or more streams of evidence. An additional problem is that the LSCA systematic review method establishes “an inappropriate scoring scheme for the quality of studies by assigning numerical scores to various study components and calculating an overall ‘quality score’” (Singla et al. 2019, 983). They add that this approach lacks “a scientifically supportable assumption, as researchers have documented such scoring methods have unknown validity and may contain invalid items. Thus, results of a quality score are not predictive of the studies” (Singla et al. 2019, 983). Singla et al. (2019) also argue that a third problem with the LSCA’s methodology is that it could disregard relevant research findings because its scoring scheme could exclude studies that have only a single reporting or methodological limitation. They conclude that it is inappropriate to use a single limitation to exclude relevant studies, as the EPA’s 2017 regulation requires consideration of all relevant science while accounting for “strengths and limitations” (Singla et al. 2019, 983). This is also consistent with approaches in established systematic review methodologies. Kelly A. Tzoumis John Munro See also: Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Belton, Keith B., and James W. Conrad Jr. 2016. “A Second Act for Risk-Based Chemicals Regulation.” Issues in Science and Technology 33(1): 77–83.

100

Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act

Canavan, Sheila. 2016. “Designation of Ten Chemical Substances for Initial Risk Evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act.” December 19, 2016. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency Documents and Publications. Denison, Richard. 2019. “EPA’s Latest Move to Deflect Criticism of Its TSCA Risk Evaluations: Muzzle Its Science Advisors.” Environmental Defense Fund (blog), September 16, 2019. Accessed September 27, 2019. ­http://​­blogs​.­edf​.­org​/ ­health​/­2019​/­09​ /­16​/­epas​-­latest​-­move​-­to​- ­deflect​- ­criticism​- ­of​-­its​-­tsca​-­r isk​- ­evaluations​-­muzzle​-­its​ -­science​-­advisors. Eichenberger, Colin P. 2015. “Improving the Toxic Substances Control Act: A Precautionary Approach to Toxic Chemical Reaction.” Air Force Law Review 72: 123–159. Krimsky, Sheldon. 2017. “The Unsteady State and Inertia of Chemical Regulation under the US Toxic Substances Control Act.” PLoS Biol 15(12): e2002404. Obama, Barack. 2016. “Remarks on Signing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.” The White House Office of the Press Secretary, June 22, 2016. Accessed September 27, 2019. ­https://​­obamawhitehouse​.­archives​.­gov​/­the​ -­p ress​- ­office​/ ­2 016​/­0 6​/ ­2 2​/­r emarks​- ­p resident​- ­bill​- ­signing​-­f rank​- ­r​-­l autenberg​ -­chemical​-­safety​-­2st. Schierow, Linda-Jo. 2009. “The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges.” Congressional Research Service, July 28, 2009. Accessed August 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­acs​.­org​/­content​/­dam​/­acsorg​/­policy​/­acsonthehill​ /­briefings​/­toxicitytesting​/­crs​-­rl34118​.­pdf. Singla, Veena I., Patrice M. Sutton, and Tracey J. Woodruff. 2019. “The Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Substances Control Act Systematic Review Method May Curtail Science Used to Inform Policies, with Profound Implications for Public Health.” American Journal of Public Health 109(7): 982–984. Accessed September 27, 2019. ­https://​­ajph​.­aphapublications​.­org​/­doi​/­full​/­10​.­2105​/­AJPH​.­2019​.­305068. Sussman, Bob. 2019. “EPA Is Shirking Its Responsibility to Require Chemical Safety Testing: What We Don’t Know about Chemicals CAN Hurt Us.” ­Saferchemicals​ .­org. Accessed September 27, 2019. ­https://​­saferchemicals​.­org​/­2019​/­03 /21/ epa-is-shirking-its-responsibility-to-require-chemical-safety-testing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “2019 Annual Plan for Chemical Risk Evaluations under TSCA.” Accessed September 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​ .­gov​/­a ssessing​- ­a nd​-­m anaging​- ­chemicals​- ­u nder​- ­t sca​/­2019​- ­a nnual​- ­r eport​- ­r isk​ -­evaluations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-a. “Assessing and Managing Chemicals under TSCA: Highlights of Key Provisions in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.” Accessed September 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­e pa​. ­g ov​/­a ssessing​- ­a nd​- ­m anaging​- ­c hemicals​- ­u nder​- ­t sca​/ ­h ighlights​- ­k ey​ -­provisions​-­f rank​-­r​-­lautenberg​-­chemical. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-b. “Learn about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)” Accessed September 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­assessing​ -­and​-­managing​-­chemicals​-­under​-­tsca​/­learn​-­about​-­toxic​-­substances​-­control​-­act​-­tsca. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-c. “Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Federal Facilities” Accessed September 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­enforcement​/­toxic​-­substances​-­control​-­act​-­tsca​-­and​-­federal​-­facilities. Vogel, Sarah A., and Jody A. Roberts. 2011. “Why the Toxic Substances Control Act Needs an Overhaul, and How to Strengthen Oversight of Chemicals in the Interim.” Health Affairs 30(5). Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­healthaffairs​ .­org​/­doi​/­f ull​/­10​.­1377​/ ­hlthaff​.­2011​.­0211.



Chernobyl Disaster 101

Chernobyl Disaster(1986) Chernobyl refers to the commercial nuclear power plant accident that occurred in the early morning hours of April 26, 1986, near the town of Chernobyl in present-day Northern Ukraine. The reactor’s explosion was a result of faulty design and operator error. The accident created radioactive fallout that eventually affected thousands of people and contaminated land and livestock in Ukraine, Belarus, the Russian Federation, and countries in Northern and Eastern Europe. The lasting health consequences of this disaster are unknown. In terms of its operations, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant employed a Soviet-designed graphite-moderated light-water cooling system that used slightly enriched (2% U-235) uranium dioxide (UO2) fuel pellets that were housed in 1,661 individual channels, or rods, arranged in a geometrical core of graphite blocks that were stacked together to form a cylindrical formation approximately forty feet in diameter, twenty-three feet high, and weighing approximately 1,874 tons. The fuel was sheathed with a zirconium-niobium alloy. Chernobyl’s reactors, known by their Russian acronym RBMK-1000, were capable of producing 1,000 megawatts of electricity. In April 1986, there were four operational reactors at the Chernobyl site. Up to the time of the accident, this type of reactor had been successfully used throughout the Soviet Union; the first reactor of this type was put into service at Leningrad in 1974, and two larger 1,500-megawatt versions had been operating in Lithuania since 1984. The accident’s sequence began when the plant’s management and specialists conducted an overnight experiment on reactor Unit #4 to test the turbine generator’s ability to power the cooling pumps as the generator was coming to a standstill after its steam supply had been cut off. The ostensible purpose of the experiment was to see whether the reactor’s power requirements could be sustained in the event of a power failure. A test of this sort had been tried the previous year, but the turbine’s power ran down too quickly. In the April 1986 experiment, new voltage regulator designs were to be tested. In retrospect, one of the major problems with the experiment was that these tests were never properly planned. Questions of safety were never fully addressed, and the staff was not aware of the general reactivity characteristics of the RBMK that made low-power operation extremely hazardous. In addition, staff members were not fully trained in safety procedures; there were no fire drills, and there were no physical controls that would have prevented the staff from conducting operations in the event that safeguards were disabled. The experiment was behind schedule, and workers would not receive their bonuses if the experiment were not completed. The reactor experiment that eventually led to the Chernobyl disaster was initiated at 1:06 a.m., on April 25, 1986, with the start of reactor power reduction of Unit #4 in preparation for the experiments. At 2:00 p.m., as part of the experiment, the reactor’s emergency core cooling system was purposely disconnected. The experiment had an unplanned delay, however, owing to a request by the electricity grid controller in Kiev to continue supplying the grid. Staff workers complied with the request, but the reactor’s emergency cooling

102

Chernobyl Disaster

system was not switched back on. Although analysts would later argue that this delay did not initiate the accident, the fact that the safety system was unavailable during this period was indicative of the overall safety problems with the plant. At 11:10 p.m., the reduction of the reactor’s thermal power was resumed, as the experimental test was to be performed at somewhere between 700 and 1,000 megawatts of thermal power. Although after the accident, it was evident that the operation of the reactor should have been at the prescribed level of 700 megawatts thermal. By 1:00 a.m., on the morning of April 26, the operators had succeeded in stabilizing the reactor at 200 megawatts thermal power, but this was made difficult because there was apparently a buildup of xenon in the reactor. (Xenon, a by-product of iodine-131 decay, slows the nuclear reaction, which in turn causes the power to drop.) Between 1:03 and 1:07 a.m., two standby circulating pumps were switched on to provide enough pumps for reliable cooling of the reactor core. However, because the reactor was running at the low power of 200 megawatts and had a very high coolant flow rate (115%–120% of normal) through the core, there was a reduction in steam pressure and water levels. The operators then attempted to increase the pressure and water levels by using the feedwater pumps. At this point, the reactor should have tripped because of the low water levels in the steam drums, but the operators had overridden the trip signals, which then disabled a key part of the emergency shutdown system. The reactor’s water level was nearly at the boiling point. The operator then fed more water to the steam drum, which led to a small steam pressure decrease. So, to compensate for this, the automatic control rods were fully withdrawn from the core, along with some other manually controlled rods. However, within two minutes, the automatic control rods started to lower to compensate for the increase in steam. (Later computer models showed that there were six control rods in the reactor core at this point, which was less than one-half the safety minimum of fifteen.) At 1:23:04 a.m., the experiment started with the reactor’s power at 200 megawatts, and the steam supply to the generator was shut off. As the reactor’s power began to rise, the automatic control rods were withdrawn. The main coolant flow and the feedwater flow were reduced, owing to their being powered by the generator that was now running down, which would then cause a steep rise in the reactor’s power. The reactor was operating at its margin with little reserve control available to increase the power if necessary. At 1:23:31, the operators noted an increase in reactor power, and at 1:23:40, there was a sharp increase in reactor power. The foreman then ordered a full emergency shutdown, but the order came too late (the control rods, under normal conditions, would take twenty seconds to be lowered). Operators attempted to cut off the drive mechanism so that the control rods would fall by their own weight. Reactor power increased to 530 megawatts and continued to increase. The pressure in the core caused the reactor’s cover plate to become partially detached, which jammed the control rods and caused the fuel channels to disintegrate and fall into



Chernobyl Disaster 103

the cooling water. This in turn caused an intensive generation of steam as well as a fuel channel rupture. Forty-five seconds after the experiment began, at 1:23:48, two explosions occurred in Unit #4 that destroyed the reactor hall and sent burning radioactive reactor core fragments onto the roofs of adjacent buildings, causing more than thirty fires. It is estimated that the steam and fires released at least 5 percent of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind. Approximately 14 EBq (14 × 1018 Bq) of radioactivity was released during the next ten days, with the radionuclides iodine-131 and caiesium-137 being among the most significant in terms of radiation affecting the public. These two radionuclides have half-lives of eight days and thirty years, respectively. Immediately following the explosions, the first concern was extinguishing the fires. Two workers were killed in the explosions. Firefighters from the plant were called in, and over the following two weeks, helicopter pilots attempted to drop five thousand metric tons of boron compounds, sand, clay, dolomite, and lead over the reactor’s remains in the attempt to control the fires and limit the further release of radioactive particles. Though the fires were put out quickly, radiation doses among the emergency workers were estimated at up to twenty thousand millisieverts (mSv), causing twenty-eight deaths—including six firemen—by the end of July 1986. (Generally speaking, a single sievert [1,000 mSv] dose causes radiation sickness; a single dose of five sieverts would kill about half of those who were exposed to it within a month. According to the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation [UNSCEAR], the average natural background radiation dose to human beings worldwide is about 2.4 mSv2 each year.) Beyond the reactor fire and attempts to stabilize the reactor, decontamination of the surrounding buildings and forests would be a major undertaking. The initial solution concerning radioactive waste disposal was to bury the waste in an excavated pit. However, this would quickly prove to be inadequate. Eventually, there would be over eight hundred burial sites for contaminated soil, debris, and machinery. The amount of timber in the so-called red forests (owing to their discoloration as a result of irradiation) was so enormous that even after much of it was buried, piles were left on the side of roads for many years. In Belarus, about six thousand square kilometers of land was removed for economic use. In Ukraine, that figure was eighteen hundred square kilometers, with about 40 percent of the forested area contaminated. In terms of medical treatments for the accident’s victims, immediately following the accident, there was the issue of diagnosing the most severely injured cases. Of the 444 people working at the Chernobyl plant, about 300 were quickly admitted to hospitals. At first, no clinical symptoms of acute radiation poisoning were seen among them. Obvious signs of radiation-induced skin injuries did not develop until three days after the accident, when skin erythema developed among some of the patients. Moderate and severe reactions, where skin was breaking down, began to develop three weeks after the accident. The severity of the burns suggested that surface skin doses were likely in the range of 20–80 mSv. The most severely affected patients were those who had remained for up to five hours in the accident area.

104

Chernobyl Disaster

As for the residents near the reactor site, emergency medical teams were sent in to screen evacuees, particularly children, with the mission of limiting the effects of radioactive iodine-131. The personnel included more than 7,000 medical staff, 230 mobile laboratories, and 400 teams of physicians. Potassium iodide tablets, which act as a prophylactic against iodine-131 radiation, were distributed to nearly 5.3 million people, albeit with considerable delays. There was a large number of children who never received the tablets. Compounding the problems with the tablet delivery delays was the absence of data concerning the doses received by local residents, emergency responders, and plant workers, which led to inadequate distribution and also further delays in population evacuation. For those who lived near the reactor, about 45,000 residents were evacuated from the closest town, Pripyat, on April 27, along with residents from 187 outlying settlements. Soviet authorities designated a thirty-kilometer radius as an exclusion zone, where compulsory evacuation was completed within the first few days after the accident. Within three weeks, about 116,000 people who had lived within the exclusion zone had been evacuated and later relocated. Soviet authorities had established a criterion of 350 mSv lifetime radiation dose as the level to which an area was considered “contaminated.” At the time of the accident, the winds at the Chernobyl site were weak at the surface but much stronger at an altitude of fifteen hundred, which caused the radioactive plume to flow toward the western parts of the Soviet Union and into Sweden and Finland. By the first week of May, detectable radioactive activity was reported in Japan, China, India, Canada, and the United States. In the wake of the accident, it was often reported in the world’s media that the Chernobyl disaster was some two hundred times greater than the combined releases of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. However, as Mould (2000, 57) points out, a comparison of this sort is misleading: “The figure of ‘200’ does not mean that the explosion was 200 times more powerful, but that it spread radioactive cesium over a large area and that the total amount of cesium was equivalent to some 200 times the combined cesium contamination at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” In terms of assessing the longer-term health effects of the Chernobyl disaster, one of the major difficulties was the lack of reliable public health information before 1986, particularly given the widespread mistrust of official information from the Soviet government. In 1989, the World Health Organization (WHO) researchers found that several biological and health problems had been falsely attributed to radiation exposure from Chernobyl. In response, the Soviets requested that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) coordinate an international experts’ assessment of Chernobyl’s radiological, environmental, and health consequences in selected towns of the most heavily contaminated areas in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Owing to the absences of pre-1986 data, the nearly two hundred experts who were called in compared a control population with those exposed to radiation. While several health disorders were evident in both the control and exposed groups, none of them were radiation-related—at least at that stage of the analysis. However, a large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and



Chernobyl Disaster 105

lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. This was most likely not caused by direct radiation exposure but by the high levels of radioactive iodine that were deposited in pastures grazed by cows. It became concentrated in the milk that was subsequently drunk by children. Twenty years after the accident, in 2006, nearly five thousand cases of thyroid cancer were diagnosed among children who were aged up to eighteen years at the time of the accident. In addition, the WHO investigations suggested a doubling of the incidence of leukemia among the most highly exposed Chernobyl liquidators as well as a small increase in the incidence of premenopausal breast cancer in the most contaminated areas that appeared to be related to radiation dose. In addition to physical health problems related to the Chernobyl disaster, there were several mental health issues. According to UNSCEAR, as reported by the World Nuclear Association (WNA 2018), “Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.” Researchers found that people in the area suffered a paralyzing fatalism due to myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation, which contributed to a culture of chronic dependency. Some of the psychosocial effects among those affected by the accident were similar to those arising from other major disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, and fires. One consequence of the accident was that some physicians in Europe advised pregnant women to undergo abortions on account of radiation exposure, even though the levels concerned were vastly below those likely to have teratogenic effects (i.e., producing a birth defect). The fetal death toll from this was likely greater than deaths directly caused from the accident (WNA 2018). Since the Chernobyl disaster, all the RBMK reactors have been modified with changes in the control rods, adding neutron absorbers and consequently increasing the fuel enrichment from 1.8 percent to 2.4 percent U-235, making them more stable at low power. Automatic shutdown mechanisms operate faster, other safety mechanisms have been improved, and automated inspection equipment has been installed. According to a German nuclear safety agency report, a repetition of the 1986 Chernobyl accident is now “virtually impossible” (WNA 2018). By 2010, the Belarus government had decided to resettle thousands of people in the former contaminated zones covered by the accident. In 2011, Chernobyl was declared a tourist attraction. Robert L. Perry See also: High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW); Three Mile Island Accident (1979); Uranium.

Further Reading

Mould, R. F. 2000. Chernobyl Record: The Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing. Norman, Colin. 1986. “Chernobyl: Errors and Design Flaws.” Science 233(4768): 1029–1031. World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. “Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident: An Overview.” Accessed September 7, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­ionizing​_radiation​ /­chernobyl​/ ­backgrounder​/­en.

106

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company and Chevron Corporation

World Nuclear Organization (WNA). 2018. “Chernobyl Accident 1986.” Accessed September 7, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­world​-­nuclear​.­org​/­information​-­library​/­safety​-­and​-­security​ /­safety​-­of​-­plants​/­chernobyl​-­accident​.­aspx.

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company and Chevron Corporation The headquarters of the Chevron Phillips Chemical Company (ChevronPC) is located in The Woodlands, Texas. Its parent company, Chevron Corporation, is an energy production and petrochemical manufacturing company. ChevronPC was founded in 2000 with the merger of Phillips 66 (now the ConocoPhillips Co.) and the Chevron Corporation (now the ChevronTexaco Co.). The merger brought together the petrochemicals and plastics manufacturing of the two companies under ChevronPC. Major products of the parent company around the world include natural gas, oil, liquefied gas and shale exploitation, and energy production. According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2015), the parent company has 61,900 employees worldwide, which includes approximately 3,300 service station employees. About 49 percent of its employees are located in the United States. The chemical subsidiary of the company, ChevronPC, has 5,000 employees, with 90 percent located in North America. ChevronPC is a producer of olefin and polyolefin chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are used in the manufacturing of plastics. The company also serves a variety of markets through its chemical sales, including pharmaceuticals, textiles, electronics, dry cleaning, appliances, automotive, the foundational chemicals for the production of other industrial chemicals, imaging and photography, personal care and cosmetics, household, medical and health care, and building and construction. According to ChevronPC (2018a), it produces chemicals used in manufacturing over seventy thousand consumer and industrial products. It operates thirty-three manufacturing sites and research centers and has two major research centers located in Oklahoma and Texas. ChevronPC’s five olefin and polyolefin production facilities are located in Texas. ChevronPC has several pipe manufacturing facilities in the United States and one in Mexico. The parent company is divided into three business segments called “upstream,” “downstream,” and “all other” (administrative, real estate activities, and financial management, respectively). The upstream business segment involves exploring for crude oil and natural gas. This includes processing, liquefaction, transportation, and international oil pipelines. Upstream operations are located in Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, the Gulf of Mexico, California, and the Appalachian basin. Downstream business is identified as the refining of crude oil in petroleum products, marketing, and transportation by pipeline, marine ships, truck, and railroad. Plastics and additives for both fuel and lubricants are part of the downstream business segment. In combination, the upstream and downstream operations include numerous subsidiaries and facilities worldwide, with manufacturing facilities in Belgium, China, Colombia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. For 2017, Chevron Corporation (2018a) reported sales and operating revenue of $134.7 billion, which was an increase from losses in 2016. The company claims



Chevron Phillips Chemical Company and Chevron Corporation 107

that the increase was due to demand in oil and gas after cuts in oil production by other counties. Chevron reported 2.7 million barrels of net oil equivalent of daily production in 2017. Its total assets are approximately $235.8 billion (Chevron Corporation 2018b). In 1876, the predecessor to Chevron, California Star Oil Works, was working in the Santa Susana Mountains in California, where the first oil well was established in the state. In 1879, the Pacific Coast Oil Company purchased the California Star Oil Works and then quickly opened a refinery and a pipeline. By 1895, the company had built the oil tanker George Loomis, which carried sixty-five hundred barrels of crude oil between Ventura and San Francisco, California. Standard Oil Company (Iowa) purchased Pacific Coast Oil in 1900 and expanded the number of shipping vessels for transporting oil. Six years later, Standard Oil Company (California) was created, and it continued to expand, particularly in the growing market of motor fuels, to create the world’s first automobile service station. In 1911, the Supreme Court divided Standard Oil Company (California) from the parent company in New York. Then, in 1926, the company changed its name to Standard Oil Company of California (referred to as Socal). The company continued its rapid expansion during World War II and became the third-largest oil producer in the United States and the largest in California. Before the war, its expansion into worldwide exploration fueled the company financially. In the postwar period, it became a major supplier of petrochemicals. The U.S. government granted Socal priority to build the nation’s first synthetic detergent plant in 1945 and to produce industrial chemicals such as plastics, synthetic fabrics, and detergents. In 1977, Socal created Chevron USA Inc., formed from six oil and gas operations in the United States. Socal merged with Gulf Oil Corporation to create the Chevron Corporation. Chevron is party to several environmental remediation sites that require corrective actions at owned or previously owned facilities. It is also a party associated with waste disposal sites used by the company that require remediation. Chevron used methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as an additive in gasolines, which lowered carbon monoxide and other emissions from automobiles. MTBE was used at low levels in 1979 to replace lead. However, the American Cancer Society (ACS 2018) reports that, in 1992, MTBE was used at much higher levels, particularly in parts of the country that had air pollution. MTBE is more soluble than other components in gasoline; therefore, when spilled on the ground, it can more easily contaminate public water supplies. The American Cancer Society reports that MTBE was detected in the 1990s in drinking water supplies, and, as a result, MTBE was limited or banned in gasolines by many states. In 2006, companies switched from MTBE to ethanol. MTBE is listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a potential human carcinogen at high doses. MTBE is no longer used by Chevron. According to the SEC (2015), the company is party to eight lawsuits and claims on the alleged release of MTBE. Chevron has approximately 146 sites for which it has been identified as a potential responsible party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund) or the

108

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company and Chevron Corporation

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Most of these activities require remediation of soil or groundwater contamination, possibly both. One site is located at Hooven, Ohio, which had contamination into the groundwater supply from Chevron’s former refinery. The cleanup was a corrective action under the RCRA that required pumping and treating the groundwater. This included 278,000 gallons of light nonaqueous phase liquid that is associated with refineries. It floats on top of the groundwater, making it difficult to access and remove. The site was part of the Gulf Oil Company facility operation in 1931 that was acquired by Chevron in 1985. Fuel from the site seeped into the Great Miami River in 1985. The EPA (2017) found a large area of polluted groundwater with floating gasoline and hydrocarbons. Sixteen wells were pumped out and tested, and more than one billion gallons of polluted groundwater and a recovery of 3.9 million gallons of contaminated product were removed since the initial operations in 1985. The EPA also required Chevron to remediate the contaminated soil. The EPA estimates that during the operation of this refinery, from 1933 to 1986, five million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel were released into the groundwater under the site. A total of 674,030 tons of soil were removed and hauled to landfills. This was completed in 2007. The site has institutional and engineering controls that prohibit the use of groundwater and the construction of basements and residential developments. Vapor barriers were required to be built over the groundwater-contaminated areas. At another site in Questa, New Mexico, Chevron has a molybdenum mining site that operated from 1920 to 2014, when the company permanently closed the mine. Several removal actions took place to remediate this site and address urgent threats to human health. The site contained soils contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). The EPA placed the site on the list of Superfund sites in 2011. The site had soils contaminated with molybdenum and required groundwater treatment, plus a variety of other cleanup actions for five areas contaminated by the facility, including the Red River and Eagle Rock Lake areas. Chevron has been in ongoing litigation in Ecuador related to contamination from its predecessor. In February 2011, a court in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, issued a $18 billion penalty (the largest single penalty in history), which was then reduced to $9.5 billion, for contamination from its operations. However, in 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the judgment was a product of fraud and racketeering activity and thus unenforceable. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this decision. This disputed case continues in the media and courts with allegations of corruption. ChevronPC is reported to have over $4.9 million and its parent company over $330 million in fines associated with environmental violations since 2000 according to the Good Jobs First Report in 2018 that lists individual violations extracted from the EPA’s national enforcement and compliance data. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).



Child Impacts 109

Further Reading

Amazon Defense Coalition. 2018. “Chevron Seeks Partial ‘Gag Order’ to Silence Prominent US Attorney Donziger over Ecuador Pollution Judgment.” CSR News, August 22, 2018. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­csrwire​.­com​/­press​_releases​ /­41295​- ­Chevron​-­Seeks​-­Partial​- ­Gag​- ­O rder​-­to​-­Silence​-­P rominent​-­U​-­S ​-­Attorney​ -­Donziger​-­Over​-­Ecuador​-­Pollution​-­Judgment. American Cancer Society (ACS). 2014. “MTBE and Cancer Risk.” Last updated July 17, 2014. Accessed September 10, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​/­cancer​/­cancer​-­causes​ /­mtbe​.­html. Chevron Corporation. 2018a. “Company Overview.” Accessed September 8, 2018. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­cpchem​.­com ​/­en​-­us​/­company​/­pages​/­default​.­aspx. Chevron Corporation. 2018b. “2017 Annual Report.” Accessed September 10, 2018. ­https://​­w ww​.­chevron​.­com​/­annual​-­report. Good Jobs First. 2018a. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary: Chevron.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­prog​.­php​ ?­parent​= ​­chevron. Good Jobs First. 2018b. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary: Chevron Phillips Chemical.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​ .­org​/­prog​.­php​?­parent​= ​­chevron​-­phillips​-­chemical. Hurley, Lawrence. 2017. “US Top Court Hands Chevron Victory in Ecuador Pollution Case.” Reuters, June 19, 2017. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­reuters​.­com​ /­a rticle​/­u s​-­u sa​-­court​-­chevron ​/­u​-­s​-­top​-­court​-­hands​-­chevron​-­v ictory​-­i n​-­ecuador​ -­pollution​-­case​-­idUSKBN19A1V4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Former Chevron Refinery Facility—Hooven, Ohio.” December 19, 2017. Accessed September 10, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­hwcorrectiveactionsites​/ ­hazardous​-­waste​ -­cleanup​-­former​-­chevron​-­refinery​-­facility​-­hooven​-­ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Chevron Questa Mine: Questa, NM.” September 10, 2018. Accessed September 10, 2018. ­https://​­cumulis​.­epa​.­gov​ /­supercpad​/­cursites​/­csitinfo​.­cfm​?­id​= ​­0600806. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2015. Annual Report Form 10-K: Chevron Corporation. Washington, DC: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Accessed September 11, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­sec​.­gov​/­A rchives​/­edgar​/­data​ /­93410​/­000009341016000049​/­cvx​-­123115x10kdoc​.­htm.

Child Impacts Millions of children around the world have adverse health impacts from a variety of assaults to their growth and development stemming from environmental pollution. Some common problems for children include a lack of food free of chemicals such as pesticides, unsafe drinking water, polluted air, and exposure to endocrine disruptors or heavy metals from environmental pollution. Research on the impacts of environmental pollution on children is limited in many areas. Children from marginalized or indigenous groups in developed countries are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution. In the United States, these groups include poor whites in Appalachia, black communities in urban centers, and Native Americans scattered throughout various reservations and tribal lands

110

Child Impacts

(particularly throughout the Central and Western United States). Children in developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America, where government and private environmental enforcement institutions often lack critical institutional and material resources, suffer disproportionate health effects from air and water pollution. Research studies conducted on the impacts of toxic chemicals are usually not easily applicable to children. The issue is that children’s bodies are not physiologically small adult bodies; they respond to pollution in different and usually more serious ways than adults. Dose and exposure pathways are not exactable based on data for the average adult. Children are more vulnerable to the adverse impacts from pollution and toxic chemicals because of their ongoing growth and development in addition to their body mass and size. Children eat, drink, and breathe more than adults when body mass is taken into account. Their skin is more permeable, and most organs and the endocrine system are still developing. There are windows of higher vulnerability from contaminants in a child’s maturation that can impact their development. Therefore, children are at a higher risk than adults to environmental health impacts. A confounding problem with the study of contaminants on children is that they often do not exhibit the same symptoms as adults, which would provide early warnings of serious, long-term health effects. It is not readily apparent when minor symptoms occur in children that they are being sickened by pollution. A cough or a sore throat is not usually associated with chemical pollution or serious health consequences. It is only when a chronic condition such as asthma fully presents, which is an issue that is growing globally in response to poor air quality, that a child receives appropriate intervention by medical authorities. At this point, the asthma condition is often irreversible and follows them into adulthood. Another factor making children potentially more exposed to pollutants it that they spend more time outdoors immersed in the environment than adults. Thus, children are more likely to be exposed to contaminants in their environment and are often in more direct contact because of activities such as playing in lakes, rivers, and streams and on potentially contaminated soils or playlots. The World Health Organization (WHO 2019) estimates that in 2012 alone, there were 1.7 million deaths from the environmental assaults on children under the age of five years old. Among the most severe causes are children deaths from respiratory infections and diarrhea, which includes waterborne and food paths of exposure. The WHO estimates that reducing environmental risks should prevent one in four deaths to children worldwide. AIR POLLUTION Air pollution is one of the major pathways for exposing children to harmful chemicals. Children are more vulnerable to air pollution impacts because of the underdevelopment of their lungs, brain, and endocrine system. The American Lung Association highlights the numerous studies on the impacts of air pollution to the respiratory systems of children (2019). One of the strongly suspected



Child Impacts 111

contributors to the growth of asthma in children is air pollution. Infants and young children take more breaths per minute than adults and thereby have a higher exposure for their body weight to pollutants in the air. Children growing up in overburdened communities near coal-fired power plants are suspected to be more likely to have repository ailments such as asthma into adulthood. In fact, in 2016, indoor and outdoor air pollution contributed to respiratory infections that led to the deaths of 543,000 children under the age of five years old worldwide (Friedrich 2018).

WATER POLLUTION Toxic chemicals in water are particularly a concern for children who tend to drink more water than adults. The Environmental Working Group (Lunder 2017), an environmental advocacy group, reviews and maintains a Tap Water Database of drinking water supplies. It finds that researchers are often uncertain of the impacts of water pollution in children. Some well-known impacts come from lead, which is a neurotoxin that affects brain development in children. The city of Flint, Michigan, experienced lead contamination in its drinking water that rose to levels where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a stop drinking water order and provided bottled water for the community. Water pollution is particularly a problem for infants who are fed formula that is added to water. According to the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC 2018), all pesticides pose some risk to infants and children. These chemicals can enter the child’s body through water and food contamination and dermal contact. The livers and kidneys of children cannot process the toxic chemicals included in pesticides. Several chemicals are suspected to be endocrine disputers in children’s developing systems and can cause a distortion of the maturation process. These chemicals are usually from food and environmental exposures. President Clinton signed into law Executive Order 13045 to establish the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Ricks and Safety Risks to Children. In 2018, the task force issued a federal action plan for reducing lead exposures and other health impacts to children. The EPA (2019) has updated its chemical database for children. This information now includes an ongoing source of information on the impacts from air pollutants, drinking water contaminants, and other chemicals that impact children. John Munro See also: Developmental Neurotoxicity; Endocrine Disruptors; Overburdened Community.

Further Reading

American Lung Association. 2019. “Children and Air Pollution.” Accessed April 14, 2019. ­https://​­w ww​.­lung​.­org​/­our​-­i nitiatives​/­healthy​-­air​/­outdoor​/­air​-­pollution ​/­children​ -­and​-­air​-­pollution​.­html. Friedrich, M. 2018. “Global Impact of Air Pollution on Children’s Health.” Journal of the American Medical Association 320(23): 2412. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19559. Lunder, Sonya. 2017. “Drinking Water and Children’s Health.” Environmental Working Group, July 26, 2017. Accessed April 14, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ewg​.­org​/­research​ /­drinking​-­water​-­and​-­children​-­s​-­health.

112

Children’s Environmental Health

National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). 2018. “Pesticides and Children.” May 2, 2018. Accessed April 14, 2019. ­http://​­npic​.­orst​.­edu​/ ­health​/­child​.­html. President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. 2017. “About.” August 30, 2017. Accessed April 14, 2019. ­https://​­ptfceh​.­niehs​.­nih​ .­gov​/­about​/­index​.­htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Protecting Children’s Environmental Health.” April 1, 2019. Accessed April 14, 2019. h­ ttps://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­children. World Health Organization (WHO). 2019. “Helping to Protect Children from the Harmful Effects of Chemicals.” Accessed April 14, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­ceh​/­en.

Children’s Environmental Healthand Disease Prevention Research Centers The Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers (or Children’s Centers) study how complex interactions among the environment, genetics, and other factors affect children’s health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) jointly fund the centers. In 1997, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13045, which required federal agencies to ensure their policies, standards, and programs account for any disproportionate risks children might experience. Following this, the EPA and NIEHS executed a memorandum of understanding to jointly fund and oversee a new and impactful research grant program focused on children’s health. The Children’s Centers was established in 1998 as a result of this partnership. There are currently thirteen research centers across the United States. Each center has a team of researchers in their Community Outreach Translation Core (COTC), whose members collaborate with different community partners and organizations to inform and advance science for public health protection. Each center consists of three to four unique but integrated research projects related to the center’s theme, and each center has a designated physician scientist who helps ensure that research is translated into practical information for health-care providers. In recent years, Children’s Centers research has identified the role that environmental toxicants play in the development of several childhood illnesses. For example, the Children’s Centers research helped clarify the relationship between air pollution and asthma and also found links between asthma and exposures to other chemicals, such as bisphenol A (BPA) and pesticides. The centers’ research has identified links between preterm birth, air pollution, and pesticides and also found that exposure to arsenic, ozone, phthalates, and PBDEs contributed to lower birthweight. In terms of childhood cancer research, the Children’s Centers’ researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have made important strides in uncovering associations between leukemia and exposure to tobacco smoke, pesticides, paint, organic solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In the area of immune disorders, Children’s Centers research suggests that



Children’s Toys and Playgrounds 113

disturbances in the immune system may play a role in neurodevelopmental disorders and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Lastly, the centers’ research findings have demonstrated that prenatal and early childhood exposures to BPA, phthalates, air pollution, and secondhand smoke lead to obesity in childhood that persists into adulthood. Owing to the fact that scientific concepts and research results are often not easily understood by the general public, Children’s Centers provides the public, community organizations, health-care professionals, decision makers, and others with information about the links between environment and children’s health. Some of these efforts have included developing and disseminating a patient-centered series of culturally appropriate brochures to counsel women and men who are planning a family, developing brochures and web apps to help families decrease their risk from exposure to arsenic in food and water, and giving more than one thousand presentations reaching over twenty-five thousand people to promote healthy homes for farmworkers in California’s Salinas Valley. Robert L. Perry See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

Further Reading

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). “About the Centers.” Accessed July 27, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­research​/­supported​/­centers​ /­prevention​/­about​/­index​.­cfm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. “Summary of Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.” Accessed July 27, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­laws​-­regulations​/­summary​ -­executive​-­order​-­13045​-­protection​-­children​-­environmental​-­health​-­risks​-­and. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “NIEHS/EPA Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers Impact Report: Protecting Children’s Health Where They Live, Learn, and Play.” EPA Publication No. EPA/600/R-17/407. Accessed July 27, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​ /­files​/­2017​-­10​/­documents​/­n iehs​_epa​_childrens​_centers​_impact​_ report​_ 2017​_0​ .­pdf.

Children’s Toys and Playgrounds Children are one of the vulnerable population groups to toxic chemicals because of their developmental growth and immersion in their environments in which they play, live, and attend activities, such as school. Children are not considered small adults; they have more risk to toxic chemicals because of their development and growth rates in childhood. For instance, children take more breaths per minute than adult humans, they drink more water, they may eat more food, and they tend to immerse themselves in the soil and water where they play and live. One exposure pathway to toxic chemicals for children is toys and playgrounds. These exposures are important because children spend significant time with these items.

114

Children’s Toys and Playgrounds

TOYS Unknown to parents, toys can often contain toxic chemicals. Toys are particularly concerning because children spend many hours with these items and often ingest coatings or parts, inhale fumes, and come into direct contact with their toys. One report on toys in the United Kingdom found that secondhand toys in nurseries and waiting rooms, thrift stores, and passed down from older siblings may have toxic chemical risks. New toys are in compliance with human health standards, but the older toys that are not eliminated have potential exposures from previously lax policies. In addition, older toys may have flaking paint and veneers that can be ingested. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2018), toys and children’s jewelry may contain toxic chemicals such as lead and other chemicals. Children can also get exposed to toxics from metal and plastic toys, particularly those that are imported from other countries, and from antique toys.

PLAYGROUNDS Children’s playgrounds have become a concern for exposure in recent decades. One of the early concerns about playgrounds was the risks from pressure-treated wood and paints containing lead. A chemically treated wood was used on playground structures that contained chromated copper arsenic (CCA). This neurotoxic chemical gives the treated wood a green tint, which is the CCA chemical that acts as a wood preservative and protects structures from insects and wood rot. CCA was declared a carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1986 and was banned for residential uses in 2003. A 2009 study sampled playgrounds in New Orleans and found that the CCA leached into the soil at the playground. This chemical compound is considered a neurotoxin and carcinogen. The study mimicked in the laboratory the makeup of the stomach of a child and found that the median arsenic concentration was significantly higher in the soil near the playgrounds and over four times the permissible limit for arsenic (Raloff 2009). More recent concerns about playground toxics come from the ground materials. According to the Children’s Environmental Health Network, a nonprofit advocacy group, recycled rubber that has been used under the playground structures and equipment as well as in athletic fields has caused health concerns. Recycled rubber can break down with heat and then be inhaled or get on the skin, and it can be ingested by young children playing on a field with the materials. The concern is that rubber used on these fields or as rubber mulch may contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and phthalates. These chemicals can cause significant health risks for children. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Arsenic (As); Heavy Metals; Lead (Pb); Phthalates; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Booker, Nyedra, and Stephanie Fox-Rawlings. n.d. “Children and Athletes at Play on Toxic Turf and Playgrounds.” Cancer Prevention & Treatment Fund. Accessed



Chlorine Gas (Cl2) 115

April 22, 2019. ­http://​­stopcancerfund​.­org​/­pz​-­environmental​-­exposures​/­caution​ -­children​-­at​-­play​-­on​-­potentially​-­toxic​-­surfaces. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2018. “ Lead Hazardous in Some Holiday Toys and Toy Jewelry.” National Center for Environmental Health, November 27, 2018. Accessed April 22, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­features​ /­leadintoys​/­index​.­html. Children’s Environmental Health Network. 2017. “FAQs: Playground Surfaces.” November 2017. Accessed April 22, 2019. ­https://​­cehn​.­org​/­our​-­work​/­eco​-­healthy​-­child​ -­care​/­ehcc​-­faqs​/­playground​-­surfaces. Newman, Tim. 2018. “Second-Hand Toys Contain Surprising Levels of Toxic Chemicals.” Medical News Today, January 31, 2018. Accessed April 22, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­medicalnewstoday​.­com​/­articles​/­320766​.­php. Raloff, Hanet. 2009. “Toxic Playgrounds.” Science News, November 23, 2009. Accessed April 22, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­sciencenews​.­org​/­blog​/­science​-­public​/­toxic​-­playgrounds.

Chlorine Gas (Cl2) Chlorine is an element in the halogen group of chemicals. This means chlorine is very reactive with other elements. It can be a solid, liquid, or gas with other chemicals. It exists in nature and living organisms in different forms: humans have stomach acid that contains the element in the form of hydrochloric acid, and sodium chloride is the chemical used as common table salt. Chlorine in gas form, though, is not naturally occurring and is toxic. As a gas, it appears yellow and has a strong, irritating odor, similar to the scent of bleach. It is not stable or persistent and is readily broken down by ultraviolet light from the sun. It can be transformed to liquid under pressure; however, liquid chlorine rapidly develops into a gas when not contained in a pressurized container. When chlorine gas enters the environment, it reacts like the other halogens to form other chemicals. It is widely used in industry to form other chemicals. Because of its toxicity, chlorine is used as a disinfectant, particularly in drinking water, wastewater treatment, swimming pools, and outdoor water spas. Chlorinated water made with chlorine gas quickly transforms the liquid to create hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite, which acts as the disinfectant. Similarly, chlorine is used to make bleach, a strong disinfectant, which is used in manufacturing pesticides, rubber, paper, and cloth. When bleach is mixed with other chemicals, it can produce chlorine gas and react explosively. Chlorine was discovered in the late 1700s in hydrochloric acid. It was first used to disinfect drinking water in the late 1800s as protection from typhoid. In the early 1990s, it was used in the manufacture of fertilizers. During World War I, chlorine gas was utilized as a chemical weapon, and gas masks were developed to protect against it. These chemicals were developed as an insecticide using hydrogen cyanide. During World War II, a derivative pesticide called Zyklon B was used as a lethal chemical in Nazi concentration camps. During the Iraq War, it is reported that chlorine gas was used as a weapon (Cave and Fadam 2007), and its use is also suspected in Syria (Cotton 2016).

116

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

Today, people are most likely to be exposed to chlorine gas from a release at the workplace or an accidental spill. Accidental releases have happened at swimming pools. In 2005, a tank of liquefied chlorine gas was transported via rail in South Carolina and became punctured. It led to the fatal poisoning of eight people, and more than five thousand had to be evaluated. Chlorine gas is a toxic irritant that impacts the respiratory system, eyes, and skin. It can be lethal and cause permanent lung damage. Like its reactivity with water outside the body, it will transform into acid with living tissues and burn the exposed areas. A short exposure can be fatal. People can also develop hyperreactivity similar to an allergic reaction when exposed to chlorine gas in the workplace. This can result symptoms resembling asthma (wheezing and difficulty breathing) or bronchitis. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Halogens.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2010. “Chlorine.” Toxic Substances Portal, Number 2010. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­toxfaqs​/­tf​.­asp​?­id​= ​­200​&­tid​= ​­36. Cave, Damien, and Ahmad Fadam. 2007. “Iraqi Militants Use Chlorine in Three Bombings.” New York Times, February 21, 2007. Accessed October 3, 2017. ­http://​­w ww​ .­nytimes​.­com​/­2007​/­02​/­21​/­world​/­middleeast​/­21cnd​-­baghdad​.­html. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2013. “Facts about Chlorine.” April 10, 2013. Last reviewed April 4, 2018. Accessed October 2, 2017. h­ ttps://​­emergency​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­agent​/­chlorine​/ ­basics​/­facts​.­asp. Cotton, Simon. 2016. “What Is Chlorine Gas and How Did It Become a Weapon?” Newsweek, September 8, 2016. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­newsweek​.­com​ /­syrias​-­use​-­chlorine​-­gas​-­and​-­weapons​-­history​- ­496568. White, Carl W., and James G. Martin. 2010. “Chlorine Gas Inhalation: Human Clinical Evidence on Toxicity and Experience in Animal Models.” Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society 7(4) (July 1, 2010): 257–263.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are industrial chemicals that are nonflammable, odorless, and colorless liquids containing chlorine, fluorine, and carbon that were widely used in the 1970s as refrigerants in household appliances, air conditioners, propellants and aerosols, degreasers, fire extinguishers, deicers, and agents for cleaning electronic equipment as well as having been used to make Styrofoam and food packaging. Prior to 2008, CFCs were used in asthmatic inhalers, although exposure to CFCs can be fatal, particularly in enclosed areas. Something that is less known about CFCs is that they are also considered greenhouse and climate change gases because of their ability to absorb heat. Chlorine, fluorine, and carbon collectively refer to several chemicals, including CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115, and many forms of Freon. These chemicals are made from another toxic chemical called perchloroethylene, or perc. They are very stable and can last for more than one hundred years in the



Chloroform (CHCl3) 117

stratosphere, where they break apart when exposed to ultraviolet light, releasing their chlorine atoms. These atoms cause deterioration in the ozone layer of the planet. CFCs were identified as responsible for creating an actual hole in the ozone layer, and as a result, they were phased out under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Industry developed two classes of chemical substitutes for CFCs to replace their uses in refrigerants and air conditioners. These are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The HCFCs include hydrogen atoms in addition to chlorine, fluorine, and carbon atoms; however, HCFCs still contain chlorine, which makes it possible for them to destroy ozone and increase the size of the ozone hole. As a result, a recent amendment was made to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer that bans these chemicals by 2030. HFCs are considered one of the best substitutes for reducing stratospheric ozone loss because of their short lifetime and lack of chlorine. In the United States, this chemical is used in automobile air conditioners as a substitute for ozone-depleting chemicals. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: American Chemistry Council (ACC); Montreal Protocol; Ozone Hole; Tetrachloroethylene (Perc).

Further Reading

American Chemical Society. 2017. “Chlorofluorocarbons and the Ozone Depletion.” Accessed August 28, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­acs​.­org​/­content​/­acs​/­en​/­education​ /­whatischemistry​/­landmarks​/­cfcs​-­ozone​.­html. Elkins, James W. 1999. “Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).” In The Chapman & Hall Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, edited by David E. Alexander and Rhodes W. Fairbridge, 78–80. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­esrl​.­noaa​.­gov​/­gmd​/ ­hats​/­publictn​/­elkins​/­cfcs​.­html. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1989. “Preventing Death from Excessive Exposure to Chlorofluorocarbon.” Last updated June 6, 2014. Accessed August 22, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­niosh​/­docs​/­89​-­109​/­default​.­html. U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2017. “Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).” ToxTown, May 31, 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. ­https://​­toxtown​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­text​_version​ /­chemicals​.­php​?­id​= ​­9.

Chloroform (CHCl3) Chloroform (CHCl3) is a toxic colorless liquid with a sweet scent. It is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that is an organochloride chemically known as trichloromethane. On its own, it is not flammable; however, it does readily burn when combined with more flammable substances. Chloroform is widely used as an industrial chemical. In the past, it was used as an anesthetic to make people unconscious before surgery, but it is no longer used for that purpose. Many rapists and criminals have used the chemical to make their victims unconscious. Today, chloroform is used in manufacturing Freon, which is commonly used as a refrigerant, and as a solvent in industry because it is unreactive and mixes with organic liquids. Chloroform is used to produce dyes and pesticides, to extract chemicals from plants for pharmaceutical development, to extract the painkiller

118

Chromium (Cr)

morphine from the poppy plant, as a bonding agent for Plexiglas and other acrylic materials, and in the production of plastics. As a by-product of water chlorination, it can be present in trace amounts in swimming pools, outdoor spas, and at wastewater and drinking water plants. Chloroform naturally occurs in spearmint, and small amounts are produced naturally by marine life, such as seaweed, and by the decomposition of plants. Chloroform is easily made with ethanol or acetone mixed with hypochlorite bleach. Care needs to be taken in the household when mixing alcohol-based cleaners with bleach because it will produce chloroform vapors. Commercially, the chemical is manufactured by combining methane with chlorine. Chloroform is an environmental contaminant from paper mills and drinking water plants. If released into the air, it evaporates rapidly. A release into lakes, rivers, or soil also quickly evaporates into the air. Chloroform that reaches the groundwater can remain chemically stable over time. Chloroform can be used as an antifoaming, anticoagulant, and antifungal agent and as a depressant. Exposure occurs through inhalation, dermal contact (where it is readily absorbed into the body), or ingestion, and it irritates the eyes, respiratory system, and skin. Extreme exposures can damage the liver and heart, and it impacts the central nervous system as a neurotoxin. It is also a cause of “sudden sniffer’s death,” a fatal cardiac arrhythmia from inhalation exposure. Chloroform is considered a probable carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Bleach (NaOCl); Neurological Toxicity.

Further Reading

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Chloroform, CID=6212.” PubChem Database. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound​/­Chloroform.

Chromium (Cr) Chromium is a metal with a lustrous steel gray appearance as a solid that is hard and brittle and does not tarnish easily. It also occurs as a liquid or gas. Chromium is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, animals, plants, and soil in trace amounts. When chromium is burned, it forms a green chemical called chromic oxide. As a strong oxidizing agent, chromium is unstable in oxygen and will form a protective impermeable barrier on the outer layer of the metal. Because the element is a strong oxidizing agent that allows it to take various forms, there are different types of chromium. The type of chromium indicates its toxicity level. In its most common forms, it exists as chromium (sometimes referred to as monovalent or metal chromium), trivalent chromium, and hexavalent chromium. Each variation has different characteristics, but these compounds are all tasteless and odorless. The metal chromium (the monovalent form) is an important element worldwide because it is an ingredient for making steel. Trivalent and hexavalent chromium are used for chrome plating, dyes and pigments, leather tanning, and wood preserving. These qualities have made it an important



Chromium (Cr) 119

and widely used ingredient in industry. Chromium is often used as an anticorrosive. In glass, it looks emerald green, yet it has been used to make synthetic rubies. And it is used in magnetic tape and to form molds for brickmaking. Chromium is an important element internationally that is mined as chromite ore in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Finland, India, Kazakhstan, and the Philippines. “About 95% of the world’s chromium resources are geographically concentrated in Kazakhstan and southern Africa” (USGS 2017, 49). Montana’s Stillwater Complex holds most of the United States’ chromium resources. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2017, 54–58), reserves are estimated to be approximately one billion tons, with unexploited deposits in Greenland, Canada, and the United States. In 2016, because China was one of the leaders in manufacturing stainless steel, it was the highest consumer and producer of chromium. South Africa was also one of the largest producers of chromite ore and a leader in chromium that supplied stainless steel production worldwide. Chromium and many of its compounds are known carcinogens, but, ironically, it is also essential in the human body for processing glucose and metabolizing fat. A lack of chromium is associated with insulin resistance and diabetes. Trivalent chromium medicine is often used to increase insulin sensitivity. Because it is linked with muscle growth, it can be found in vitamins or as a supplement. When trivalent and hexavalent chromium is ingested in large doses, it causes liver damage and can be fatal. At lower doses, or chronic exposure, people can suffer skin and tissue damage as well as cancer. If a release into the environment occurs, chromium is easily discovered in the air, water, and soil. Air releases will deposit into water and soil. Once there, it can change types. It does not bioaccumulate in the aquatic ecosystem. One of the more well-known cases of chromium contamination is associated with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG & E) in Hinkley, California, where hexavalent chromium was released into the community with devastating results. The award-winning movie Erin Brockovich (2000) was based on the experience of litigation involving the remediation of and compensation for the hexavalent chromium contamination. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); Brockovich, Erin (1960–).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Chromium.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed September 22, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­17. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Chromium, CID=23976.” PubChem Database. Accessed September 22, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​ .­gov​/­compound​/­Chromium. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Chromium.” Accessed September 22, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­chromium​/­index​.­html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “Chromium.” Mineral Commodity Summaries (January 2017): 48–49. Accessed September 22, 2017. ­https://​­s3​-­us​-­west​-­2​ .­amazonaws​.­com ​/­prd​-­w ret​/­assets​/­palladium ​/­production ​/­mineral​-­pubs​/­chromium​ /­mcs​-­2017​-­chrom​.­pdf.

120

Clean Air Act (CAA)

Clean Air Act (CAA)(1970) By the 1950s, some areas of the United States were starting to worry about the negative health effects of urban air pollution. Major incidents of summertime smog in Los Angeles, California, during the 1940s and the “poisonous yellow fog” in Donora, Pennsylvania, in 1948, which killed twenty and sickened seven thousand, led to air pollution laws in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Los Angeles; and St. Louis, Missouri. California passed the first statewide air pollution statute in 1947, followed by Pennsylvania in 1960 and Oregon in 1962. However, these laws were largely symbolic and defined air pollution in terms of business priorities and economic growth rather than protecting human health. The language of Pennsylvania’s 1960 air quality law is a good example. It sought to assure a reasonable degree of air purity within the parameters of technical and economic feasibility while not unreasonably obstructing the development and expansion of business and industry in the state. Moreover, in the 1940s and 1950s, most people, including President Truman, viewed air pollution as a state and local problem, particularly local, believing that the benefits, and hence the responsibilities, were primarily local in character (Stern 1982). As a result, air pollution was not acknowledged as a national problem in the United States until 1963 with the passage of the Clean Air Act (CAA). By the mid-1960s, policy solutions focused on two distinct sources of air pollution—stationary (factories) and mobile (cars, trucks, trains, and ships, but primarily cars)—and there was a growing consensus that while stationary sources were local problems, mobile sources, given their movement from area to area, needed national solutions. The CAA was thus amended in 1965 to include mobile sources and then was strengthened in 1967. Yet, Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME), known as “Mr. Environment” in the U.S. Senate, held hearings on the proposed 1967 law in which he made a strong case against national ambient air quality standards, the opposite position from President Lyndon Johnson, even though both were Democrats. Muskie’s basic argument was that local variations in conditions made national standards impossible to set (Jones 1975).

GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT NATIONAL STANDARDS Because Congress only authorized three years of funding for the 1967 law, the air pollution problem came back onto the congressional agenda in 1970. The 1970 CAA is a dramatic departure from prior pollution control efforts because it deepened and extended the country’s commitment to clean air, and because it is still the basic framework under which air pollution is regulated today, most accounts of the U.S. clean air story start here. The emergence of the national contemporary environmental movement and the success of the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, when millions of Americans turned out to support the idea of clean air, water, and land, spurred a high stakes game of political one-upmanship between U.S. Representative Paul Rogers (D-FL), Senator Muskie, and Republican president Richard Nixon, with each



Clean Air Act (CAA) 121

trying to lay claim as the champion of clean air. President Nixon used his 1970 State of the Union speech to proclaim that the United States needed to start treating air as a scarce resource, that we should no longer allow its abuse, and that the solution was strict pollution standards and strengthened enforcement procedures because this would force private businesses to include the costs of their pollution emissions in their pricing decisions. The CAA had four major sections that assisted with air quality. These include the creation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Attainment Area, Source Size, and Age Rules; Controlled Mobile Sources; and Air Toxics Regulation.

The Creation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) In creating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the federal government took charge of defining specific levels of air quality, or emissions standards, that would provide an ample margin of safety to protect the public health. NAAQS covered five pollutants—carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ground-level ozone (urban smog), and particulate matter (PM)—and mandated a 1975 deadline for compliance. Implementation required each state to write a State Implementation Plan (SIP) detailing the individual pollution sources covered, the level of emission reductions required for each source, and science demonstrating the connection between the plan and the achievement of NAAQS. All SIPs had to be approved by regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If states failed to act, the CAA gave the EPA authority to create and enforce its own plan. Further, the EPA is required to do a scientific review of these standards every five years. Attainment Area, Source Size, and Age Rules The CAA promulgated more stringent air pollution rules for industrial stationary sources in nonattainment areas, where air was dirtier than the NAAQS allowed, than in attainment areas that met CAA emission standards. Nearly all nonattainment areas were located in large urban centers with the heaviest concentrations of industrial activity. There were also stricter New Source Performance Standards (NSPS; section 111 of the CAA) for large “new” sources of pollution—those that produced a minimum of one hundred tons of pollution annually. Any companies unable to meet these new standards, according to the Senate Environment Committee chaired by Senator Muskie, should be shut down. The combination of these features created incentives for industry to build fewer new plants and keep old heavily polluting plants in operation. They also incentivized the creation of new factories and jobs in “clean” attainment areas, given that the more stringent air pollution regulations in urban nonattainment areas added significant cost, often in the tens of millions of dollars.

122

Clean Air Act (CAA)

Controlled Mobile Sources Because so much urban air pollution came from mobile vehicles, particularly cars, the CAA mandated a 90 percent reduction in tailpipe pollution by 1975 through the use of catalytic converters, a new technology. This dramatic reduction was authorized despite the real likelihood, according to Senator Muskie, that achieving the desired health standards in large metropolitan areas would end up restricting as much as 75 percent of total urban traffic (Jones 1975). Air Toxics Regulation Section 112 of the CAA commanded the EPA to list and regulate hazardous air pollutants, also called air toxics. These are considered one of the most dangerous classes of pollutants, with many being carcinogenic and others causing neurological damage or destroying organ tissue (e.g., lungs). As is true for other kinds of pollutants, little information was available concerning the health effects of air toxics, and we often have little understanding of the relationship between exposure to pollutants and the actual contraction of diseases. The scientific uncertainty led to considerable litigation that prevented the EPA from finalizing and clarifying air toxics regulations prior to the 1990 amendments, wherein Congress completely overhauled and expanded this mandate. 1977 Amendments Amendments in 1977 focused on expanding the NAAQS to include lead pollution, strengthening the NSPS by tightening pollution control standards for sulfur dioxide, and forcing the addition of “scrubber” technology for new coal-fired power plant smokestacks. Scrubbers, which could cost $100 million or more, remove the SO2 from the air and turn it into a toxic sludge. It had the economic effect of preserving many jobs in the Eastern United States’ “high sulfur” coal industry (e.g., Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia) at the expense of low sulfur coal being mined in Wyoming and Montana. In addition, nonattainment areas were forced to offset any projected pollution increases from new construction with comparable emission reductions at existing facilities. Perhaps the most controversial change to the CAA during the 1970s came from the courts and involved the codification of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rule for “clean” attainment areas. In Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus (1972), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that state ­implementation plans must include provisions to prevent air degradation in areas already meeting or beating required NAAQS standards. This ruling effectively replaced uniform NAAQS with multiple standards based on an area’s prior air quality levels, not on human health or welfare effects (Melnick 1983). A second court case, NRDC v. EPA (1974, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals), closed a loophole in the NAAQS regulations that had allowed polluters to disperse air pollution over a wider geographic area rather than engage in actual pollution reduction. Industry often achieved dispersion with extremely tall smokestacks



Clean Air Act (CAA) 123

that allowed pollution to be carried by winds to distant areas. This change meant that it was no longer enough to meet NAAQS by whatever means possible; the SIPs also must reduce the total atmospheric loadings of air pollution. 1990 Amendments The 1990 law gave greater control to the federal government and tried to fill loopholes while making the law more comprehensive in its approach with respect to mobile sources, air toxics, acid rain, and ozone layer depletion. The stringent tailpipe pollution standards set in 1970 struggled to meet their goal of 90 percent reduction because (1) people dramatically increased their vehicle miles traveled (by 69% between 1970 and 1988), and (2) the toxic quality of gasoline increased significantly after lead—the key source for power—was eliminated in 1982 because oil companies compensated by adding new chemicals that increased smog and air toxics, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Congress responded by mandating tougher tailpipe standards and creating a new clean fuels program that extended the CAA’s reach to older heavier polluting vehicles. The clean fuel rules were designed to reduce toxic VOC emissions by mandating new gasoline-dispensing technologies at the pump to capture air pollution before it escaped, reformulated gasoline with fuel blends that incorporate ethanol and other chemicals to reduce urban smog, and lowered sulfur content in diesel fuel. The amended law (CAAA) also vastly expanded the section of the CAA dealing with air toxics. Over twenty years, the EPA had only regulated seven hazardous air pollutants. In Title III of the 1990 CAAA, this list grew to include 189 air toxins, signaling to the EPA that this was a problem that could not be ignored. Title IV of the 1990 CAAA focused on reducing air pollutants associated with acid rain, which is precipitation made sufficiently acidic by atmospheric pollution that causes environmental harm, typically to forests and lakes, in the form of chemical imbalances and degradation to building exteriors. The law focused on the hundreds of electric power plants burning coal, which produces waste gases containing sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants combine with water in the atmosphere to form acids. The law called for a 50 percent reduction in emissions and used an innovative market-based emissions trading program that created incentives for industry to choose the best method for meeting their own site-specific pollution reduction goals rather than being forced to use a single method or technology commanded by government regulators. The acid rain program also set a nationwide cap on total pollution that could not be violated and employed automatic and expensive penalties for failing to comply with the law. The program reduced SO2 pollution much faster than anticipated at less than a tenth of the compliance costs associated with the established scrubber system (Weber 1998). The final major component of the 1990s CAAA, Title VI, focused on atmospheric ozone and fulfilled the obligations of the United States to the international Montreal Protocol that was signed in 1987. More specifically, the law requires the EPA to list all regulated chemicals, along with their ozone depletion potential, atmospheric lifetimes, and global warming potentials, within sixty

124

Clean Air Act (CAA)

days of enactment. The production of different classes of chemicals must then be phased out by specific dates: Class I chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and carbon tetrachloride by 2000; methyl chloroform by 2002; and all Class II chemicals (hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFCs]) by 2030. Title VI also instituted a ban, starting in 1994, on aerosols and noninsulating foams using Class II chemicals. CONNECTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND CO2 EMISSIONS As climate change has gained greater political saliency, the EPA has become involved in regulating carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. The first step came during the presidency of George W. Bush when EPA regulators decided against adding greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the CAA’s NAAQS. Several states, with Massachusetts in the lead, sued the federal government, arguing that the negative human health effects of GHGs warranted CAA coverage. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in EPA v. Massachusetts, finding that the EPA did possess the authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs and that it had a duty to decide whether GHGs endangered human health. After scientific review, the Obama administration determined in 2009 that GHGs did constitute a danger to health and welfare, which led to EPA emissions restrictions covering over 86 percent of industrial GHG pollution in the United States. The first step involved CO2 standards targeting new coal and natural gas–fired power plants, with the final rule issued in 2015 limiting coal-fired plants to no more than fourteen hundred pounds of GHG emissions per megawatt-hour (MWh) and gas-fired plants no more than one thousand pounds per MWh. The next step by the EPA focused on existing power plants, which were previously allowed to discharge unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the atmosphere. Promulgated in 2015, the Clean Power Plan relied on Section 111 of the CAA and planned to cut CO2 emissions by 30 percent by 2030. Litigation ensued, however, and in 2016, the Supreme Court halted implementation until legal challenges were resolved. Within months of taking office in 2017, the Trump administration withdrew the Clean Power Plan as part of its program to promote more coal use. KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT • • •

Cut ground-level ozone (urban smog) by more than 25 percent since 1980 Reduced mercury emissions by 45 percent since 1990 Reduced the main contributors to acid rain, sulfur dioxide (71%), nitrogen dioxide (46%), and SO2 (90%), formerly discharged by power plants • Phased out the production and use of chemicals that contribute to the ozone hole • Cut lead air pollution by 92 percent since 1980 Edward P. Weber



Clean Air Mercury Rule 125

See also: Environmental Movement (1970s); Killer Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania (1948).

Further Reading

Jones, Charles O. 1975. Clean Air: The Policies and Politics of Pollution Control. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Melnick, R. Shep. 1983. Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Stern, Arthur C. 1982. “History of Air Pollution Legislation in the United States.” Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 32(1): 44–61. Weber, Edward P. 1998. “Assuring Reductions in Acid Rain: The Case of GovernmentImposed Markets.” In Pluralism by the Rules, 133–160. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Clean Air Mercury Rule In the United States, mercury is regulated by a large number of state and federal agencies, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) being the most significant. In December 2003, the Bush administration proposed a rule to significantly cut mercury emissions of coal-firing plants and supported both a market-based approach of cap-and-trade as well as using maximum achievable control technologies designated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). By March 2005, the Clear Air Mercury Rule was issued, which established standards of performance to limit mercury emissions from both new and existing utilities and created the cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions. In 2008, the DC Circuit Court removed power plants from the Clean Air list of sources of hazardous air pollutants and vacated the Clean Air Mercury Rule. The EPA announced plans to propose new air toxics standards for coal-fired plants by 2011 that would replace the vacated the Clean Air Mercury Rule by the court. The new Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS) final rule set guidelines that it was ”appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollution from power plants under the Clean Air Act, Section 112. However, the coal industry sued the EPA in 2014 regarding its restrictive MATS rule but lost its case in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. U.S. Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh was then a judge on that court; his dissenting opinion questioned the costs of the rule to industry. In 2015, in Michigan v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA improperly failed to consider costs in making the finding of what is appropriate and necessary in the MATS. However, in April 2016, the EPA confirmed that after considering costs, it remains necessary to regulate power plant emissions. Industry and utilities repost to the EPA that they are in full compliance with the MATS since April 2016. Under the Trump administration, the EPA has begun to reconsider proposals to weaken the MATS rule. However, several expert and scientific groups argue that the degree of economic adverse impact is overstated and not based on science and the complete accounting for the costs from health impacts. For instance, the External Environmental Economics Advisory Committee, an independent organization, released a report in December 2019 outlining the scientific and economic

126

Clean Water Act (CWA)

flaws in the premises related to weakening the Mercury Rule (To 2020). Also, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently issued a statement that pointed out the contradiction of the EPA’s conclusions from the Trump administration with research from the EPA in the previous administration: “Under the Obama administration, the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule was projected to save between $37 billion and $90 billion dollars when taking into account savings on public health. Under the Trump administration’s proposal, the estimate has been reduced to between $4 million and $6 million” (Beitsch 2019). The EPA under the Trump administration has changed the cost-benefit analysis associated with the Mercury Rule that is anticipated to open up significant changes to the pollutant from coal-fired power plants. Eric J. Stoner See also: Mercury (Hg).

Further Reading

Beitsch, Rebecca. 2019. “EPA’s Independent Science Board Says Agency Ignored Its Advice on Mercury Rule.” The Hill, December 31. Accessed January 21, 2020. ­https://​­thehill​.­com​/­policy​/­energy​-­environment​/­476374​-­epas​-­independent​-­science​ -­board​-­says​-­agency​-­ignored​-­their​-­advice​-­on. Lambert, Kathy Fallon, and Joe Goffman. 2019. “CleanLaw.” Podcast, March 7, 2019. Accessed January 21, 2020. ­https://​­eelp​.­law​.­harvard​.­edu​/­2019​/­03​/ ­kathy​-­fallon​ -­lambert​-­and​-­joe​-­goffman​-­discuss​-­mats​-­and​-­ace. To, Kalysa. 2020. “Experts Say EPA’s Plan to Roll Back Mercury Pollution Regulations Is Misguided.” Daily Bruin, January 21. Accessed on January 21, 2020. h­ttps://​ ­dailybruin​.­com​/­2019​/­12​/­05​/­experts​-­say​-­epas​-­plan​-­to​-­roll​-­back​-­mercury​-­pollution​ -­regulations​-­is​-­misguided.

Clean Water Act (CWA)(1972) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more popularly known as the Clean Water Act, was originally passed by Congress in 1948. Much of the Clean Water Act’s current form was shaped by several amendments that were passed in 1972. The act is the nation’s principal law governing pollution of the nation’s surface waters. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND One of the first federal laws that ostensibly dealt with water pollution in the United States was the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, which prohibited the discharge of refuse into navigable water or their tributaries without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, that law was adopted primarily to protect navigation and was not necessarily intended toward making water aesthetically or functionally clean. Prior to World War II, water pollution control was primarily under the regulatory jurisdiction of state and local governments, although the federal government often provided technical and financial support to the states. Because water



Clean Water Act (CWA) 127

pollution was largely under state and local control, there were no federally required goals, objectives, limits, or guidelines (Copeland 2016). It was not until 1948 that Congress would begin to address the issue on a fuller scale. That year, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) was passed, seeking to expand the federal government’s role in pollution regulation and to take action to abate interstate pollution. In its original form, the act authorized the surgeon general to prepare comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and tributaries and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters. The act also authorized the Federal Works administrator to assist states, municipalities, and interstate agencies in constructing water and sewage treatment plants to prevent pollutive discharges into interstate waters or tributaries (­FedCenter​.­gov 2019). Milazzo (2006) argues that, as a national law, the 1948 FWPCA did little to address water pollution in that the law largely retained the states’ control over matters of implementation and enforcement and limited the surgeon general to providing technical services and some financial assistance to municipalities and local agencies. Congress restricted the federal government to enforcing only interstate waters and their tributaries (as outlined in the 1899 law) and excluded watercourses that did not flow across or form part of state boundaries. In sum, Milazzo argues, the ineffectiveness of the 1948 act was that anyone seeking to enjoin a particular polluter on interstate waters faced a rather ponderous bureaucratic procedure, a state veto, and a considerable burden of proof before the judiciary. By the mid-1950s, Congress had become readily aware that although the number of public sewage treatment works were increasing, the nation was losing ground in water pollution abatement. In 1956, Congress passed amendments to the FWPCA that sought to strengthen water pollution control activities. The 1956 amendments still recognized state authority in controlling water pollution and sought to “encourage” cooperative activities among the states. The new law appropriated $50 million in grants for new water treatment plants and was the first statute to allow for cooperation among federal agencies, along with state and local entities, to control water pollution from federal installations (Everts 1957). Amendments passed in 1961 authorized the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to undertake research programs related to determining the effects of pollutants and treatment methods and to assess water quality in the Great Lakes. In 1965, Congress passed the Water Quality Act, which required all states to designate their intended uses for interstate water bodies within their jurisdiction and then adopt water quality standards that allowed each body to meet its intended use (Glicksman and Batzel 2010). The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 authorized the secretary of U.S. Department of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study of the effects of pollution, including sedimentation, in the estuaries and estuarine zones of the United States on fish and wildlife, sport and commercial fishing, recreation, water supply and power, and other specified uses (FWS 2019).

128

Clean Water Act (CWA)

By the late 1960s, there was a widespread public perception, particularly in the wake of the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire, that federal standards concerning water quality were largely ineffective. Pollutant discharges from municipal waste systems had grown larger, and fish kills had reached record levels (Andreen 2013). By the end of the decade, nearly half the states had not adopted the water quality standards set by the 1965 act, and even if they had, the federal government still had a great deal of difficulty in enforcing standards in that it would have had to prove which particular polluter was responsible for violating the act’s standards. As well, the federal government usually lacked the scientific data concerning the location, volume, or composition of industrial discharges—something made even more difficult if several possible polluters were involved (Glicksman and Batzel 2010; Andreen 2013). PASSAGE OF THE 1972 CLEAN WATER ACT Congress responded to the public’s concerns about water safety with the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972—more popularly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The new act, rather than continuing a reliance upon state water standards, was largely new and had as its objective the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. It had two major goals: zero discharge of pollutants by 1985 and the improvement of water quality such that the waters were “fishable” and “swimmable” by mid-1983 (Copeland 2016). The CWA consisted of two major parts. In one part (which included Titles II and VI), the federal government would authorize financial assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant construction. In the other part, regulatory requirements were applied to industrial and municipal discharges, and they were progressively more stringent so that the polluters would meet the zero discharge provisions in the act. In fact, one of the core provisions applied exclusively to point sources of pollution, which the act defined as “discernable, confined, and discrete conveyances” (Glicksman and Batzel 2010). The control of nonpoint sources was largely left to the states. So, CWA enforcement would be shared by the EPA and states (with the states having primary responsibility); however, the EPA would oversee state enforcement and retain the right to bring a direct action when it believed that a state had failed to take appropriate action (Copeland 2016). Under the CWA, industries were supposed to meet the new standards by July 1, 1997, by first using best practicable technology (BPT) and later by improved best available technology (BAT). In terms of implementing BPT, the idea was to control discharges of conventional pollutants, such as suspended solids, biochemical oxygen-demanding materials, fecal coliform and bacteria, and pH—all of which are biodegradable (Copeland 2016). These technology-based effluent limitations set standards for new and existing facilities in hundreds of categories and subcategories and were applied to thousands of point source dischargers through a new permit system, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which specifically defined the enforceable obligations of individual polluters.



Clean Water Act (CWA) 129

Under the new law, the EPA would issue the NPDES permits, and the states could obtain the authority to administer the permits within their respective jurisdictions (Andreen 2013). One of the ways that Congress was able to encourage cities to comply with the requirements of the NPDES program was through the provision of several public works projects that helped renovate and modernize publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. Though this particular spending program was phased out in the late 1980s, the EPA continued to fund construction grants, primarily through the State Revolving Fund (SRF), which provided grants to states who in turn provided assistance to local governments. WETLANDS One critically important component of the CWA was the inclusion of Section 404, which required a permit to dispose of dredged or fill material in the nation’s waterways, including wetlands. The day-to-day administration of the permitting process, including individual and general permit decisions, was primarily done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which was also responsible for conducting and verifying jurisdictional determinations, developing policies, and enforcing Section 404 provisions. The Army Corps’ actions, however, would largely be subject to the EPA’s guidelines. In practice, this meant that the EPA developed and interpreted policy and provided guidance and environmental criteria used in evaluating permit decisions. The EPA was also responsible for determining the geographic jurisdiction of permits, approved state and tribal assumptions, and was authorized to prohibit, deny, or restrict the use of any defined area as a disposal site (EPA 2017). The basic premise of Section 404 was that no discharge of dredged or fill material would be permitted if a practicable alternative existed that was less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. Potential permittees had to show that they would not only take steps to avoid wetland impacts but would also minimize potential impacts on wetlands and provide compensation for any remaining unavoidable impacts (EPA 2017). One of the major difficulties in the language of the 1972 CWA was a failure to address a nonpoint solution in that the act did not ever mention “wetlands” in its text. While the preservation of wetlands was largely assumed in the “dredge and fill” permit program, there were no statutory requirements concerning restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters through wetlands protection (Glicksman and Batzel 2010). Environmentalists were particularly unhappy that the language did little to address actions on farmlands. And land developers who wished to use wetlands maintained that existing laws were already an intrusion on private land-use decisions, so further federal regulation was unwarranted (Copeland 2006). The courts attempted to rectify some of the act’s lack of clarity throughout the 1970s and 1980s by fine-tuning the meaning of “navigable waters.” In

130

Clean Water Act (CWA)

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that Congress had “asserted federal jurisdiction over the nation’s waters to the maximum extent permissible under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.” More specifically, the court found that the term “navigable waters,” as used in the CWA, “is not limited to the traditional test of navigability” (Squillace 2012). However, in recent years, several court decisions have led many to conclude that the federal courts have shown much ­hostility toward the CWA. As Squillace (2012) concludes, “Beyond simply tying the hands of the federal government in its effort to implement key aspects of this law, the courts’ recent rulings have created an inefficient and far less effective program for protecting and preserving our water resources for present and future generations.”

FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE CWA The CWA was further amended in 1977 and in 1981, primarily with more grants for municipal wastewater treatment plants. In 1987, Congress again amended the CWA by authorizing continued funding for research and training in water pollution control, and it established an EPA administrator to continue the Chesapeake Bay Program and another EPA administrator to further the program for the Great Lakes National Program Office—a program that had as part of it an agreement between the United States and Canada to reduce certain toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes. One of the more important issues in the 1987 amendments was the more specific addressing of nonpoint sources of pollution, particularly in terms of agricultural runoff—one of the more intractable problems with environmental issues. What makes this issue so problematic is that agricultural pollutants often combine with rain or snowmelt before entering the nation’s waterways. In 1990, Congress added Title I of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, which required the EPA to establish water quality criteria for the Great Lakes addressing twenty-nine toxic pollutants with maximum levels that are safe for humans, wildlife, and aquatic life. It also required the EPA to help the states implement the criteria on a specific schedule. AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF Agricultural pollution often occurs in the form of excessive or inappropriate uses of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, pathogens, salts, oil, grease, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and irrigation practices that have resulted in soil erosion, habitat alteration, soil salinization, and animal waste contamination. The high concentration of nitrates, particularly in drinking water, have been known to cause methemoglobinemia, a potentially fatal disease in infants (Laitos and Ruckriegle 2013). Unfortunately, the CWA has, in effect, removed these types of agricultural pollutants from federal oversight and left it to the states as to whether and how to regulate and control them.



Clean Water Act (CWA) 131

CONCLUSION There are few who are altogether satisfied with the results of the CWA, and there remain several areas of needed improvement. For one thing, many surface water bodies still fail to comply with state water quality standards, despite the implementation of technology-based controls. Unfortunately, many states have ignored their allowable total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) largely because of funding shortages and a lack of political will (Glicksman and Batzel 2010). Despite these continued problems, the CWA has had its share of successes. For example, a study conducted by the EPA found that between 1973 and 1995, the national loadings of organic material measured as biological oxygen demand (BOD) from sewage treatment facilities fell by 40 percent. Much of this improvement was due to the construction and renovation of thousands of municipally owned sewage treatment plants and the imposition of secondary treatment requirements. As well, EPA researchers have found “significant improvements” in dissolved oxygen (DO) in several water bodies throughout its study areas (Andreen 2013). Additionally, Section 404 brought about a significant decline in the rate of wetlands loss. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, wetlands losses in the continental United States fell to approximately 290,000 acres each year, about half of the average annual losses experienced during the twenty years before the act was implemented (Andreen 2013). Robert L. Perry See also: Cuyahoga River Fires (Cleveland, Ohio); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

Andreen, William L. 2013. “Success and Backlash: The Remarkable (Continuing) Story of the Clean Water Act.” Journal of Energy & Environmental Law 4: 25–37. Copeland, Claudia. 2006. “Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act.” Congressional Research Service Report. Accessed July 15, 2019. ­https://​­digitalcommons​ .­u nl​.­edu​/­c rsdocs​/­36​/?­utm​_ source​= ​­digitalcommons​.­u nl​.­edu​%­2Fcrsdocs​%­2F36​ &­utm​_medium​= ​­PDF​&­utm​_campaign​= ​­PDFCoverPages. Copeland, Claudia. 2016. “Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law.” Congressional Research Service Report. Accessed July 15, 2019. ­https://​­fas​.­org​/­sgp​/­crs​/­misc​ /­R L30030​.­pdf. Everts, Curtiss M. 1957. “The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956.” American Journal of Public Health 47: 305–310. Accessed July 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​ .­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pmc​/­articles​/ ­PMC1551017​/­pdf​/­amjphnation01086​- ­0034​.­pdf. ­FedCenter​.­gov. 2019. “Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) of 1948.” Accessed July 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­fedcenter​.­gov​/­Bookmarks​/­index​.­cfm​?­id​= ​­2431. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2019. “Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act).” Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed July 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­f ws​.­gov​/­laws​/­lawsdigest​ /­FWATRPO​.­HTML. Glicksman, Robert L., and Matthew R. Batzel. 2010. “Science, Politics, Law, and the Arc of the Clean Water Act: The Role of Assumptions in the Adoption of a Pollution Control Landmark.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 32: 99–138.

132

Clean Water Action (CWA)

Laitos, Jan G., and Heidi Ruckriegle. 2013. “The Clean Water Act and the Challenge of Agricultural Pollution.” Vermont Law Review 37: 1033–1070. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­lawreview​.­vermontlaw​.­edu​/­w p​- ­content​/­uploads​/­2013​/­08​/­14​-­Laitos​ -­Ruckriegle​.­pdf. Milazzo, Paul Charles. 2006. Unlikely Environmentalists: Congress and Clean Water 1945–1972. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Squillace, Mark. 2012. “The Judicial Assault on the Clean Water Act.” Federal Lawyer 33. Accessed July 15, 2019. ­http://​­scholar​.­law​.­colorado​.­edu​/­articles​/­446. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Wetland Regulatory Authority.” Accessed July 15, 2019. ­https://​­19january2017snapshot​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​ /­files​/­2015​- ­03​/­documents​/­404​_reg​_authority​_fact​_sheet​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. “History of the Clean Water Act.” Accessed July 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­laws​-­regulations​/ ­history​-­clean​-­water​ -­act.

Clean Water Action (CWA) Clean Water Action (CWA) is a 501(c)(4) organization that organizes groups, coalitions, and campaigns to elect environmental candidates and to solve environmental and community problems. The CWA was founded in 1972 by David Zwick, whose book Water Wasteland helped in the passage of the 1972 Clean Water Act. CWA has its national headquarters in Washington, DC, and nineteen field offices in thirteen states. As such, it runs both national- and state-level campaigns. Although working to protect drinking water and cleaning polluted waterways are among CWA’s priorities, the group has supported efforts to protect against oil and gas production’s harmful environmental and health impacts and advocated for protection against toxic chemicals the promotion of clean energy and more civic engagement. CWA’s research and policy experts provide reports documenting how people’s water and health are threatened by polluters’ abusive practices. The group also produces fact sheets and action alerts on antienvironment rollbacks and other policy proposals coming out of Congress and federal agencies. CWA tracks “Dirty Water votes” in Congress and produces a Clean Water Scorecard that lists and ranks congressional members’ votes on key environmental issues. CWA’s webpage provides news, press releases, and publications, and the group also maintains the Clean Water Blog. As a 501(c)(4) organization, CWA actively supports political candidates. In the 2016 election cycle, the top three recipients of CWA’s campaign donations were Senators Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Katie McGinty (D-PA) and former senator Hillary Clinton. CWA also administers the Clean Water Fund, a 501(c)(3) tax status, which does not endorse candidates nor advocate for or against their election. The group sees among its most important accomplishments the passage of the Clean Water Rule and helping enact new federal limits on toxic water pollution discharged by coal-burning power plants. In recent years, CWA took part in the efforts to get the California Water Resources Board to adopt a strict drinking water standard for the toxic



Coal and Coal Dust 133

contaminant 1,2,3 TCP and also new “beneficial uses” standards to protect people who catch and eat fish for economic or cultural reasons. The group also helped in getting California to adopt new requirements for oil companies to disclose more of the chemicals injected underground, dumped in pits, and “recycled” in irrigation water. In Virginia, CWA helped win state legislation to address annual discharges of sewage and other contaminants. In Pennsylvania, it helped in the adoption of new methane rules requiring all new oil and gas wells, pipelines, and compressor stations to reduce leaks by more than 90 percent. In Michigan, CWA helped with a statewide campaign to address septic system pollution. In Rhode Island, it helped with implementing projects in urban Providence and Newport to improve water quality and reduce flooding. In Texas, the group helped in persuading Texas environmental officials not to permit a proposed “landfarm” that would have mixed oil and gas drilling wastes with soil to be spread on open fields in Nacogdoches near a tributary of Lake Sam Rayburn, a major drinking water supply. CWA also helped stop a proposed hydraulic fracturing wastewater (frackwater) disposal well from being drilled six hundred feet from Lake Arlington, the drinking water source for five hundred thousand area residents. Robert L. Perry See also: Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972); Natural Gas.

Further Reading

Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund. 2018. “2017 Annual Report.” Accessed July 20, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cleanwateraction​.­org​/­sites​/­default​/­files​/­docs​/­publications​/­Clean​ %­20Water​%­20Action​%­20​-%­20Clean​%­20Water​%­20Fund​%­20Anual​%­20Report​ %­202017​.­pdf. Schmidt, Callie. 2018. “David Zwick, Founder of Clear Water Action, Dies in Minneapolis at 75.” Twin Cities Pioneer, February 9, 2018. Accessed July 20, 2018. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­t wincities​.­com​/­2018​/­02​/­09​/­david​-­z wick​-­founder​-­of​-­clean​-­water​-­action​-­dies​ -­in​-­minneapolis​-­at​-­75.

Coal and Coal Dust Coal dust refers to a fine particulate most often found in mining situations but that can also be found in smaller amounts in nonindustrial settings. However, long-term exposure can result in significant toxicological and public health effects. Most notably, prolonged exposure to coal dust results in the development of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP), or black lung. Black lung may lead to a number of other respiratory illnesses but often results in complications that can be fatal later in life. Additionally, coal dust is a flammable and combustible substance. If multiple layers of coal dust sit and cake on top of each other, even a slight spark can result in a large explosion. With the confined spaces inside a coal mine, this often leads to serious injury or death. In response, the federal government has passed several laws meant to protect miners from both the negative health impacts from aspirating coal dust and from the safety risks associated with its combustibility.

134

Coal and Coal Dust

Coal dust colloquially refers to the pulverization of coal suitable for use in coal-powered electric power plants and mining throughout the United States, particularly in the eastern part of the United States, including Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Most notably, coal dust largely refers to a substance heavily regulated by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Serious health and environmental problems can occur when an area or a human is exposed to coal dust for a prolonged period. The most serious health effect from continued exposure to coal dust is coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP), or black lung. It is a disease more commonly referred to as industrial bronchitis, which is described as “a condition characterized by cough and sputum for at least three months a year, with or without airways obstruction, and which is related to the continued inhalation of dust” (Morgan 1978, 287). With this disease, sufferers can expect inflammation of the lungs, unproductive scarring of the lungs (meaning the wounds never fully heals), and possible necrosis. In addition, through imaging, the lungs of someone suffering from industrial bronchitis may exhibit black discoloration of the lungs, which forms because coal dust cannot be removed from the body when inhaled. As a result, the condition, although only rarely fatal in and of itself, results in complications as sufferers get older. However, the effects of coal dust are not solely in the health of employees that contract black lung, as coal dust can also cause explosions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stipulates that “coal dust explosions at underground mines and surface processing facilities are caused by accumulations of flammable gas and/or combustible dust mixed with air in the presence of an ignition source.” The problem became so severe in the coal mining areas of the country, notably West Virginia, that Congress passed legislation to help deal with the effects of CWP: the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. The act increased the number of on-site inspections of coal mines and the penalties for failure to comply with federal regulations governing coal mining. In addition, it also established that mine operators could face criminal penalties for knowingly or willfully violating the mining safety provisions. Eventually, Congress enacted the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which doubled the number of safety inspections of the MHSA at every mine. It included a provision that required that any unplanned ignition of coal dust be reported to the MSHA, and any employee who reported the unplanned coal dust ignition could not be threatened with termination or be terminated as a result of reporting the incident. Coal dust explosions are not some incident of yesteryear. In 2010, a coal dust explosion occurred at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia. The mine, operated by the Performance Coal Company, ignited because of coal dust, and twenty-five miners are believed to have died at the time of the explosion. As a result of many of the miners being trapped and dying as a result of the postexplosion conditions, Alpha Natural Resources, which acquired both the assets and liabilities of Massive Energy, which controlled the Performance Coal Company, agreed to pay a fine of $10.8 million and a $209 million judgment. As a result, the MSHA has also proposed a series of more stringent requirements on the amount of coal dust that a miner can be legally subjected to during a



Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants 135

certain period of time. The Respirable Dust Rule, proposed in 2010 and implemented in phases since 2014, limits the amount of coal dust a miner can be exposed to over a certain period of time. The MSHA tests and measures miners for how much coal dust enters their lungs. The MSHA tests are based on a single full-shift sample, and immediate remedial action is required if that sample exceeds the acceptable levels as prescribed by the rule. By 2016, the concentration amounts for respirable coal mine dust were reduced by 33 percent. Although it will take a while for the results of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Respirable Coal Mine Dust Rule, most preliminary results indicate that it will play a significant role in the reduction of black lung disease. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Further Reading

Department of Justice. 2011. “Alpha Natural Resources Inc. and Department of Justice Reach $209 Million Agreement Related to Upper Big Branch Mine Explosion.” Accessed October 24, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­justice​.­gov​/­opa​/­pr​/­alpha​-­natural​-­resources​ -­inc​-­and​-­department​-­justice​-­reach​-­209​-­million​-­agreement​-­related​-­upper. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). 2014. “Major Provisions and Effective Dates: MSHA’s Final Rule to Lower Miner’s Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust.” Accessed October 24, 2019. ­https://​­arlweb​.­msha​.­gov​/­endblacklung​/­docs​ /­summaryEffectiveDates​.­pdf. Morgan, W. K. C. 1978. “Industrial Bronchitis.” British Journal of Industrial Medicine 35: 285–291. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2016. “Mining Topic Explosion Prevention.” Accessed October 3, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­niosh​ /­mining​/­topics​/ ­Explosions​.­html. U.S. Department of Labor. 2016. “Respirable Dust Rule: A Historic Step Forward in the Effort to End Black Lung Disease.” Accessed October 24, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­msha​ .­gov​/­news​-­media​/­special​-­initiatives​/­2016​/­09​/­28​/­respirable​-­dust​-­r ule​-­historic​-­step​ -­forward​-­effort​-­end.

Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants Coal is an abundant domestic energy source. There were more than 257 billion tons of coal in reserves in the United States as of 2016, which is 25 percent of total world reserves. Going back to the nineteenth century, coal has been the dominant provider of both heat and electricity in developed economies. As recently as 2000, coal provided 51 percent of U.S. electricity generation, although this dropped significantly to only 32 percent in 2016 (Weber et al. 2018). By comparison, in 2015, the amount of China’s electricity generation provided by coal equaled 72 percent. The United States saw a corresponding decrease in coal-fired power plants in recent years, from 1,466 in 2008 to just 427 in 2016. Most of these coal-fired plants are aging, with most built before 1990 and almost 50 percent built before 1970. Coal offers numerous benefits as an energy source. It is plentiful and affordable, the supply chain is secure, and reliance upon coal does not pose risks to U.S.

136

Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants

national security in the way oil does. As of 2015, 45 percent of U.S. coal came from Wyoming, 24 percent from the Appalachian Mountain region in the Eastern United States, and most of the rest from Southern states. Despite these advantages, and as the above figures indicate, coal is declining as a preferred fuel source because of market pressures and regulatory efforts designed to diminish the environmental impacts of coal and reduce its use. However, the Trump administration has expressed its intention to reverse this market trend by providing greater federal support for coal mining and use. ECONOMIC FORCES Economic forces affecting the use of coal include, first and foremost, the explosion in U.S. supplies of natural gas since 2000 and the consequent low gas prices due to hydraulic fracturing. Low-priced gas has more than doubled natural gas’s share of the national energy portfolio, from 16 percent of all electricity generated in 2000 to 33 percent in 2016. At the same time, wind and solar energy have seen high levels of adoption due to their falling costs, which has been aided in many states by the enactment of renewable portfolio standards, legal requirements for utilities to provide specified levels of renewable energy to their customers. A good comparative measure across energy types is the unsubsidized levelized cost of electricity, which represents the per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) cost of building and operating a generating plant over the full life of the facility. This measure shows that onshore wind at 5.58 cents and photovoltaic solar at 7.37 cents are now significantly less expensive than coal at 10.0 cents and advanced nuclear at 9.77 cents, but they are still higher than advanced combined cycle natural gas at 5.38 cents (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2017). Moreover, according to three prominent economists, the social cost of six major air pollutants emitted by coal power plants add 2.8 cents per kWh to coal’s cost, while a relatively conservative estimate of $27 per ton for the social cost of carbon adds another 0.8 cent per kWh. With this adjustment, the levelized cost of new conventional coal plants increases to almost double that of onshore wind and about 46 percent more than photovoltaic solar energy (Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus 2011). Taken together, these developments have prompted utilities and independent power producers to prefer natural gas, wind, and solar energy as opposed to coal plants when adding capacity or replacing aging equipment.

POLLUTION PROBLEMS Air pollution problems stemming from coal combustion in coal-fired power plants are considerable and serious, with chief pollutants being sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), mercury, and greenhouse gases (GHGs), which are associated with climate change. In the late 1970s, scientists issued warnings about a possible link between the long-range transport of SO2 and NOx emissions and damage to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in Germany, Northern Europe, Canada, and the Eastern United



Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants 137

States. The concern was that SO2 and NOx, the primary precursors to acid rain, imposed an unprecedented and alarming acid burden on the forests, streams, and lakes in the affected areas, with the potential to produce irreversible damage to fragile ecosystems. Acid rain is also responsible for degradation of building surfaces exposed to the weather, particularly stone, brick, mortar, and metal, which can dissolve or corrode (Committee on the Atmosphere and the Biosphere 1981). In the United States and Canada, the principal source of acid rain was believed to be the heavy concentration of coal-fired industrial and utility plants in Midwestern and Eastern states, and in Scandinavia, the primary source was power plants in the United Kingdom—both hundreds of miles from the reported damage (NAPAP 1991). In addition, NOx gases, including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), are central to the formation of small particulate matter and ground-level ozone, both of which are associated with adverse human health effects. Breathing air with a high ­concentration of NO2 can irritate airways in the human respiratory system. Such exposures over short periods can aggravate respiratory diseases, particularly asthma, leading to respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, or difficulty breathing as well as hospital admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections, especially in children and the elderly. Mercury pollution is a serious problem in the United States, and coal-fired power plants are by far the largest source of mercury pollution. Every state has issued health advisories warning people to limit or avoid eating certain species of fish due to toxic mercury contamination. This is because mercury is a highly potent neurotoxin that adversely affects the function and development of the central nervous system in both people and wildlife. Exposure to mercury is particularly dangerous for pregnant and breastfeeding women and for children because mercury is most harmful in the early stages of human development. REGULATING COAL The coal industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States. Surface mining, which provides 70 percent of the country’s coal, is governed by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, and the U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for implementing this law. Underground mining is regulated by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in the U.S. Department of Labor under the authority of the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Coal mining operations are also covered by the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, to name a few of the most relevant statutes. The regulation of power plants is largely the work of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which enforces the CAA to manage air pollution throughout the country. Under the CAA, the EPA has implemented several regulations placing limits on pollution emissions while also requiring the use of

138

Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants

pollution control technologies. This regulatory framework has been one of the most contentious parts of the political debate over environmental regulation. One of the EPA’s key tools in regulating power plants has been the CAA’s New Source Review (NSR) permitting program. Adopted in 1977, NSR requires preconstruction approval for new power plants and for major modifications to existing plants to ensure that air pollution standards are met, particularly regarding levels of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and small particulate matter. The EPA can require the use of “scrubbers” to trap pollutants, specify smokestack heights, and determine the type and level of pollutants that may be emitted (EPA 2018b). One contentious issue involves defining what types of modifications trigger compliance with higher standards. A provision in the CAA exempts power plants built before the NSR program from using certain pollution controls. These plants are only subject to NSR standards at the time they make major upgrades or modifications. As a result, many coal-fired plants in the United States do not use the most effective pollution control technologies, and they can account for high levels of air pollution. In 2010, coal plants without desulfurization scrubbers produced 42 percent of coal-fired electricity while contributing 73 percent of coal’s SO2 emissions (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2011). Regulatory standards expanded during the Obama administration. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, finalized in 2011, is designed to cut emissions of SO2 and NOx that carry across state boundaries into neighboring states. These pollutants can prevent cities and regions downwind from maintaining legally required national air quality standards, thereby contributing to adverse public health impacts for their citizens (EPA 2017). This regulation faced legal challenges, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2014 (UARG v. EPA) that the EPA has the authority to implement it. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) are another 2011 addition to the regulatory framework governing coal power plants. MATS are the first federal standards requiring power plants to limit emissions of mercury, lead, arsenic, nickel, cobalt, and other toxic gases (EPA 2018a). This regulation was also challenged in court, and in this case, the Supreme Court placed a hold on its enforcement. The court did not invalidate MATS, but it ruled that the EPA did not properly consider the costs of implementing the measure. To comply with the ruling, the EPA assessed several cost metrics and concluded in 2015 that the industry can comply with the regulation and deliver affordable electricity to consumers (EPA 2016).

The EPA and GHGs As climate change has gained greater political saliency, the EPA has become involved in the process of regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) as air pollutants, including carbon dioxide (CO2). After a battle pitting several states against the federal government, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in EPA v. Massachusetts that the EPA had not only the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act



Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants 139

(CAA) but the responsibility to determine whether GHGs might reasonably be anticipated as causing harm to public health or welfare. Following the election of President Obama in 2008, the EPA studied the issue and determined that GHGs did endanger human health, which then led to EPA regulations for CO2 emissions from power plants, both new and existing. Starting with new power plants, the EPA proposed a rule in 2012 to establish a carbon emissions standard allowing 1,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity generated. This applied to both coal and natural gas plants. A controversy erupted because this standard is feasible only in natural gas plants. The carbon capture and storage technology that would be required for coal plants to meet the standard is so new, expensive, and untested that it would effectively mean an end to new coal plant construction until the technology could be proven. The opposition from the coal and utility industries to this proposal was quick and forceful, and it prompted an EPA revision. The final rule adopted in 2015 limited CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants to 1,400 pounds per MWh and natural gas plants to 1,000 pounds (EPA 2015b). The EPA also created a CO2 standard for existing power plants. In 2015, it issued the Clean Power Plan to cut CO2 emissions nationally by 30 percent over a fifteen-year period (Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines 80 Fed. Reg. 64661). The rule provides options for states to achieve compliance: energy efficiency, demand reduction, and increased use of renewable energy. Each state’s carbon dioxide target is different based on its starting point with regard to overall fuel mix, the level of renewables in use, and policies already adopted. For example, in Oregon, the closure of the state’s only coal-fired plant in 2020 will bring the state into full compliance. States such as Kentucky and West Virginia, however, have more modest targets because their power generation systems rely heavily on coal and have less potential for major reductions. The Clean Power Plan was hailed by supporters as one of the most significant actions the U.S. government has ever taken to address global warming and was also decried by opponents as a major threat to the U.S. economy. However, neither side has had the opportunity to see whether its prediction would come true. In early 2016, the Supreme Court halted implementation of the plan until legal challenges were resolved. UNCERTAIN FUTURE The many different laws and regulations governing coal and coal-fired power plants have resulted in major, often dramatic, reductions in air pollution. According to Fred Krupp, the director of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a leading national environmental advocacy group, the CAA’s scrubbers, acid rain program, and market developments have successfully reduced SO2 emissions from power plants by 90 percent over the past forty years. And while NOx emissions have declined significantly over the past decades, an innovative new law in Pennsylvania focused on reducing ground-level ozone reduced NOx emissions at coal-fired power plants by 60 percent in 2017, the first year of the program.

140

Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants

The most important recent development, however, is likely the election of President Trump, who came into office in 2017 promising that he would withdraw the Clean Power Plan and promote the use of coal. He lifted the Obama-era moratorium on coal mining leases on federal public lands, and congressional Republicans used the Congressional Review Act in March 2017 to repeal the “stream protection rule,” which was designed to stop the dumping of coal mine wastes into areas in and around adjacent waterways. Despite the policy changes that can be anticipated and the political battles they will generate, the declining market share for coal-fired power might not be easily reversed. The low price of natural gas and technological advances in fracking techniques, along with renewable portfolio standards in many states, have made new coal plants a difficult, low-return investment; hence, few new plants are being constructed. Edward P. Weber See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Coal and Coal Dust; Environmental Defense Fund (EDF); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

Committee on the Atmosphere and the Biosphere. 1981. Atmosphere-Biosphere Interactions: Toward a Better Understanding of the Ecological Consequences of Fossil Fuel Combustion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Muller, Nicholas Z., Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus. 2011. “Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy.” American Economic Review 101(5) (August 2011): 1649–1675. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). 1991. 1990 Integrated Assessment Report. Washington, DC: NAPAP. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­catalog​ .­hathitrust​.­org​/ ­Record​/­007404285. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011. “Coal Plants without Scrubbers Account for a Majority of US SO2 Emissions.” Today in Energy (blog), December 21, 2011. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­eia​.­gov​/­todayinenergy​/­detail​.­php​?­id​= ​­4410. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2017. Levelized Costs: Annual Energy Outlook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­eia​.­gov​/­outlooks​/­aeo​/­pdf​/­electricity​_ generation​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015a. “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.” Federal Register, October 23, 2015 (80 FR 64661): 64661–64964. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­h ttps://​­www​.­federalregister​.­g ov​/­d ocuments​/ ­2 015​/­10​/ ­2 3​/ ­2 015​-­2 2842​/­c arbon​ -­pollution​- ­emission​-­g uidelines​-­for​- ­existing​-­stationary​-­sources​- ­electric​-­utility​ -­generating. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015b. “Final Limits on Carbon Pollution from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Power Plants.” Last updated September 14, 2015. Accessed April 26, 2017. ­https://​­archive​.­epa​.­gov​/­epa​/­sites​/­production​ /­files​/­2015​-­11​/­documents​/­fs​-­cps​-­overview​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Final Consideration of Cost in the Appropriate and Necessary Finding for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants.” May 2016. Accessed April 26, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​ /­production​/­files​/­2016​- ­05​/­documents​/­20160414​_mats​_ff​_fr​_fs​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).” Last updated December 14, 2017. Accessed April 26, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­csapr.



Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters 141

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018a. “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).” Last updated February 13, 2018. Accessed April 26, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­epa​.­gov​/­mats. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018b. “New Source Review (NSR) Permitting.” Last updated September 5, 2018. Accessed April 26, 2017. ­http://​­www​ .­epa​.­gov​/­nsr​/. Weber, Edward P., David Bernell, Hilary S. Boudet, and Patricia Fernandez-Guardado. 2018. “Energy Policy: Fracking, Coal, and the Water-Energy Nexus.” In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, 10th ed., 194–218. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters The Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters (the Coalition) is an umbrella organization composed of over one hundred organizations concerned about, and seeking to prevent, exposure to chemical accidents and releases within the public, among workers, and in the environment. Its focus is industrial chemical release prevention and promoting safe industrial practices. The organizations include environmental justice, public health, and environmental groups and unions. According to the Coalition, chemical plants are often located in and around communities, and they have identified at least “12,440 high-risk chemical plants that store and use highly hazardous chemicals with the potential to kill or injure thousands of workers and community residents. Eighty-nine of these facilities put more than one million people at risk” (Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters n.d.). These facilities are often located in low-income and minority communities, creating a disproportionate risk and potentially fatal impact. The organization uses information and interactive mapping programs from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to geographically locate communities that are within a mile of a facility considered to be a user or producer of dangerous chemicals. This facility grouping by the EPA is called the Risk Management Program, and it requires reports from facilities that produce, store, and use large amounts of extremely hazardous chemicals. From this data, the Coalition has estimated that “4.6 million children at nearly 10,000 schools are at risk if a release was to occur” (Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters 2017). The Coalition advocated for President Obama to create strong regulations for the prevention of chemical accidents. Consequently, one of the major policies it supports is Executive Order 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (78 Fed. Reg. 48,029), signed by President Obama on August 1, 2013. This order attempted to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities and reduce the risks of hazardous chemicals to workers and neighboring communities. President Obama signed the order in response to an explosion at the West Fertilizer Company in West, Texas, that occurred in April 2013 when an investigation revealed failures by the company to implement several chemical safety and security requirements. The executive order pulls together several federal agencies to collaborate with state and local partners, including tribal nations, to improve regulations and standards as well as communication with stakeholders. Under the

142

Comprehensive Environmental Response

order, the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group was created, cochaired by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the EPA, and the U.S. Department of Labor. The Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations under the Clean Air Act updated the regulations mandated under the executive order. Carli Jensen (2016), the Toxics Campaign director for the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG), reports WISPIRG’s concern that this was a missed opportunity to implement policies that would truly prevent chemical disasters because it focuses more on emergency response measures after a release occurs rather than prevention. The Coalition strongly advocated for the regulations to be stricter in prevention. The result was three major changes referred to in the regulation as “preventive”: (1) conducting root cause analysis after an incident using an independent audit team, (2) an additional requirement to consider safer technologies, and (3) alternatives analyses as part of their five-year process hazard analysis that already takes place. The purpose of this additional step is to evaluate the practicability of using any inherently safer available technologies. As a result, the Coalition predicts that this executive order and its associated regulations will have a positive impact on prevention. The Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters has been compiling a list of the chemical incidents that have occurred since the West Fertilizer Company accident, which is available on its website. The list includes data on the facility, the chemical released, fatalities, and links to related information. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Executive Order 13650 (2013).

Further Reading

Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters. 2017. “Our Mission.” Accessed September 13, 2017. ­http://​­preventchemicaldisasters​.­org​/­about​/­mission. Executive Office of the President. 2013. “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.” Federal Register, August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48029). Exec. Order No. 13650 (August 1, 2013): 48029–48033. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​ .­federalregister​.­gov​/­d ocuments​/­2013​/­0 8​/­0 7​/ ­2013​-­19220​/­i mproving​- ­chemical​ -­facility​-­safety​-­and​-­security. Jensen, Carli. 2016. “US PIRG Testifies in Favor of Strong Chemical Plant Safety Rule.” Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group. Blog post, March 31, 2016. Accessed September 13, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­wispirg​.­org​/ ­blogs​/ ­blog​/­usp​/­us​-­pirg​-­testifies​-­favor​ -­strong​-­chemical​-­plant​-­safety​-­r ule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Executive Order on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.” Last updated August 7, 2018. Accessed September 13, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­r mp​/­executive​-­order​-­improving​-­chemical​ -­facility​-­safety​-­and​-­security.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)(1980) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) is a law passed by Congress that provides for the systematic cleanup of toxic chemicals by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



Comprehensive Environmental Response

143

(EPA) of abandoned sites. It also provides yearly funding through the Superfund trust to finance the cleanup costs. In addition, it also allows for the EPA and other parties to file suit against companies that are responsible for the contamination and win damages from the companies to help finance the cleanup. This can be up to triple damages in recovery costs. Under the legislation, two different types of responses are authorized: response and remedial actions. Response actions allow the EPA to authorize immediate cleanup of the locations. This is for situations that require a more urgent response to protect human health and the environment. CERCLA also allows for remedial actions, which normally denote a long-term cleanup procedure to remedy the contamination. To fund the cleanup, the legislation established a trust fund that is financed by three sources: a chemical manufacturer tax, the companies responsible for the original contamination, and normal appropriations made by Congress. The original legislation quickly demonstrated considerable flaws, including the lack of funding and the reluctance of the EPA to listen to resident complaints regarding the cleanup. As a result, in 1986, Congress reauthorized CERCLA as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act (SARA), which included a reauthorization of $8.5 billion and the requirement that the EPA respond to and implement resident suggestions near a Superfund site. Even with the amendments made in 1986, the legislation did not properly incorporate environmental justice provisions important to activists, so the Clinton administration addressed those via Executive Order 12898 in 1994. Additionally, the Clinton administration decided not to press to renew the chemical manufacturer tax that expired in 1995, leaving the Superfund trust fund in considerable deficiency. During the Bush administration, cuts to the EPA and to the congressional appropriations for administering the Superfund made progress on cleanup of toxic chemicals increasingly difficult. With the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, environmental activists and allies of the EPA thought that increased funding would surely come to administer the Superfund. The Obama administration did increase funding, but it was not nearly the attention that environmental activists had hoped for during the campaign.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF CERCLA Although the bill itself is quite long and dense, the CERCLA provided for three different changes in environmental policy. First, the U.S. government would undertake the cleanup of sites where toxic chemicals prove harmful to either humans or the environment. Second, Congress established a trust to hold the money that could be used to pay for the cleanup of the toxic materials. Third, the EPA could file suit in federal court against companies that operated a facility that directly led to the contamination of the area. What was unique about CERCLA was the ability to penalize companies retroactively (ex post facto) for disposing of harmful wastes before the creation of the EPA or many of the modern environmental laws and policies. This

144

Comprehensive Environmental Response

law also had strict and joint and several liability with the penalties. This meant that the EPA was not proportioning the responsibility of the cleanup activities but would charge the costs to the polluter with the most ability to pay (commonly referred to as the one with deep financial pockets). This is important because many of these sites are abandoned, so estates and other financial instruments are used to identify and hold accountable the companies involved for cost recovery. Because there are usually multiple companies involved with a site (including owner, transporter, and disposer), all parties are liable. The idea by Congress was to free up the EPA and allow the polluters to prove propositional impacts outside of the EPA through the courts for recovery. Also, if a property is purchased with contamination, if unknown by the new buyer, the owner is responsible for the remediation costs regardless of the pollution originator. This was one of the most revolutionary and far-reaching pieces of legislation in environmental public policy that Congress created for the protection of human health and the environment, and it continues to have a significant impact today. Under CERCLA, the EPA conducts two sets of operations. In the short-term, cleanup efforts focus on retrieving and removing as much of the contaminated waste as humanly possible without affecting or influencing the environment. In addition, the EPA cleans up the sites with careful consideration to the human toxicological impact, but it also walks that fine line between the importance of the cleanup process and interfering and interrupting the lives of people in the area. In the long-term, the EPA conducts remedial operations designed to help restore the environment and ensure the complete cleanup so that individuals can return to the area if they were evacuated or so the area can again be used for economic development of the area and a return to commercial and residential activity. Multiple sources fund the Superfund sites. In 1980, the revenue used for the cleanup sites came from a direct appropriation from Congress, with the appropriation transferred to a trust. The establishment of the trust meant that the funds for the cleanup sites could not be touched for other purposes within the EPA. For example, whatever Congress allocated for the Superfund, the EPA could not move the money around to fund other obligations within the EPA. From that time, the Superfund trust received yearly appropriations from Congress. In addition, the law established a tax on chemical companies, as chemical companies represented the most likely responsible parties for environmental crises that require cleanup from the EPA. Finally, the law established a classification system called the potentially responsible parties (PRP) list. Normally, those on the PRP can be sued in federal court to help fund the cleanup of the site that the company was instrumental in contaminating. THE CERCLA AND SARA PROCESS The process for becoming a Superfund site is not quick and can take many years to complete. First, the EPA needs a state or federal agency to report a site that is polluted or contaminated and needs cleaning and restoration. Once the EPA



Comprehensive Environmental Response

145

processes the report, a team from the EPA visits the location and assesses the potential dangers of the contaminants in that location. Using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS), which measures the potential impact on public health and the environment on a scale from 0 to 100, the EPA scores the site. The HRS measures the highest possible impact at 100 and the lowest possible impact at 0. If the HRS score for the site is greater than 28.5, the site immediately goes on the National Priorities List (NPL). When the visit and evaluation is conducted, the EPA also determines whether immediate action is required. If it is required, the EPA issues a source control action that projects the costs and starts construction of the needed facilities to stop the immediate contamination of the hazardous chemical in the area. At that point, the government will issue a Section 104(e) letter that details the problem at hand and normally incudes a general notice to industries in the area that may be included as a potentially responsible party (PRP) and could be subject to litigation under CERCLA and SARA. In addition, the legislation also allows for the EPA to enter the premises to gather information pursuant to a CERCLA and SARA investigation. In some cases, the EPA will issue a Section 106 order to immediately intervene in a facility that is releasing toxic chemicals into the environment or is at risk of doing so. Early on, many members of Congress quickly realized that there were some flaws in CERCLA as passed. One of the most glaring was that the original appropriation would not be sufficient to clean up all the sites designated as Superfund sites. As a result, in 1986, Congress (with President Reagan signing) passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Under SARA, a few reforms took place. Most importantly, it boosted the Superfund trust fund to $8.5 billion dollars, but it also required state involvement in every step of the Superfund process and required the EPA to seek and implement input and feedback from the local community about how to go about the plan of cleanup. In addition, it also required the EPA to place more weight on the impact of the human health effects of the contamination than the impact on the local environment (EPA 2009). CERCLA, SARA, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE One of the larger controversies associated with the Superfund concerned the equity of the sites chosen for cleanup. Although the Superfund trust contained resources to fund cleanup sites, the areas chosen for cleanup often ended up being rural areas away from urban cities (Bullard 2012). However, although the number of sites in rural areas on the list of cleanup sites tended to be more in number, the cleanups disproportionately avoided urban areas. As the divide between rural and urban areas often reflects not just population density but also race and poverty, some environmentalists began lobbying to allocate considerations for communities where minorities and low-income were overburdened with health risks. As a result, the Clinton administration promulgated Executive Order 12898, which required multiple federal agencies and cabinet-level departments to address

146

Comprehensive Environmental Response

the problems caused by the absence of “environmental justice.” The executive order included two main provisions. First, it required that to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands.

Second, it required that within three months of the date of this order, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (“Administrator”) or the Administrator’s designee shall convene an interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice (“Working Group”). The Working Group shall comprise the heads of the following executive agencies and offices, or their designees: (a)  Department of Defense; (b) Department of Health and Human Services; (c)  Department of Housing and Urban Development; (d) Department of Labor; (e) Department of Agriculture; (f) Department of Transportation; (g) Department of Justice; (h) Department of the Interior; (i) Department of Commerce; (j) Department of Energy; (k) Environmental Protection Agency; (l) Office of Management and Budget; (m) Office of Science and Technology Policy; (n) Office of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy; (o) Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; (p) National Economic Council; (q) Council of Economic Advisers; and (r) such other government officials as the president may designate. With the main goal of the Interagency Working Group (IWG) chiefly being to “provide guidance to Federal agencies on criteria for identifying disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations.”

CERCLA, SARA, AND FINANCE ISSUES However, CERCLA and its reauthorization in 1986 (SARA) encountered problems even bigger than environmental discrimination: the continual funding of the Superfund program. The Superfund legislation established a trust to fund the cleanup of the sites. The trust fund was financed with three different revenue streams. The first, and most important, involved yearly appropriations from Congress to help fund the cleanup projects. This money came directly from general revenues, which means that this appropriation was funded by taxpayers. The second part of the funding came from settlements from companies responsible for the pollution and contamination of the sites in question. Normally, these usually originated from settlements from lawsuits brought under CECRLA or its reauthorization that were finalized via consent decrees. In rarer instances, the company or potentially responsible party would take the lawsuit to trial and either be held not



Comprehensive Environmental Response

147

liable or liable for a certain amount based on the findings of the trial. The third part of the funding involved a tax on companies in the chemical manufacturing sector. However, this tax was not permanent and was scheduled to sunset in 1995. Ostensibly, the Clinton administration would have preferred for the tax to be reauthorized, but with the gridlock caused by the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives under the Contract with America, the administration felt that it did not possess the adequate political capital to successfully renew and reauthorize the chemical manufacturer tax. Congress chose not to reauthorize the tax on chemical companies, and by the 2003 fiscal year, the substantial costs of cleanup had depleted the entire Superfund trust. Now, Congress allocates funds on a yearly basis to help finance the cleanup when there is no additional financing from the company listed as the potentially responsible party because of lack of evidence or because the company no longer exists. More often than not, when a company loses a CERCLA suit in federal court, it simply does not maintain the financial resources to clean up the contamination or the judgment in effect requires the liquidation of the company. President Trump listed as one of the primary goals of his new administration was to accelerate the pace of cleanups and return sites to beneficial use in their communities. By September 30, 2019, the EPA had committed to release an additional 102 Superfund sites and 1,368 Brownfields sites (perceived lands that are undeveloped because of the apprehension of contamination) were ready for anticipated use. In addition, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2019 included additional and intensive funding for the top ten Superfund priority sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). However, many environmental activists balked at the new focus and emphasis, noting that even though the EPA listed these priorities, the EPA budget was actually cut substantially. Also, the new director may have conflicts of interest that might limit the legal actions available to companies that might be listed as potentially responsible parties (PRP). Robert L. Perry See also: Bullard, Robert (1946–); Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

Bullard, Robert. 2012. The Wrong Complexion for Protection: How the Government Response to Disaster Endangers African American Communities. New York: NYU Press. Konisky, David M. 2015. Failed Promises: The Federal Government’s Response to Environmental Inequality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. United States. 1980. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Pub.L. 96–510, approved December 11, 1980. 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. “SARA Overview.” Accessed July 7, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­superfund​/­policy​/­sara​.­htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019a. “Superfund: National Priorities List.” Accessed July 18, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­superfund​/­superfund​-­national​ -­priorities​-­list​-­npl.

148 Confidential Business Information (CBI) and Trade Secrets (TS) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019b. “Superfund Sites Targeted for Immediate, Intense Action.” Accessed August 26, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​ /­production​/­files​/­2019​- ­07​/­documents​/­ael​_update​_march​_2019​.­pdf​. ­U​.­S. Environmental Protection Alumni Association. 2020. “Superfund: A Half Century of Progress.” April 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epaalumni​.­org​/ ­hcp​ /­superfund​.­pdf.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) and Trade Secrets (TS) Confidential business information (CBI) and trade secrets (TS) are statuses granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allow industries to protect their property from being copied or stolen by others. When they are applied to the manufacture and production of chemicals or products using these chemicals, they take on a specific meaning. CBI considers a company’s unique product proprietary information if knowledge or replication of that product could cause the company to risk significant loss. Releasing such information could allow other companies to gain advantage over the originating company by learning about manufacturing processes or procedures and sometimes actual formulas of the product’s composition. Claiming a chemical as CBI protects that information by preventing labeling and disclosure to the public or federal agencies involved in its regulation. This has been a common protection sought by chemical companies. A TS is information related to production data, formulas, and processes; quality control tests and data; and research methodology and data generated in the development of the production process. A TS is valuable to a company’s competitor, who could gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace by knowing the information. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) requires that for a company to claim a CBI, it must file with the EPA a detailed written request for a claim. The EPA exercises discretion in granting CBI and TS protections because it basically removes the information from the consumer as well as medical providers and first responders. Regardless, environmental advocacy groups often complain that the EPA grants CBIs to protect what industries claim were trade secrets without detailing reasoned use of CBI, so in 2016, the Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amended the TSCA to restrict the EPA from granting CBIs without valid evidence of harm to the industry if it lacked protection. The law strengthens the EPA’s authority to review new chemicals and their uses, but it now seeks more detailed justifications of confidentiality claims. The 2016 changes to the TSCA added significant validation of all new CBI claims. It requires the EPA to make determinations within ninety days of the claim receipt. The EPA’s review and determination, provided through a written statement explaining the reasons for the decision, can result in the claim being denied or partially denied. The company can appeal through the U.S. district court. The EPA can grant a CBI and then assign a unique identifier to that chemical identity, declaring it an official TS and granting it protection from any Freedom of



Confined Disposal Facilities in the Great Lakes 149

Information Act (FOIA) requests filed on the federal government. The company can then apply this unique private identifier to other information or submissions concerning the same substance. The UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), known as HazCom 2012, allows industries to gain TS protection for the exact concentration of the chemical in a product; this means that in addition to, or as an alternative to, withholding the exact chemical identity, a manufacturer can withhold the exact concentrations of substances in products. These new TSCA provisions also state that if a CBI claim can be supported, then the safety data sheets (SDS) must include a statement that trade secrets are being claimed. It allows health officials and first responders access to CBI data and information in emergency situations without requiring a nondisclosure agreement. In nonemergency scenarios, trade secrets can be revealed through a formal nondisclosure agreement, but chemical manufacturers can refuse to disclose them. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) may then cite the manufacturer and impose restrictions for refusal. The result is that OSHA still allows chemical manufacturers to withhold the identification of chemical components from disclosure in SDS and product labels by simply stating that a specific chemical identity “is being withheld as a trade secret.” Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016); Global Harmonization System (GHS); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Confidential Business Information under TSCA.” Last updated June 22, 2018. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­epa​.­gov​/­tsca​-­cbi.

Confined Disposal Facilities in the Great Lakes Within the five Great Lakes of the United States, confined disposal facilities (CDFs) are used for holding sediments that are generated from projects requiring dredging. Dredging of harbors and enhancement of the waterway transportation system on the Great Lakes dates back to the early nineteenth century. Today, dredging remains the largest maintenance activity of the Great Lakes navigation system. Typically, about four million cubic yards of sediments are dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers each year from federal harbors and channels on the Great Lakes (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA 2003), with about half of the dredged materials being disposed of in CDFs because the materials contain pollutants. According to 2003 estimates, on average, the Army Corps spends about $20 million annually for dredging and dredged material management in the Great Lakes Basin (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA 2003). Up until 1960, the disposal of dredged material from Great Lakes channels and harbors was based solely on cost efficiencies. This meant unconfined, open-water disposal in most cases. Beginning in 1970, the Army Corps was funded under the River and Harbor Act to use CDFs for the disposal of dredged materials from the Great Lakes.

150

Confined Disposal Facilities in the Great Lakes

CDFs are considered disposal areas that are engineered to house contaminated sediment dredged from rivers, lakes, and coastal waters of the Great Lakes. The Army Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA 2003) has operated forty-five confined disposal facilities (CDFs) around the Great Lakes for the disposal of contaminated dredged materials from federal navigation projects. Today, the Army Corps (2019) oversees the construction and management of CDFs in the Great Lakes; there are approximately twenty-one active CDFs in the lakes. The majority of the CDFs have over ten years of capacity, with only a couple with less than five or ten years of capacity remaining. Several of the active CDFs have a capacity of over one million cubic yards, with the larger ones having over two million cubic yards (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA 2003). CDFs are not standardized in their design and construction. Each CDF is specifically engineered to contain the pollutant of the materials. The goal of CDFs is to ensure that the contaminated sediments are not allowed to migrate into the basin. This can be simple structures such as liners and controls to prevent migration into the lake or complex designs. The prime concern is to prevent leaching of the contaminants into the surrounding area for decades into the future, so these facilities require continuous monitoring of air, surface water, soils, and groundwater. This monitoring is also critical because these structures can remain active in receiving contaminated materials for over twenty years. As the lakes’ water levels change over time, this can be a concern for CDFs because of leakage into adjacent harbors, lakes, or streams as well as into the groundwater. Reliable and continual maintenance is required of these structures to ensure continual operation. According to the Army Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA 2003), CDFs retain the contaminated materials and produce effluents that meet state water quality standards. CDF operators use computer models to track and calculate the long-term release of contaminants to meet regulations and make changes to better control the contaminated matter. Dredged materials in the CDFs represent unique chemical and physical characteristics, depending on the source of the material, which is linked to past and present land uses in the watershed. Physically, dredged material can vary from fine clays and silts to coarse sand. Chemically, dredged material may contain valuable nutrients. In some cases, the material is not contaminated but in need of disposal. It is the contaminated CDF materials that contain a variety of chemicals that need monitoring (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA 2003). When the dredged materials contain a pollutant, CDF disposal is the only option available under the environmental laws and policies in the United States. However, this form of water disposal has become increasingly unacceptable to the public (Great Lakes Commission 2001). Instead, when possible, reuse and recycling of dredged material is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps. These agencies encourage reuse or recycling as opposed to disposal in the CDF. The agencies support the beneficial use of dredged material for a sustainable long-term management option for dredged material management in the Great Lakes Basin.



Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) 151

One problem with reuse and recycling of dredged materials that are not contaminated is that many of the existing CDFs, particularly those constructed in the 1970s, allow disposal at a lower cost than the costs of reuse or recycling (Great Lakes Commission 2001). When these types of beneficial use are more costly than disposal in a CDF, there is disincentive to beneficial use. This is a policy problem based on the economics of disposal versus beneficial use. REMEDIATION OF DREDGED MATERIALS IN CDFS The Army Corps and the EPA jointly regulate the discharge of dredged materials to the Great Lakes and its tributaries under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CDFs may contain a variety of contaminants. These can include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals, hydrocarbons, or other chemicals from the nearby industries and historical land uses of the area. Usually, dredged material is treated to remediate or lessen the contamination. Soil washing technologies have been used in the Great Lakes Basin at several of the CDFs. The simple technique of composting can also be used. This involves mixing the dredged material with organic matter and wood chips to degrade organic contaminants. It is an inexpensive option that can be effective. Thermal treatment has been used to heat up dredged materials to extremely high temperatures so that organic contaminants, such as PCBs and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are destroyed and heavy metals are immobilized. Heavy metals, such as lead and mercury, are one class of contaminants that require such aggressive forms of treatment for their degradation (Great Lakes Commission 2001). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Further Reading

Great Lakes Commission. 2001. Waste to Resources: Beneficial Use of the Great Lakes Material. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Commission. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­csu​.­edu​/­cerc​/­documents​/ ­WastetoResource​.­pdf. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2019. “Active Confined Disposal Facilities on the Great Lakes.” Map. Accessed January 22, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­lre​.­usace​.­army​.­mil​ /­M issions​/­G reat​-­L akes​-­Navigation​/ ­D redged​-­Material​-­Management​-­a nd​- ­CDF​ -­Fact​-­Sheets. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Great Lake Confined Disposal Facilities. Buffalo District. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­lrd​.­usace​.­army​.­mil​/­Portals​/­73​/­docs​/ ­Navigation​/­GL​-­CDF​/­GL​_CDF​.­pdf.

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)(1972) The Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), passed in 1972, typically governs most consumer products that are neither food nor drugs. Since its passage, the act has been used to ban products containing unsafe substances (such as lead paint),

152

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)

recall dangerous and defective products, and establish stringent safety standards for children’s toys and products. In the early 1970s, Congress found that an “unacceptable number” of consumer products on the market had unreasonable risks of injury. The complexities of consumer products and the abilities of consumers using them frequently resulted in an inability to know the risks so that consumers could safeguard themselves, so Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Act on October 27, 1972 (CPSA 2011). At the time, Congress felt that control by national, state, and local governments was largely inadequate to protect consumers. The major purposes of the act were (1) to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products; (2) to assist consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products; (3) to develop uniform safety standards for consumer products and to minimize conflicting state and local regulations; and (4) to promote research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries (CPSA 2011). Products that the CPSA would not cover included food, cosmetics, and drugs (which were already protected under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA]); tobacco; motor vehicles and related products (which were covered under the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration [NHTSA]); pesticides (which were already controlled under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]); aircraft (covered under the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]); and boats (covered under the U.S. Coast Guard) (CPSA 2011). This structure underlines the fact that, unlike many countries, the United States still lacks a comprehensive consumer protection code. Instead, the United States maintains a patchwork of federal and state laws. Thus, consumer protection law reflects a piecemeal effort on the part of Congress to protect consumers (Crane et al. 2011). One of the most important parts of the CPSA was the creation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which had among its primary responsibilities establishing mandatory safety standards governing the performance and labeling of more than fifteen thousand consumer products. Any differing state or local law was not allowed to preempt standards set by the CPSC. However, states and localities could obtain permission to set different product safety standards if the resulting standard produces a greater degree of protection than that offered by the CPSC and if there would be no undue burden on interstate commerce. The CPSC typically enforces standards through litigation and administrative actions. The commission requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to notify consumers or recall, repair, or replace consumer products that present a substantial hazard (CPSC 2010). Because the CPSA possessed broad authority in terms of statutory mandates, the CPSC is often a major focus of congressional inquiry and often conducts oversight hearings of the CPSC and introduces legislation that affects the commission (Carpenter 2018). Within the CPSC, the Office of Legislative Affairs serves as the principal liaison between the commission and members and committees of Congress. The office provides information and assistance to Congress on matters of



Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) 153

commission policy and coordinates testimony and appearances by commissioners and agency personnel before Congress (CPSC 2018). As established by the act, the CPSC consists of five commissioners appointed by the president. No more than three commissioners may be of the same political party (Carpenter 2018). The major charge of the commission is to maintain the National Injury Information Clearinghouse to collect, investigate, analyze, and disseminate injury data and information related to the causes and prevention of death, injury, and illness associated with consumer products. The CPSC’s reports form the basis of a statistically significant sampling of the consumer product–related injuries that occur in the United States and allow the CPSC to estimate the total number of these injuries that occur each year as well as the societal costs that result from these injuries (Carpenter 2018). Another charge for the CPSC is to assist public and private organizations or groups of manufacturers, administratively and technically, in the development of safety standards addressing the risk of injury identified in notices (CPSA 2011). To the extent practicable and appropriate, the CPSC is also to assist public and private organizations or groups of manufacturers, administratively and technically, in the development of product safety standards and test methods (CPSA 2011). In terms of the research that the CPSC is required to conduct, it is authorized through contracts and grants to team up with both governmental and nongovernmental entities to advance its research activities, and it generally requires the research from these collaborative efforts to be made publicly available, free of charge. In addition to issuing mandatory safety regulations, the CPSC also has the authority to implement regulations that state, “No feasible consumer safety standard would adequately protect the public from the unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product” (Carpenter 2018, 9). Several thousand consumer products are under the jurisdiction of the CPSC that are typically subject to either voluntary safety standards developed by private industry, mandatory safety rules issued by the CPSC, or a combination of both. At times, Congress has required the CPSC to implement mandatory consumer safety rules for toddler products, some children’s toys, and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) (Carpenter 2018). The voluntary standards are often developed by private industry development organizations, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Underwriters Laboratories (UL), and ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), which generally consist of trade groups, research bodies, consumer advocates, and similar entities (Carpenter 2018). Other examples of products for which the CPSC has set standards include bicycles, matchbooks, swimming pools, garage door openers, and portable generators (Crane et al. 2011). To enforce its statutory powers, the CPSC can order companies to halt the distribution of products in the commerce stream and to provide refunds and replacement products. It can also seek injunctive relief and civil penalties from federal district courts and may request the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue criminal penalties. To identify those instances where the exercise of these powers is needed, the CPSA requires industry to notify the CPSC of certain product hazards and

154

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)

authorizes the CPSC to conduct compliance inspections of facilities where consumer products are manufactured, stored, or distributed (Carpenter 2018). Under the CPSA, a product is considered to pose a substantial product hazard (SPH) when it fails to conform to voluntary safety standards, mandatory safety rules, product bans, or other CPSC-issued rules. A product may also pose an SPH if a defect in the product “creates a substantial risk of injury to the public” in terms of such things as the severity of the injury it could cause and the quantity of affected products that are in the market (Carpenter 2018). The CPSA outlines a number of factors that are weighed by an industry party making a determination of whether a product needs to be reported to the CPSC as a potential SPH, including the product’s usefulness; the product’s propensity for and potential severity of harm; the types of individuals who are most likely to be injured by the product (e.g., children, adults); and whether the risks of the product are readily apparent or can be sufficiently diminished through warning labels or instructions (Carpenter 2018). Beyond its authority to designate products as SPH, the CPSC can also seek court-ordered relief to address an “imminently hazardous consumer ­product”— defined by the CPSA as a “consumer product that presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury” (Carpenter 2018, 19). Under the CPSA, the CPSC is authorized to inspect any factory, warehouse, or establishment in which consumer products are manufactured. The CPSC is also authorized, through the secretary of the Treasury, to inspect consumer product samples before being offered for import (Carpenter 2018). As is true of several federal agencies, the CPSC typically lacks the resources it needs to inspect every consumer product manufactured in the United States or imported into the United States. As a result, the CPSC most often focuses its inspections on foreign products, as they have historically been more problematic than domestically produced products (Carpenter 2018). In terms of mandatory risk reporting under the CPSA, the act requires that consumer product manufacturers, distributors, importers, and sellers file a report with the CPSC immediately upon obtaining information concerning a product that poses a substantial hazard. Failure to comply with this reporting requirement can result in civil and criminal penalties (Carpenter 2018). This section of the CPSA (officially known as Section 6(b)) has been among the most controversial. In its original version, this section was particularly unique among federal regulations owing to the manner in which the release of information was restricted. Before the CPSC could release any information that identified a manufacturer, it first had to provide that manufacturer with the information and permit the manufacturer to comment on it or dispute its release. Whether or not the manufacturer chose to comment, the CPSC had to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information was accurate and that the disclosure of it was fair (Zollers and Berry 1991). Prior to 1980, the CPSC complied with Section 6(b) by subjecting all “active” releases of information to the requirements of the statute (Zollers and Berry 1991, 457). After Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, his Office of Management



Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) 155

and Budget director, David Stockman, sought to abolish the CPSC. That attempt was blocked, but Congress required compromise, namely in the form of amendments to the CPSA that emphasized voluntary industry standards over mandatory ones. The rulemaking process required cost-benefit analysis of rejected alternatives (Carter 2013). More significant was the interpretation given to the act by the 1980 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, when it held in the case of CPSC v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., that the statute applied to “passive” disclosures of information made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as well as to releases initiated by the CPSC (Zollers and Berry 1991, 457). Because of the court’s decision in the GTE case, the CPSC implemented a rule, effective in 1984, that detailed how the agency would meet its disclosure obligations. The upshot of the new rule was that requesters lost the incentive to work for change in the legislation (Zollers and Berry 1991). AMENDING THE CPSA In August 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which sought to strengthen federal regulatory power, increase funding for federal agencies, impose new requirements on businesses, and assist plaintiffs in product liability lawsuits. The CPSIA was implemented in large part owing to a number of high-profile product safety recalls—mainly recalls of Chinese-manufactured jewelry and painted toys that contained excessive, and in some cases dangerous, amounts of lead. The new act primarily addressed toys and children’s products. Among other things, the CPSIA lowered permissible lead levels in paint, imposed maximum permissible limits for lead in product substrates and components, banned certain uses of phthalates, and incorporated an ASTM toy standard as a CPSC rule (Leone and Berger 2009). Also, specifically related to children’s products, the CPSIA required manufacturers to place tracking labels on all products intended for children twelve and under and required advertising for certain toys and games intended for children from three to six years old to have warnings regarding potential choking hazards (CPSC 2009). The change toward lower allowable lead levels rolled out over a few years, gradually reducing parts per million. Eventually, products such as shirts with lead buttons would no longer be available for sale (Carter 2013). The CPSIA also imposed additional requirements that affected all consumer products (and not just children’s products), including greater CPSC recall authority, mandatory recall notice standards, broadened reporting requirements, adoption of a class-wide product hazard list, and the creation of a publicly accessible Consumer Product Safety Database identifying harmful products, which was mentioned above (Leone and Berger 2009). In 2011, reacting to pressure from manufacturers, Congress attempted to help with some products, such as bicycles with lead alloys in their spokes. The American Library Association successfully lobbied to keep pre-1976 children’s books on the shelves despite their having traces of lead in the printer’s ink (Carter 2013).

156

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)

In October 2017, the CPSC issued a final rule prohibiting children’s toys and childcare articles containing more than 0.1 percent of certain phthalate chemicals, including diisononyl phthalate (DINP); di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP); di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP); dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP); and diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP). Congress also permanently prohibited children’s toys and childcare articles containing concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of three additional phthalates in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA): di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP); dibutyl phthalate (DBP); and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) (CPSC 2017). Taylor C. McMichael See also: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Further Reading

Bishop, Lee L., and Nathaniel D. Hartland. 2011. “Customs and Product Safety Law Changes under the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.” Administrative & Regulatory Law News 36(4): 15–17. Carpenter, David H. 2018. “The Consumer Product Safety Act: A Legal Analysis.” Congressional Research Service. Accessed September 29, 2019. ­https://​­fas​.­org​/­sgp​/­crs​ /­misc​/ ­R45174​.­pdf. Carter, Terry. 2013. “Should This Toy Be Saved?” ABA Journal. Accessed September 29, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­abajournal​.­com​/­magazine​/­article​/­should​_this​_toy​_be​_saved. Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). 2011. Codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051−2089. Public Law 92-573; 86 Stat. 1207, October 27, 1972. August 12, 2011, version. Accessed September 29, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cpsc​.­gov​/ ­Regulations​-­Laws​--­Standards​/­Statutes​ /­Summary​-­List​/­Consumer​-­Product​-­Safet​-­Act. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2009. “CPSC to Enforce New CPSIA Requirements for Children’s Products Effective August 14.” Accessed September 29, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cpsc​.­gov​/ ­Newsroom​/ ­News​-­Releases​/­2009​/­CPSC​-­to​-­Enforce​ -­New​-­CPSIA​-­Requirements​-­for​-­Childrens​-­Products​-­Effective​-­August​-­14​-. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2010. Federal Regulatory Directory. 14th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 35–51. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2017. “CPSC Prohibits Certain Phthalates in Children’s Toys and Child Care Products.” Accessed September 29, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cpsc​.­gov​/ ­Newsroom​/ ­News​-­Releases​/­2018​/­CPSC​-­Prohibits​- ­Certain​ -­Phthalates​-­in​-­Childrens​-­Toys​-­and​-­Child​-­Care​-­Products. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2018. “Legislative Affairs.” Accessed September 29, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cpsc​.­gov​/­About​- ­CPSC​/­Office​-­of​-­Legislative​ -­Affairs. Crane, Edward M., Nicholas J. Eichenseer, and Emma S. Glazer. 2011. “U.S. Consumer Protection Law: A Federalist Patchwork.” Defense Counsel Journal 78(3): 305–330. Leone, Frank, and Bruce J. Berger. 2009. “The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, Its Implementation and Its Liability Implications.” Defense Counsel Journal 76(3): 300–312. Zollers, Frances E., and David Berry. 1991. “A Regulation in Search of a Rationale: An Empirical Study of Consumer Product Safety Act Section 6(b) and Its Effect on Information Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.” Administrative Law Review 43(3): 455–472.



Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 157

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) The CPSC is an independent federal regulatory agency that was created by the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972. The commission began operation in May 1973 with the mission to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury or death from consumer products, to assist consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products, to develop uniform safety standards for consumer products and minimize conflicting state and local regulations, and to promote research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries. The CPSC is headquartered in Washington, DC, and is headed by a five-member commission, with a presidential designee serving as the commission’s chair. In addition to the authority originally assigned to the commission when it was created, major consumer programs were transferred to the new agency from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW); and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Certain consumer products, including foods, drugs, and automobiles, continue to be regulated by other agencies and do not fall under the commission’s domain. The CPSC also does not regulate firearms, tobacco products, aviation and boating equipment, cosmetics, insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides. Within the CPSC, the Office of Legislative Affairs serves as the principal liaison between the commission and members and committees of Congress. The office provides information and assistance to Congress on matters of commission policy and coordinates testimony and appearances by commissioners and agency personnel before Congress (CPSC 2018). As part of its primary responsibilities, the CPSC establishes mandatory safety standards governing the performance and labeling of more than fifteen thousand consumer products. Any differing state or local law cannot preempt standards set by the CPSC. However, states and localities may obtain permission to set different product safety standards if the resulting standard produces a greater degree of protection than that offered by the CPSC and if there would be no undue burden on interstate commerce. The CPSC typically enforces standards through litigation and administrative actions. The commission requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to notify consumers or recall, repair, or replace consumer products that present a substantial hazard (CPSC 2010). Much of the CPSC’s efforts are accomplished through working with industries to develop voluntary standards. Many of these standards are met through the revision of existing industry standards, by repealing existing mandatory standards, or after notifying industries of emerging hazards. The CPSC’s power is somewhat limited in the sense that when it comes to regulating products containing substances such as asbestos and formaldehyde, which present risks of cancer, birth defects, or gene mutations, the CPSC is first required to form a chronic hazard advisory panel (CHAP) to review the available scientific data. The commission must consider the CHAP report before issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking involving the substance.

158

Cookstoves (Wood)

In its early years, the CPSC incorporated several mechanisms for ensuring maximum public participation in agency proceedings. Any interested and competent outside group was invited to offer, or propose, mandatory consumer product safety standards for eventual adoption by the agency. Until 1978, the CPSC was permitted to develop its mandatory safety standards only when no acceptable outside group had offered to do so. The relationship between the CPSC and regulated industries would greatly change when amendments to the law gradually shifted the commission’s functions from handing down mandatory design standards and bans to promoting and nurturing the voluntary industry standard–setting process. In most cases, companies have worked cooperatively with the CPSC to develop and implement voluntary corrective action plans to recall or otherwise correct products that may present possible substantial hazards. Robert L. Perry See also: Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of; Household Exposure; Insecticides; Rodenticides.

Further Reading

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2010. Federal Regulatory Directory. 14th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 35–51. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2018. “Legislative Affairs.” Accessed June 15, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cpsc​.­gov​/­About​- ­CPSC​/­Office​-­of​-­Legislative​-­Affairs.

Cookstoves (Wood) In all, about one-third of the world’s households and up to 95 percent of people in poorer countries burn wood as well as dung, peat, coal, and other biomass fuels for energy. Because the women in these households are primarily responsible for cooking and child care, women and young children are disproportionately affected by the indoor air pollution caused by the use of solid fuels and traditional stoves (Duflo et al. n.d.). This type of household cooking and heating emits large quantities of health-damaging particulate matter and climate-warming pollutants, which increases the risk of respiratory illnesses, including childhood pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular diseases, and lung cancer. As well, the use of traditional fuels for household cooking and heating is often associated with a high risk of burns and poisoning—such as when children ingest kerosene. Wood smoke is an aerosol, and it can contain hazardous gases, wood tars, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and soot. While many countries have few rules against using wood stoves, in the United States, some local authorities have placed a ban on wood stoves and open burning, and the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has specified emission standards for wood stoves and encourages consumers to switch to cleaner wood-burning appliances (Ncube and Phiri 2015). Along with the household-related dangers of wood-burning cookstoves, there remain problems related to environmental sustainability. In Tanzania, for



Cookstoves (Wood) 159

example, its energy sector is dominated by wood fuel, mainly charcoal and firewood, with over 75 percent dependency. The wood is collected from a variety of tree species, and the country has no formal biofuel policies. Forest loss in Tanzania is estimated at four hundred thousand hectares per year. Research suggests that it will take about eighty-five years for all forest resources to be completely destroyed (Felix 2015). Several worldwide efforts have been made toward getting people, particularly in rural areas, to use “improved cookstoves” (ICSs). For instance, in 2009, the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen (COP15) established the Safe Access to Firewood and Alternative Energy in Humanitarian Settings (SAFE) stoves initiative. One of the initiative’s intents was to replace traditional stoves with cleaner varieties, which would raise the possibility of mitigating indoor air pollution while also reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—a win-win situation (Simon et al. 2012). However, several issues with ICSs remain, including the facts that cookstoves and fuels cannot be purchased or easily obtained; those who determine that the ICS is required are outside “experts”; the ICSs are provided as part of a technical package without taking user preferences into account; the design does not resemble that of traditional stoves; the ICS is difficult to light and requires pellets; and, finally, monitoring and evaluation were not designed and budgeted as part of the program (Catalán-Vázquez et al. 2018). Thus, achieving the substantive win-win conditions mentioned above will require more scholarly and practical engagement (Simon et al. 2012). Robert L. Perry See also: Household Exposure; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Catalán-Vázquez, Minerva, Rosario Fernández-Plata, David Martínez-Briseño, Blanca Pelcastre-Villafuerte, Horacio Riojas-Rodríguez, Laura Suárez-González, Rogelio Pérez-Padilla, and Astrid Schilmann. 2018. “Factors That Enable or Limit the Sustained Use of Improved Firewood Cookstoves: Qualitative Findings Eight Years after an Intervention in Rural Mexico.” PLOS ONE 13(2): e0193238. Duflo, Esther, Michael Greenstone, and Rema Hanna. n.d. “Cooking Stoves, Indoor Air Pollution, and Respiratory Health in India.” Accessed November 1, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­povertyactionlab​.­org​/­evaluation​/­cooking​-­stoves​-­i ndoor​-­air​-­pollution​-­a nd​ -­respiratory​-­health​-­india. Felix, Mwema. 2015. “Future Prospect and Sustainability of Wood Fuel Resources in Tanzania.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51: 856–862. Ncube, Elisha, and Benjamin Phiri. 2015. “Concentrations of Heavy Metals in Eucalyptus and Pinus Wood Sawdust and Smoke, Copperbelt Province, Zambia.” Maderas: Ciencia y tecnología 17(3): 585–596. Simon, Gregory L., Adam G. Bumpus, and Philip Mann. 2012. “Win-Win Scenarios at the Climate–Development Interface: Challenges and Opportunities for Stove Replacement Programs through Carbon Finance.” Global Environmental Change 22(1): 275–287. Accessed November 1, 2019. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1016​/­j​.­gloenvcha​ .­2011​.­08​.­007.

160

Copper (Cu)

Copper (Cu) Copper is a red metal that occurs naturally in soil, water, and air. It is an essential element for biotic processes in plants, animals, and humans, which means copper has to be included in human diets and absorbed by plants so that they will grow. One of the physical characteristics that make copper so useful is that it is strong yet malleable, which makes it ideal for molding. It is primarily used as a metal (versus a compound) and is a frequent ingredient in metal alloys to make brass and bronze products. It is a common component in plumbing pipework, sheet metal, and electrical wiring. The penny, the lowest form of U.S. currency, was mainly made of copper until 1982, after which it was only used for the outer layer. Copper sulfate is a bluish-green compound that is most commonly used in agriculture, but it is often used in chemistry teaching laboratories and can be found in craft kits sold for children, such as those that grow crystals. It is nontoxic to birds but can be toxic to fungi, algae, and aquatic life. As a result, many pesticides employed to manage algae blooms in lakes include copper or copper compounds, as do other water treatments; agricultural treatments for plant diseases, such as mildew; and preservatives for wood, leather, and fabrics. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2004), long-term exposure to copper dust can be an irritant and cause headaches and dizziness. Extreme exposures to copper can induce nausea and diarrhea, and ingesting it in increased amounts may cause liver and kidney damage or be fatal. Copper is not classified as a human carcinogen. Exposure to high concentrations is rare, but this can occur through industrial and mining sources or wastewater releases into waterways. The most likely toxic exposure is when it migrates into drinking water via corroded copper pipes under acidic conditions. In 2017, twenty-three copper mines operated in the United States across Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Montana, Michigan, and Missouri (USGS 2018, 52). Copper and its alloys are primarily used in building construction, transportation equipment, electrical and electronic products, and consumer and general products. In the United States, copper is frequently recovered from recycled scrap metals. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); Heavy Metals.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2004. “Copper.” Public Health Statement, September 2004. Accessed September 12, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­ToxProfiles​/­t p132​-­c1​-­b​.­pdf. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Copper.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed September 12, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­37. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Copper, CID=23978.” PubChem Database. Accessed September 12, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound ​/­Copper.

Corrosives 161 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. “Copper.” Mineral Commodity Summaries (January 2018): 52–53. ­https://​­minerals​.­usgs​.­gov​/­minerals​/­pubs​/­mcs​/­2018​/­mcs2018​.­pdf.

Corrosives The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies a corrosive substance as one that has the ability to break down or dissolve another material. Sometimes chemicals that are corrosive are referred to as caustic. Such substances are considered highly reactive. They can be liquids, solids, or gases with very basic or acidic pH, and they possess the power to oxidize other materials, cause deterioration, or indirectly cause inflammation. The corrosiveness of a chemical is considered hazardous because it irritates on contact and can pose a danger to human health and the environment. It is one of the factors that contributes to a chemical’s listing as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1973 (RCRA). Under that act, the EPA controls hazardous wastes, including corrosives, from “cradle to grave,” a phrase commonly used with this law that means from production to disposal and everything in between, such as transportation, treatment, and storage. Corrosion can take many forms. Microbial corrosion is caused by the activity of bacteria. Dealloying is corrosion found in metals alloys, and erosion from water exposure can also be a corrosion. The town of Flint, Michigan, has had a problem in recent years with corrosion in water delivery pipes. When the city decided to use the Flint River for its drinking water source in April 2014, it made the decision to not include anticorrosive agents in the water, which would have kept metals such as lead from leaching out of the older pipes. In the past, the city had relied on Lake Huron for drinking water, which has fewer corrosive characteristics; however, the Flint River water is corrosive from years of chlorine from deicers and other sources, such as disinfectants, leaching into the river. It was this exposure to the iron, copper, and some lead pipes, which were often held together with lead-based solder, that caused the deterioration. While corrosivity can also be a characteristic applied to chemicals that break down metals, it can occur naturally through deterioration. For example, rust can occur with all metal-based equipment and devices, such as automobiles, home appliances, water and water delivery pipes, bridges, public parks, and buildings. This concerns industries and cities because such things require maintenance and replacement to maintain safety, which can become extremely costly over time. Left untended, it can deteriorate and degrade the structural integrity of equipment, causing it to malfunction. Such a malfunction happened with a ride at the Ohio State Fair on July 26, 2017, causing injuries to several riders and the death of an eighteen-year-old. In this case, a structural beam supporting the ride had failed from corrosion. Another type of corrosion occurs in skin. Ulcers, bleeding, bloody scabs, lesions, and scars—results similar to a burn—can follow contact with a corrosive and may cause permanent damage to skin and tissues. When skin, eyes, or

162

Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of

other body parts become exposed to a corrosive chemical, it is customary to immediately flush the area with water. If these chemicals are ingested or inhaled, it is highly advised that exposed individuals seek emergency medical attention. Several common household chemicals are corrosive. Hydrogen peroxide is corrosive because it is such a strong oxidizer. Others are bleach, drain cleaners, mold and mildew cleaners, and toilet and oven cleaners, so caution should always be taken when using these chemicals. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Bleach (NaOCl); Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination (2016); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Bever, Lindsey, and Alex Horton. 2017. “Catastrophic Fireball Incident at Ohio State Fair Caused by Corrosion, Ridemaker Says.” Washington Post, August 7, 2017. Accessed August 28, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­washingtonpost​.­com​/­news​/­morning​-­mix​ /­w p​/­2017​/­0 8​/­0 7​/­c atastrophic​-­f ire​- ­b all​- ­a ccident​- ­a t​- ­ohio​- ­s tate​-­f air​- ­c aused​- ­by​ -­corrosion​-­ridemaker​-­says. “Characteristics of Corrosivity.” 2018. 40 C.F.R. §261.22. “Health Hazard Criteria (Mandatory).” 2018. 29 C.F.R. §1910.1200 App. A. Helmenstine, Ann Marie. 2017. “Corrosive Definition in Chemistry.” ThoughtCo. Updated April 18, 2017. Accessed August 28, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­thoughtco​.­com​ /­definition​-­of​-­corrosive​- ­604961. Jacobsen, Gretchen A. n.d. “Corrosion Basics.” NACE International. Accessed August 28, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­nace​.­org​/­Corrosion​-­Central​/­Corrosion​-­101​/­Corrosion​-­Basics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1980. Characteristics of Corrosivity. Background Document of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, May 2, 1980. Accessed August 28, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​ /­2016​- ­01​/­documents​/­d002backgroundonly​_v2​.­pdf.

Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of Cosmetics and personal care products are an understudied source of multiple toxic chemical exposures, especially for women, because they can contain chemicals ranging from formaldehyde to mercury to lead. Exposure to such toxins has been associated with increased cancer, reproductive damage, endocrine dysfunction, and impaired brain development in children. Different health impacts are explained by a variety of variables. Specific subgroups of women are particularly at risk. For example, women ages eighteen to thirty-four are particularly vulnerable to the toxic chemicals because they frequently buy ten or more cosmetic or personal care products per year. Women and their young children have a heightened vulnerability when cosmetics are used immediately before or during pregnancy (Branch et al. 2015). Interestingly, the millennial generation is using cosmetics at a far greater rate than previous generations. Survey data that reflects the U.S. population of reproductive-aged women indicates that women of color have higher levels of certain endocrine-disrupting



Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of 163

chemicals, such as phthalates and parabens, in their bodies than the population of Caucasian women. These differences were not explained away by simply controlling for income levels. This indicates there is a distinct racial component to the rate of exposure independent of income. Cumulative environmental risk factors assessments among socially disadvantaged populations have consistently demonstrated that those populations are at greater risk to pollutants because they already dwell among place-based pollution sources, such as industrial or manufacturing activities and normal urban high-volume traffic with their harmful gases and particulates. Unfortunately, exposure to the toxic chemicals used in cosmetics manufacturing often takes place in those mostly urban communities and further increases that population’s risks. Many workers in the beauty manufacturing industry are either women of color or recent immigrants; thus, they face occupational health hazards from chemicals used in the manufacture of cosmetic products that are partially the consequence of insufficient regulatory oversight. The U.S. cosmetic industry is estimated at $400 billion annually. Many cosmetic purchases are the result of both conscious and subconscious pressures felt by brown and black women to emulate their white female counterparts, which media and advertising all too often portray as the female ideal. According to Zota and Shamasunder (2017), black women purchase nine times more hair relaxers and straighteners than other ethnic groups, Latino women are the fastest-growing consumers of cosmetic products, and Asian Americans spend 70 percent more on skin care products than the U.S. average. Many of these products are designed to lighten skin. Studies show that Northern European–based beauty archetypes lead to body shame and skin color dissatisfaction, which can in turn lead to depression or efforts to achieve the societal ideal. The direct consequence of idealizing whiteness is the growing purchases of chemicals that promise straighter hair and lighter skin. The cosmetic industry is a direct beneficiary of these fears, norms, and expectations that have transformed whiteness into a global iconic standard. Colorism (a form of racism) pushes many darker-skinned women to purchase skin-lightening creams that may contain large amounts of mercury. The daily application of mercury-containing products produces poisoning, neurotoxicity, and kidney damage. A medical case study recently reported that pregnant women from Mexico City presented with significantly heightened blood levels of mercury (15 ug/L). The evaluated blood mercury levels were the result of using lightening face creams that contained mercury in greater than twenty thousand parts per million (Dickensen et al. 2013). Similarly, the ideal of straight hair—characteristic of those with a Northern European ancestry—has created a market for hair relaxers and associated products that frequently contain parabens and estrogenic chemicals. The desire for straight hair leads to exposure in many black and brown females that can result in uterine fibroid tumors, premature puberty, and endocrine diseases.

164

Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of

Women of color have long been subject to racial slurs pertaining to body odors that are wrongly associated with ethnic groups. Abject fear of embarrassing odors has driven many black and brown women to use vaginal douches and other feminine products at a far higher rate than white women. Products containing phthalates and talc powders are associated with increased numbers of gynecologic cancers and endocrine diseases (Branch et al. 2015). Consequently, women who report frequent douching have 150 percent higher exposures to phthalates then women who do not frequently douche. Regulations governing cosmetics are relatively weak, and the scientific evidence suggests that current regulations do not prevent the unhealthful use of cosmetics, especially those related to hair straightening and skin lightening. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with regulating cosmetics. The primary laws pertaining to cosmetics sold in the United States are the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). Although the FDA regulates cosmetics under these laws, it lacks the authority to disapprove dangerous cosmetics before they are sold to consumers, although the FDA does review and approve (or disapprove) color additives used in many cosmetics, except coal tar hair dyes. Under the law, cosmetics cannot be adulterated or misbranded. They must be safe for consumers when used per the directions on the label. Companies and individuals who market cosmetics have a legal responsibility to ensure their products are safe and labeled properly. If there is reliable information that a product has been mislabeled or misbranded, the FDA can act against the manufacturer. John Munro See also: Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (1972); Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Phthalates.

Further Reading

Branch, Francesca, Tracy J. Woodruff, Susanna D. Mitro, and Ami R. Zota. 2015. “­Vaginal Douching and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Phthalates Exposures among Reproductive-Aged Women: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001–2004.” Environmental Health 14(1) (July 15, 2015). Accessed ­September 21, 2017. ­https://​­ehjournal​.­biomedcentral​.­com​/­articles​/­10​.­1186​/­s12940​- ­015​- ­0043​- ­6. Dickenson, Carrie A., Tracey J. Woodruff, Naomi E. Stotland, Dina Dobraca, and Rupali Das. 2013. “Elevated Mercury Levels in Pregnant Woman Linked to Skin Cream from Mexico.” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 209(2) (August 2013): e4–e5. Kobrosly, Roni L., Lauren E. Parlett, Richard W. Stahlhut, Emily S. Barrett, and Shanna H. Swan. 2012. “Socioeconomic Factors and Phthalate Metabolite Concentrations among United States Women of Reproductive Age.” Environmental Research 115 (May 2012): 11–17. Zota, Ami R., and Bhavna Shamasunder. 2017. “The Environmental Injustice of Beauty: Framing Chemical Exposures from Beauty Products as a Health Disparities Concern.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 217(4): 418. e1–418.e6.



Council of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation 165

Council of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Sound Management of Chemicals Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico (1995) On September 14, 1993, the United States, Canada, and Mexico agreed to foster the protection and improvement of the environment through sustainable development based on cooperation. This was an agreement in support of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to promote pollution prevention policies. Environmental groups raised concerns about the role of environmental protections associated with NAFTA because of the difference in environmental policies across the three countries. Specifically, there was a concern that companies would migrate to Mexico, where industrial standards for environmental pollution and prevention are more relaxed than the compliance enforcement in the United States. The agreement included emergency preparedness measures, environmental education, and the use of economic tools for the implementation of environmental goals. It also created the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The commission included a council, a secretariat, and a Joint Public Advisory Committee. The council was required to focus on developing pollution prevention techniques and concern for transboundary and border issues, such as the long-range transport of air and marine pollutants. Harmful exotic species control and conservation were also a policy focus. The council was to include eco-labeling, environmental emergency response and preparedness, the protection of endangered and threatened species, training in the environmental field, and conservation measures for ecosystems. In regard to chemicals, the commission has issued regional plans on PCBs, DDT, dioxin, mercury, and other persistent organic pollutants. According to Allen (2012, 123), since the creation of the agreement, the three countries have collectively invested over $140 million into its implementation, and the United States and Canada have continued to use its policy framework as the model for addressing the environmental effects of other free trade agreements. Historically, the majority of the CEC’s substantive work has been related to cooperative initiatives clustered under four core programmatic themes: conservation of biodiversity; law and policy; environment, economy, and trade; and pollutants and health, with pollutants and health being the most funded of all the areas (Allen 2012, 30). Allen’s empirical research (2012, 190–191) on the commission shows that its overall effectiveness in achieving its principal mandates and fostering tangible changes in policy or government action has been quite limited. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); Dioxins; Mercury (Hg); Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

Allen, Linda. 2012. “The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation: Has It Fulfilled Its Promises and Potential?: An Empirical Study of Policy Effectiveness.” Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 23(1):

166

Cresol (C7H8O)

122–198. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­colorado​.­edu​/­law​/­sites​/­default​/­files​ /­Vol​.­23​.­1​.­pdf. Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2018. “Sound Management of Chemicals.” Accessed April 1, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­cec​.­org​/­our​-­work​/­projects​/­sound​-­management​ -­chemicals. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 1993. North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between the Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America. September 14, 1993. Accessed on April 1, 2019. ­http://​­www​ .­worldtradelaw​.­net​/­nafta​/­naaec​.­pdf​.­download.

Cresol (C7H8O) Cresol, or cresylic acid, generally refers to a mix of three similar chemicals, o-cresol, m-cresol, and p-cresol, which are methylphenol organic compounds. These corrosive chemicals may occur as a mixture or individually. As a mixture, they exist as brownish liquid; separately, they exist as colorless solids. The mixture is described as having a medicinal odor. It is widely occurring and can form naturally in the human body or be produced in soil and water from the decomposition of other substances. It is found in tomatoes, asparagus, butter, cheeses, bacon, smoked food, red wine, coffees, and teas as well as in crude oil and coal tar. Cresols evaporate slowly from soil and water surfaces but can be readily decomposed by bacteria. They are released into the air from automobile emissions, municipal solid waste incinerators, power plants, oil refineries, cigarettes, and burning coal or coal tar, oil, and wood. These chemicals do not bioaccumulate in the ecosystem. As strong antioxidants and effective disinfectants and deodorizers, cresols are often used as a wood preservative (cresol is a chemical components of creosote), as solvents to dissolve other chemicals, and as insecticides and pesticides. Specifically, o-cresol is used as a disinfectant in industry, m-cresol is used in manufacturing herbicides and explosives, and p-cresol is used in perfumes and dyes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies cresol as a possible human carcinogen. Exposure may occur in the workplace, by breathing contaminated air, or by drinking contaminated water. The most common exposures are through dermal contact and inhalation; it can irritate the skin and respiratory system. Ingestion is rare; however, at high concentrations, these chemicals are fatal and can affect the gastrointestinal system, liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Corrosives.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008. “Cresols.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 12, 2015. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxfaqs​/­tf​ .­asp​?­id​= ​­945​&­tid​= ​­196. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. “Cresol/Cresylic Acid.” Updated January 2000. Accessed October 13, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​ /­files​/­2016​- ­09​/­documents​/­cresol​-­cresylic​-­acid​.­pdf.



Cumulative Impacts 167

Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are the collection of the total combined activities that may have an effect. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative impacts as impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR Sec. 1508.7). As part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), all federal agencies have to consider environmental and human health impacts of their proposed actions. In 1997, the CEQ produced a handbook on how to consider and identify cumulative impacts in the preparation of NEPA documents. The assessment of cumulative impacts is required under NEPA. These impacts are usually included in draft environmental impact statements and potentially in environmental assessments. This includes the review of incremental effects on humans and the environment. When these impacts are disproportionate to minorities, low income or certain ethnicities, this has been referred to as environmental justice communities. Moreover, these communities tend to have cumulative impacts from a variety of environmental contaminants without the resources to address or offset the impacts. These environmental communities are considered overburdened from the impacts and have a considerably higher health risk than other communities. Certain populations and communities are more vulnerable to health impacts from these cumulative environmental burdens. For instance, those with chronic health conditions and a lack of resources for treatment have more detrimental results from cumulative impacts. Variables such as poverty, food insecurity, poor housing, lack of health care, and poor drinking water and air quality add to the vulnerability to the health risks associated with cumulative impacts. Lower socioeconomic factors and the genetic composition of the individual can yield more negative consequences from cumulative impacts. According to Soloman et al. (2016), the concept of allostasis, which means being able to maintain stability through change, is one model for understanding the relationship between health outcomes, psychosocial stressors, and environmental exposures. They point out that “quantitative assessment of cumulative risk is impractical or impossible in many real-world situations because data on interactions among environmental stressors are unavailable, information on place and population-specific exposures is lacking, and validated models relating exposure to effect for multiple chemicals and combinations of chemicals do not exist” (Soloman et  al. 2016, 84). Stressors can include chemical, biological, social, and physical factors. The Pesticide Action Network (PAN 2019), an advocacy group, explain how cumulative risk assessment has been taking place for many years in Europe. However, after more than ten years of these studies, cumulative impacts are still not accounted for. Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CEQ, and other environmental agencies are not set up to cross pollution policy areas to fully evaluate and understand the cumulative impacts from the different contaminants in addition to the context in which the human lives. Kelly A. Tzoumis

168

Cuyahoga River Fires (Cleveland, Ohio)

See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Executive Order 12898 (1994); Overburdened Community; Pesticide Action Network (PAN).

Further Reading

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. January 1997. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. Accessed April 5, 2019. ­https://​­ceq​.­doe​.­gov​/­publications​ /­cumulative​_effects​.­html. Council on Environmental Quality(CEQ). 2012. “Cumulative Impact.” January 1, 2012. 40 CFR Sec. 1508.7. Pesticide Action Network (PAN). 2019. “Cumulative and Synergistic Effects of Pesticides.” Accessed April 5, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­pan​-­europe​.­info​/­eu​-­legislation​/­legislation​ -­plant​-­protection​-­products​/­cumulative​-­and​-­synergistic​-­effects​-­pesticides. Soloman, Gina M., Rachel Morello-Frosch, Lauren Zeise, and John B. Faust. 2016. “Cumulative Environmental Impacts: Science and Policy to Protect Communities.” Annual Review of Public Health 37: 83–96.

Cuyahoga River Fires (Cleveland, Ohio) The Cuyahoga was once one of the most polluted rivers in the United States. Between the 1860s and 1960s, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, had caught on fire a number of times. As a result of the last fire, in June 1969, and other environmental disasters during that decade, public pressure concerning land and water pollution led Congress to eventually pass the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was signed into law on January 1, 1970. During the mid–nineteenth century, the Cuyahoga River, which flows through the industrial centers of Akron and Cleveland, became a center for iron ore and coal. Its location on Lake Erie made it an attractive place for industry. Cleveland is where John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil empire got its start. The river there was used as both an industrial and sewage waste dump. In 1881, then Cleveland mayor Rensselaer R. Herrick proclaimed that it was an “open sewer.” Beyond the foul smells and its yellowish tint, little concern was given to any ecological problems of the river because Cleveland got most of its drinking water from Lake Erie. Any such problems were often seen as simply the price to pay for industrial success. Most of the earlier industrial pollutants dumped into the river included oil, grease, paint, and metals. Later, pollutants included polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, ammonia, organic chemicals, and bacteria. The first documented time that the river caught fire was in 1868. Over the next century nearly a dozen fires would follow. The costliest in terms of human lives occurred in 1912, when a spark from a tugboat on the river ignited oil leaking from the Standard Oil cargo slip, causing the deaths of five people. The largest and most costly fire occurred in 1952 when a two-inch-thick leak from the Standard Oil Company facility ignited on the afternoon of Saturday, November 1, leading to a five-alarm effort to extinguish it. Losses from the fire were estimated between $500,000 and $1.5 million.



Cuyahoga River Fires (Cleveland, Ohio) 169

By November 1968, Cleveland had begun efforts to upgrade the city’s sewer systems and add treatment facilities designed to improve water quality in both the river and Lake Erie. The city’s voters approved a $100 million bond issue for those purposes. At this time, nearly 155 tons of waste were being dumped into the river each day. However, on June 22, 1969, around 12:00 p.m., floating pieces of oil-slicked trash and tree limbs on the river were ignited by sparks caused by a passing train. Relative to the 1952 fire, the 1969 fire was much smaller; it burned for less than an hour and damaged two railroad trestles. Initially, neither the local nor national press paid much attention to the blaze. Pictures that appeared in several papers were actually from the 1952 fire. Local leaders were more concerned about the economy than with any environmental damage. However, a short essay appeared in Time magazine in early August (which included the 1952 picture) that called attention to several polluted rivers in the United States, but it put a sharper focus on the Cuyahoga. The story and picture led readers to infer that this particular river had caught fire for the first time. Coverage in the National Geographic and other newspapers and magazines soon followed, and the Cuyahoga came to represent a nationwide urban ecological crisis. This event, along with others, such as the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 detailing the dangers of DDT and the Santa Barbara oil spill in February 1969, spurred public efforts to do more about environmental pollution. In a broader sense, the rise of liberal politics, suburbanization, greater women’s political activism, and the growing counterculture also contributed to the nascent environmental movement. With increased public pressure, several environmental policies were enacted at the local, state, and national levels. Perhaps most importantly, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was signed into law on January 1, 1970. The act helped establish the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was tasked with managing environmental risks and regulating various sanitary-specific policies. The law also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), part of the Executive Office of the President, to assess the potential impacts of major federal actions on the environment. In October 1972, Congress followed with the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, also known as the Clean Water Act, which revised water pollution regulations. This also led to more pollution control money coming to states and cities. In 1984, biologists for the Ohio EPA began counting fish in the most polluted sections of the Cuyahoga but found fewer than a dozen in total. In 1988, the United States and Canada began a joint project to clean up the Great Lakes and identify problem areas. In 2009, after hearing of unexpectedly high unofficial counts from Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District officials, EPA crews found forty different fish species in the river, including steelhead trout, northern pike, and other freshwater fish. In March 2019, the Ohio EPA declared that fish in the river were safe to eat. Although the Cuyahoga River has recovered in many senses, it remains in critical condition in other ways. As is the case with most waterways in the United

170

Cuyahoga River Fires (Cleveland, Ohio)

States, the Great Lakes and their tributaries contain large amounts of agricultural runoff and pesticides. Salmonella, clostridium, enteroviruses, the hepatitis A virus, and the parasites Cryptosporidium and Giardia—among the most common causes of infectious diseases in the United States—are also still found in the Cuyahoga. Robert L. Perry See also: Ammonia (NH3); Pesticides; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Further Reading

Blakemore, Erin. 2019. “The Shocking River Fire That Fueled the Creation of the EPA.” ­History​.­com. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­history​.­com​/­news​/­epa​-­earth​ -­day​-­cleveland​-­cuyahoga​-­river​-­fire​-­clean​-­water​-­act. Doyle, Jack. 2014. “‘Burn On, Big River  .  .  .,’ Cuyahoga River Fires.” ­PopHistoryDig​ .­com. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­pophistorydig​.­com​/­topics​/­cuyahoga​ -­river​-­fires. Ohio History Central. “Cuyahoga River Fire.” Accessed May 20, 2019. ­http://​­www​ .­ohiohistorycentral​.­org​/­w​/­Cuyahoga​_River​_Fire. Scott, Michael. 2009. “After the Flames: The Story behind the 1969 Cuyahoga River Fire and Its Recovery.” Plain Dealer News Archive. Accessed May 20, 2019. ­http://​­blog​ .­cleveland​.­com​/­metro​/­2009​/­01​/­after​_the​_flames​_the​_story​_beh​.­html. Stradling, David, and Richard Stradling. 2008. “Perceptions of the Burning River: Deindustrialization and Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River.” Environmental History 13(3): 515–535.

D Davis, Devra(1946–) Devra Davis is currently the president and founder of Environmental Health Trust, an organization that focuses on education and research surrounding environment health issues. Davis was born June 7, 1946, in Washington, DC, and grew up in Pennsylvania. She holds an undergraduate degree in physiological psychology from the University of Pittsburgh and master’s degrees in sociology and public health in epidemiology from Johns Hopkins University. She completed her doctorate in science studies at the University of Chicago and lectures internationally on public health issues from environmental hazards. Davis has a long history of service. From 2004 to 2010, she served as the founding director for the Center of Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and as a U.S. delegate to the Conference on Sustainable Development in 1997 and the International Conference on Woman in 1996. In 1994, she served in the Clinton administration on the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. From 1983 to 1993, Davis was the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology for the U.S. National Research Council (NRC), which is under the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). She has also worked in the federal government at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and as an adviser to a variety of international organizations, including the United Nations, the European Environment Agency (EEA), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Bank. In 2007, Davis founded the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) with the goal of providing information about human health protection from specific environmental hazards, and it does public policy advocacy about environmental health risks on a variety of sources, such as its effort to ban smoking and asbestos, with a focus on the high rates of fibroid tumors, breast cancer, and endometriosis in young African American women. Additionally, the organization provides policy positions and public awareness information on the risks associated with lead, radon, smog, aspartame, air pollution, indoor air quality, and clean water. Davis has worked on several public policy health issues, such as electronic screens and sleep. Some of her most recent and more controversial work is on the health impacts from electronic devices such as cell phones, which she concludes are potentially dangerous due to cancer risks. Many research studies in the United States and across the international community have been conducted on the link between cell phones and cancer, with mixed conclusions.

172

De Minimis Limitations

There has been significant policy debate on the validity of this research and its conclusions. Radio-frequency energy from cell phones is concentrated in the antenna area. This energy is nonionizing, meaning it does not cause cancer nor have enough energy to damage human body tissues. The National Cancer Institute (2017) has concluded that the radio-frequency waves given off by cell phones do not have enough energy to damage humans directly or to heat body tissues. Scientific research to date has not demonstrated adverse human health effects of exposure to radio-frequency energy from mobile phone use; however, it does recommend that the exposure to cell phones should be reassessed, particularly based on their growing use and availability (GAO 2012). Davis concluded cell phones are potentially dangerous due to cancer risks, and so she wrote Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation (2010). She has also authored many articles and several other books, including When Smoke Ran Like Water (2002) and The Secret History of the War on Cancer (2007). Davis has won numerous international awards, the most prestigious being the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 as a team member with other scientists and Al Gore. She lives in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, with her husband, Richard D. Morgenstern. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Asbestos; Gore, Al (1948–); Tobacco Smoke.

Further Reading

American Cancer Society (ACS). 2014. “Cellular Phones.” Last updated February 5, 2018. Accessed August 23, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​/­cancer​/­cancer​-­causes​/­radiation​ -­exposure​/­cellular​-­phones​.­html. Demasi, Maryanne. 2016. “Mobile Phones and Brain Cancer: ‘No Evidence of Health Risk’ Is Not the Same as ‘Safe.’” The Guardian, February 15, 2016. Accessed August 23, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­theguardian​.­com​/­commentisfree​/­2016​/­feb​/­16​/­the​-­debate​-­about​ -­mobile​-­phones​-­brain​-­cancer​-­and​-­artificial​-­electrosmog​-­its​-­complicated. Environmental Health Trust (EHT). 2017. “About Dr. Davis.” Accessed August 22, 2017. ­https://​­ehtrust​.­org​/­about​/­dr​-­devra​-­davis. Environmental Health Trust (EHT). n.d. “Our Mission.” Accessed August 22, 2017. ­https://​­ehtrust​.­org​/­about​/­our​-­mission. National Cancer Institute. 2017. “Cell Phones and Cancer Risk.” Last reviewed February 16, 2018. Accessed August 23, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­gov​/­about​-­cancer​/­causes​ -­prevention​/­risk​/­radiation​/­cell​-­phones​-­fact​-­sheet. Trottier, Lorne. 2010. “A Disconnect between Cell Phone Fears and Science.” Science Based Medicine, December 31, 2010. Accessed August 23, 2017. ­http://​ ­sciencebasedmedicine​.­org​/­a​-­disconnect​-­between​-­cell​-­phone​-­fears​-­and​-­science. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2012. “Telecommunications: Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed.” Highlights of GAO-12-771 Report to Congressional Requesters, July 24, 2012. Accessed August 23, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­gao​.­gov​/­products​/­GAO​-­12​-­771.

DDT (see Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) De Minimis Limitations De minimis limitations, or exemptions, derives its name from the Latin phrase de minimis, which means “of minimal things.” It is used to indicate a negligible or



De Minimis Limitations 173

unimportant issue within its context. Most public policies with regulations have a de minimus limitation for enforcement. In the environmental public health field, when dealing with toxic chemicals, it means the chemical ingredient in a compound or mixture is at such a low volume, concentration, or risk that it is considered as having an insignificant impact to human health. The result is that the chemical mixture or compound is not subject to the same level of reporting or management required of other chemicals. This is often referred to as a threshold limit for regulation by federal agencies. When dealing with toxic chemicals, facilities have to use the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Threshold Screening Tool developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2018) to determine whether they meet or exceed established threshold limits that would require reporting under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). There is a de minimis exemption, which is a concentration limit that facilities can use so that they do not have to report qualifying chemicals that occur in chemical compounds, mixtures, or trade products. According to the EPA (2019), the de minimis exemption does not apply to the manufacture of a toxic chemical; to a by-product from a result of manufacturing, processing, or wastes; or to persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (commonly referred to as PBTs). One way the chemical industry protects their trade secrets of a chemical formulation is by using de minimis exemptions. For instance, this exemption means a chemical compound may contain a toxic ingredient considered below the de ­minimis level for reporting. Then, the quantity of the toxic chemical in that mixture does not have to be applied to threshold determinations for the entire chemical mixture. This leads to additional reporting exemptions for the entire chemical product. Meaning, if a toxic chemical in a mixture meets the de minimis exemption, all releases and other waste management activities associated with the toxic chemical from that mixture can be exempt from reporting. Under the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act), Section 313, de minimis exemptions do not apply to known carcinogens as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The concentration for de minimis mixtures of chemicals is 1 percent, except for defined carcinogens that have a 0.1 percent de minimis concentration level. De minimus exemptions do not apply to EPCRA Section 313 chemicals that are mixtures as by-products or as a result of waste treatment or imported waste brought on-site (EPA 2019). Environmental groups have been concerned about the overuse of de minimis exceptions because reporting requirements of those toxic chemicals are not transparent in disclosures to the government. In risk assessments, de minimis refers to the highest level of risk that is still too small to impact human health or the environment. Conversely, levels greater than de minimis are considerable risks that must be mitigated. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986); International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); National Toxicology Program (NTP); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

174

Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ)

Further Reading

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “TRI Threshold Screening Tool.” Toxics Release Inventory Program, July 25, 2018. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­toxics​-­release​-­inventory​-­t ri​-­program​/­t ri​-­threshold​-­screening​-­tool. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “De Minimis Exemption.” Toxics Release Inventory Program, March 13, 2019. Accessed April 14, 2019. h­ ttps://​­ofmpub​ .­epa​.­gov​/­apex​/­guideme​_ext​/­f ​?­p​= ​­guideme:gd:::::gd:deminimis.

Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ) The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ), headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana, was founded in 1992 by Dr. Beverly Wright in collaboration with community environmental groups and other universities within the Southern region to advance environmental justice. Much of the impetus behind the creation of the DSCEJ was Wright’s work that showed that people of color “are differently impacted by industrial pollution [and] can also expect different treatment from the government” (Green America 2018). Specifically, she found that communities of color are more likely than white communities to breathe polluted air and are more likely to live near coal plants and toxic sites. A major goal of the DSCEJ is the development of leaders in communities of color along the Mississippi River Chemical Corridor and the broader Gulf Coast Region that are disproportionately harmed by pollution and vulnerable to climate change. The DSCEJ was formerly affiliated with Xavier University and Dillard University; the center now operates as a nonprofit organization. In partnership with Texas Southern University and under a cooperative agreement with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the DSCEJ operates the Environmental Career Worker Training Program and the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Program. At the center, students earn certifications in lead abatement, asbestos removal, mold remediation, and hazardous waste operations and emergency response. Since 2011, the DSCEJ has convened an annual HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) Climate Change Conference, which comprises faculty members and students at thirty-one HBCUs in sixteen states. The conferences bring together noted scholars, climate experts, community leaders, and HBCU students and faculty for workshops, lectures, exhibits, and demonstration projects on climate change impacts and solutions. The DSCEJ is part of the HBCU-CBO Gulf Coast Equity Consortium, which is a collaborative effort among community-based organizations in five states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and six HBCUs: Alabama A&M University; Dillard University; Florida A&M University; Jackson State University; Texas Southern University; and Tennessee State University. The consortium employs its “Communiversity” model (developed by Dr. Wright), which sets guidelines and processes for ensuring an equal voice among community members and university researchers in developing, resourcing, and implementing projects. The consortium is under the direction of Dr. Beverly Wright, DSCEJ executive director, and Dr. Robert Bullard, a



Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

175

professor of Urban Planning and Environmental Policy at Texas Southern University, who is also considered the “Father of Environmental Justice.” The Consortium is funded by grants from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the JPB Foundation. In recent years, the DSCEJ has collaborated with Navigate NOLA (a division within the DSCEEJ) on a project that is designed to respond to the needs of children who have experienced disasters in communities affected by the climate change effects of severe weather. The SEW NOLA (Social & Emotional Wellness–New Orleans, LA) Project, funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, provides children in a postdisaster recovery environment with the skills for developing social and emotional wellness. Also, within this division are the Collaborative for African-American Girls & Women (CAAGW); Women of Wellness (W.O.W.); the Infant Mental Health Project; and the Center for Education, Training and Professional Development. Robert L. Perry See also: Asbestos; Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Hazardous Waste; Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

Further Reading

Deep South Center for Environmental Justice. n.d. “Our Story.” Accessed July 24, 2018. ­http://​­w ww​.­dscej​.­org​/­our​-­story. Green America. 2018. “People of Color Are on the Front Lines of the Climate Crisis.” Accessed July 24, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­greenamerica​.­org​/­climate​-­justice​-­all​/­people​ -­color​-­are​-­f ront​-­lines​-­climate​-­crisis. Navigate NOLA. n.d. “Portraits of Our Progress.” Accessed June 23, 2020. ­http://​­www​ .­navigatenola​.­com ​/­new​-­page​-­2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA). 2013. “Smells Like Progress: Growing Up in Cancer Alley.” The EPA Blog. Accessed on June 23, 2020. ­https://​­blog​.­epa​.­gov​ /­2013​/­08​/­12​/­smells​-­like​-­progress​/.

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill(2010) Deepwater Horizon was a deepwater offshore drilling rig operating in the Gulf of Mexico that had been leased to BP (formerly known as British Petroleum) from 2001 until September 2013. In 2009, the rig had drilled the deepest oil well in history, with a vertical depth of over thirty-five thousand feet. On April 20, 2010, a blowout on the rig led to an explosion and fire that would not only cause the deaths of eleven crewmen but also the spillage of over four million barrels of oil in eighty-seven days—the largest oil spill in U.S. waters—directly affecting aviary and marine life and the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people who live along the Gulf Coast. Deepwater Horizon, whose original cost was nearly $350 million, was a semisubmersible rig owned by Transocean, one of the world’s largest contractors of offshore drilling rigs. It was one of the premier rigs in Transocean’s fleet and cost about $1 million per day to lease. BP leased the rig to drill in its Macondo Prospect (Mississippi Canyon Block 252), an oil and gas prospect approximately

176

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

40 miles of the coast of Louisiana and 130 miles from New Orleans. The prospect had previously been worked by Transocean’s Marianas rig beginning in October 2009; however, drilling on that rig ceased the next month after it was damaged by Hurricane Ida. Although not originally intended to drill on the Macondo site, the Deepwater Horizon arrived there on January 31, 2010, with plans to drill the well to over twenty thousand feet. The rig itself was a dynamically positioned mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU), which means it relied on thrusters and satellite-positioning to stay in place. On the morning of April 20, 2010, the rig’s crew began a series of both positiveand negative-pressure tests on the well to assure its integrity. The positive-pressure tests, conducted first, seemed to go well. By noon, the crew had begun preparing for the negative-pressure tests for later that evening. At 5:00 p.m., the rig crew began the testing. After they had bled the pressure from the well, the crew was concerned that pressure had repeatedly built back up. As the evening came on, crew members were able to get the pressure down to zero on a different pipe, the “kill line,” but were not able to do so on the drill pipe. Crew supervisors determined that, owing to there being no flow from the kill line, the crew had performed a successful negative-pressure test. In retrospect, it is clear that supervisors and crew failed to reconcile the different pressure readings on the two pipes. Preparations were then made to set a cement plug approximately three thousand feet below the top of the well. The crew reopened the blowout preventer and pumped seawater down the drill pipe to displace the mud and spacer (a liquid mixture that separates the mud from the seawater) used during the drilling operation. By 9:15 p.m., the crew had begun to discharge the spacer. Shortly before 9:30 p.m., one of the crewmembers noticed the unexpected pressure difference between the drill pipe and the kill line; the crew then shut off the pumps to investigate. At around 9:40 p.m., crew members on the bridge felt a distinct vibration that was soon followed by a hissing noise. Mud and seawater then started blowing across the Deepwater Horizon’s deck. Gas alarms sounded, followed by an explosion, and then another explosion and a fire. Crewmembers attempted to sever the drill pipe and seal the well by activating the emergency disconnect system (EDS) but were unsuccessful, possibly owing to damage done to the blowout protector (BOP) in the initial explosion. Evacuations began, and by 11:30 p.m., muster had been taken: of the 126 crewmen on the rig, 11 were missing. By 1:30 a.m., the rig was listing, and it would list more through the early morning hours as explosions and fire continued. Although it was initially unclear whether the rig was still connected, the fact that the Deepwater Horizon was not drifting meant that it was still tethered to the sea floor. Toward the evening of the next day, both BP and Transocean began efforts to use remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) that would stick a hydraulic line (or “hot stab”) to close the blowout protector and shut off the well. After early efforts to stop the flow of oil failed, there was a plan to drill a relief well to intersect the Macondo well; however, that plan was scrapped owing to it not only taking too long to implement but also because BP managers thought that action was only acceptable for subsea blowouts.



Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

177

On April 23, the U.S. Coast Guard established a Unified Area Command in Robert, Louisiana, to serve as the headquarters for response operations. Other federal agencies that sent response teams included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Minerals Management Service (MMS). Among the immediate problems was the inadequacy of the initial responses to oil spill removal. Normally, private removal firms perform this task. For BP, its primary oil spill removal organization in the Gulf was the Marine Response Corporation (MRC), a nonprofit created in the wake of the Exxon Valdez disaster. The U.S. Coast Guard was primarily in charge of search-and-rescue operations, but fighting the fire was Transocean’s responsibility. On April 25, it was readily apparent that the MRC was not up to the task. By this time, it was estimated that the oil flow rate into the Gulf was nearly five thousand barrels per day. (Initial estimates on April 23 were only one thousand barrels per day.) Exacerbating the issue was the fact that the Unified Command could not explain exactly how the government estimated the size of the oil spill. (By August, the number was revised to roughly sixty-two thousand barrels per day.) Among the first efforts to control the spread of oil to Gulf beaches and other coastal ecosystems was the use of in situ burns, skimmers, floating booms, and dispersants. However, skimmers can only recover about 40 percent of an oil spill, and in the case of the Deepwater Horizon spill, they only recovered about 3 percent of the released oil. Similarly, booms require constant maintenance and can cause significant damage to wetlands and marshes. Aircraft spraying dispersants have the benefit of being able to treat large areas of water quickly (NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration 2019). Oil dispersants, at least in theory, are intended to break up oil slicks into small droplets, making it easier for oil-eating microbes to break them down. The small droplets are less buoyant, which also allows them to scatter throughout the water more easily. This was thought to be especially useful because if the oil slick had been allowed to remain on the surface, it would have been particularly dangerous to seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and early life stages of fish (i.e., fish eggs and embryos). The two primary chemical dispersants were Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A (NIH 2017), which were sprayed in unprecedented amounts, both underwater at the wellhead and on the surface, even though little research had been conducted on human health effects. The United Kingdom had, in fact, banned their use owing to concern about the dispersants’ effects on marine life (Kistner 2018). Between the weeks of April 27 and May 10, well over three hundred thousand gallons of dispersant had been applied in the Gulf. Spill workers were reporting nausea and headaches. Environmental groups then tried to pressure Nalco (Corexit’s manufacturer) to release the dispersants’ formula, but Nalco declined, citing intellectual property rights (National Commission 2011). It was known at the time, however, that according to the manufacturer’s safety data sheet (SDS), Corexit 9527 contained the toxin 2-Butoxyethanol which may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, cleanup

178

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

workers reportedly suffered health problems, including blood in their urine as well as kidney and liver disorders, attributed to 2-Butoxyethanol. Owing to increased media coverage of the disaster, there was increased pressure on federal, state, and local officials to take action. On April 29, the Coast Guard termed the accident as a “Spill of National Significance,” which was the first time the government had used such a designation. In the first week of May, the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service would close an area spanning 6,817 miles, and by June would prohibit fishing in nearly 40 percent of the Gulf zone. On the evening of May 6, BP began to lower a 98-ton containment dome to the sea floor in an effort to cover the wellhead. However, the effort would fail when the dome became too buoyant as it filled with oil and gas. By May 12, President Obama would meet with Interior Secretary Salazar, Energy Secretary Chu, and several prominent scientists for a meeting in Houston to discuss the disaster. Controversy over the use of dispersants continued. At a May 24 press conference, EPA Administrator Jackson announced that BP would have to scale back its use of dispersants, although it would be allowed to use them in rare cases that would require an exemption. Thus, BP continued to use dispersants, even when the EPA would ask for explanations why BP could not use mechanical methods (National Commission 2011). On the afternoon of May 26, BP attempted a “top kill” and “junk shot,” wherein heavy drilling mud is pumped at very high pressures into the top of the well through the BOP’s choke and kill lines to force the oil back down the well, followed by a pumping of materials into the bottom of the BOP to impede the oil’s flow. However, after three unsuccessful attempts, BP and government officials agreed to halt further attempts. As the oil continued to flow into the Gulf, residents had to cope with miles of polluted shorelines. Of course, the question arose as to what to do with the washed-up oil and debris. Normally, wastes from oil production are classified as nonhazardous and do not require any specialized disposal. The EPA issued a directive that required BP to test its waste and publicize the results. In addition, BP was to consult with the communities where the waste was to be stored. However, environmental justice activists were quick to point out that BP was often dumping its debris in communities that were disproportionately poor and nonwhite. After Admiral Zukunft, the federal on-scene coordinator, sent a letter to BP concerning the complaints, BP started to post its testing results online (National Commission 2011). By early July, government officials, scientists, engineers, academics, and several different oil company executives agreed that a temporary close of the capping stack in a planned “well integrity test” could possibly shut the well. On July 15, BP shut the stack and began the test. The initial result was that, for the first time in nearly three months, the oil had stopped flowing. Plans were then discussed to implement a “static kill,” which like the “top kill” involved pumping heavy drilling mud into the well to push oil and gas back into the reservoir. By August 3, the static kill had succeeded; work could then begin on drilling a relief well. In



Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

179

September, the relief well had intercepted the Macondo well, allowing BP to pump cement and permanently seal it. On September 19, the well was considered effectively dead (National Commission 2011). Full-scale cleanup operations could then begin. One of the immediate problems in assessing the damage was that it was unclear what damage had actually been wrought by the oil spill. Little comprehensive data on the conditions before the disaster existed. Damage to beaches, marshes, coral, and to wildlife was fairly obvious, but the extent of that damage would take years to calculate. In terms of the spill’s effects on marshes, the NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration was tasked with the responsibility of creating a restoration plan as part of the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA). The team used field and laboratory studies to demonstrate that oil had degraded the health of several coastal marsh plants and animals, reduced oyster cover, and increased erosion of marsh habitats. At least 350 miles of shoreline in Louisiana was affected, with several miles permanently lost (NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration 2016). In addition, the oil spill had caused bleaching and tissue loss in deepwater coral reefs over an area three times larger than Manhattan. As for wildlife effects, thousands of animals were exposed to oil throughout their habitats. Veterinarians and scientists from the NOAA, along with other state and federal agencies, captured heavily oiled turtles twenty to forty miles offshore, including the endangered loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, green, and hawksbill turtles. Scientists determined that the spill had contaminated every type of habitat that marine animals occupy in the northern Gulf of Mexico and caused a wide range of adverse health effects, such as reproductive failure and organ damage. For bottlenose dolphins, the spill had reduced their survival and reproductive success, leading to a 50 percent decline in their population (NOAA, National Ocean Service 2017). All told, the spill led to the largest and longest marine mammal unusual mortality event ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA, National Ocean Service 2017). As for fish, research has found that, compared to their healthy counterparts, oil-exposed fish in the Gulf had inhibited cardiac performance, slower ability to find food, and were more likely to become prey (Stuckey 2018). In terms of the economic impact of the spill, among the most directly affected were tourism, fishing, and the oil industry itself. Several Gulf hotels and restaurants went out of business. Government closures of commercial fisheries not only suspended the industry but also decreased the public’s confidence in it. BP agreed to implement a $20 billion escrow fund to help with financial losses; in the first eight weeks of operation alone, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility had paid out more than $2 billion to nearly 127,000 claimants. The indirect impacts of the spill are simply unknown (National Commission 2011). Similarly, beyond the eleven deaths and seventeen injuries suffered by the crew of the Deepwater Horizon, the extent of the human mental and physical health effects of the spill will never be known. The Health Hazard Evaluation Report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that cleanup responders had been exposed to

180

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

benzene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and styrene—each of which is associated with adverse hematologic effects. As well, the long-term effects of the BP oil spill on exposed cleanup workers produced an increased prevalence of illness symptoms, including shortness of breath, headaches, skin rash, chronic cough, weakness, dizzy spells, painful joints, and chest pain—even for seven years after the accident (D’Andrea and Reddy 2018). Although BP, Transocean, and others may certainly be blamed, many would argue they are not so much the cause but are simply part of Americans’ rapacity for cheap energy. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling concluded, The blowout was not the product of a series of aberrational decisions made by rogue industry or government officials that could not have been anticipated or expected to occur again. Rather, the root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur. The missteps were rooted in systemic failures by industry management (extending beyond BP to contractors that serve many in the industry), and also by failures of government to provide effective regulatory oversight of offshore drilling. (National Commission 2011, 122)

Robert L. Perry

See also: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989); Oil; Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990).

Further Reading

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). n.d. “Dispersants.” Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­biologicaldiversity​.­org​/­programs​/­public​_lands​/­energy​/­dirty​_energy​_ development​/­oil​_and​_ gas​/­g ulf​_oil​_spill​/­dispersants​.­html. D’Andrea, Mark A., and G. Kesava Reddy. 2018. “The Development of Long-Term Adverse Health Effects in Oil Spill Cleanup Workers of the Deepwater Horizon Offshore Drilling Rig Disaster.” Frontiers in Public Health 6: 117. Published online April 26, 2018. Accessed April 20, 2019. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00117. Kistner, Rocky. 2018. “Gulf Residents Deserve the Full Truth about Oil Cleanup Chemicals.” HuffPost, April 20, 2018. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­huffpost​ .­com​/­entry​/­opinion​-­kistner​-­bp​-­oil​-­spill​_n​_5ad8c7ffe4b0e4d0715e49d5. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (National Commission). 2011. “Deepwater: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling: Report to the President.” Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​ ­w w w​.­g ov i n fo​.­g ov​/­c o nt e nt ​/ ­p k g ​/­G P O ​- ­O I L C OM M I SSION​/ ­p d f ​/­G P O​ -­OILCOMMISSION​.­pdf. National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2017. “Gulf Spill Oil Dispersants Associated with Health Symptoms in Cleanup Workers.” September 19, 2017. Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nih​.­gov​/­news​-­events​/­news​-­releases​/­g ulf​-­spill​-­oil​-­dispersants​ -­associated​-­health​-­symptoms​-­cleanup​-­workers. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service. 2017. “Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Longterm Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles.” Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­oceanservice​.­noaa​.­gov​/­news​/­apr17​/­dwh​ -­protected​-­species​.­html. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Response and Restoration. 2016. “Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Coastal Marsh



Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) 181

Habitat.” Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­response​.­restoration​.­noaa​.­gov​/­about​ /­media​/­where​-­fi nd​- ­orr​-­a nd​- ­other​-­noaa​-­i nformation​- ­deepwater​-­horizon​- ­oil​-­spill​ .­html. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Response and Restoration. 2019. “What Have We Learned about Using Dispersants during the Next Big Oil Spill?” Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­response​.­restoration​.­noaa​ .­gov​/­about​/­media​/­what​-­have​-­we​-­learned​-­about​-­using​-­dispersants​-­during​-­next​-­big​ -­oil​-­spill​.­html. Stuckey, Alex. 2018. “Long-Term Impacts of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill the Focus of UT Marine Science Institute Research.” Houston Chronicle, October 5, 2018. Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­houstonchronicle​.­com​/­news​/­science​-­environment​ /­article​/­Long​-­term​-­impacts​-­of​-­Deepwater​-­Horizon​-­oil​-­spill​-­13282768​.­php.

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was created as an independent oversight organization by Congress, within the executive branch, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 1988 out of growing concern for the public and workers at defense nuclear facilities, which are managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Congress wanted to create this oversight group separate from the DOE to ensure that both public and workers were adequately protected. The DNFSB provides the DOE with analysis, advice, and recommendations. The DNFSB is a group of five highly ranked nuclear safety experts appointed by the president with staggered five-year terms. It has around 110 technical and administrative staff personnel and an annual budget of approximately $29 million. Its headquarters are located in Washington, DC, with staff on-site at several DOE facilities, including Los Alamos, Pantex, Hanford, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River. The DNFSB holds authority to review the safety standards for the full life cycle of a defense nuclear facility, which includes facility design, construction, operation, and decommissioning, and board authority to investigate any event or practice that could adversely affect public health and safety, including facility preconstruction design reviews and construction oversight. The DOE is not required to accept the DNFSB’s recommendations; however, it is required to respond to the advice. The DNFSB also has potent oversight powers that allow it to conduct investigations and studies, issue subpoenas, hold public hearings, and establish reporting requirements. It reports its activity annually to Congress. Although the DNFSB oversight powers are comprehensive, they are not a regulatory or enforcement authority like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); however, the DOE rarely rejects the DNSFB’s findings. Malone and Smith (2017), from the Center for Public Integrity, reported on a letter sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in June 2017 by Sean Sullivan, the chairman of the DNFSB, who was politically appointed by President Trump. Therein, he proposed closing or shrinking the DNFSB, a move he believed aligned with the president’s goal of reducing the size of the federal workforce.

182

Delaney Clause

Sullivan expressed concerns from facility contractors that they were incurring costly procedures because of DNFSB recommendations. The other political appointees, representing Democratic appointments, on the DNFSB publicly opposed the chairman’s position. Local advocacy groups near these defense nuclear facilities have supported maintaining the DNFSB, highlighting the benefits and importance of having an independent oversight organization to maintain health and safety for everyone. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW); Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW); Nuclear Weapons Facilities; Three Mile Island Accident (1979).

Further Reading

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. n.d. “Our Mission.” Accessed January 19, 2018. ­https://​­w ww​.­dnfsb​.­gov​/­about​/­mission. Malone, Patrick, and R. Jeffrey Smith. 2018. “GOP Chair of Nuclear Safety Agency Secretly Urges Trump to Abolish It.” Center for Public Integrity. Updated February 7, 2018. Accessed January 19, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­publicintegrity​.­org​/­2017​/­10​ /­19​/­21217​/­gop​-­chair​-­nuclear​-­safety​-­agency​-­secretly​-­urges​-­t rump​-­abolish​-­it.

Delaney Clause In the immediate post–World II era, as chemical insecticides became more commonly used in the United States, Congress sought to regulate synthetic pesticides, which were not necessarily covered under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) of 1938. In 1947, Congress passed the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to tighten the regulation of these synthetic pesticides. In the 1950s, as public concern over possible risks of insecticide-tainted food supplies increased, Congress passed two amendments to the FD&C Act: the Miller Amendment, which granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to set tolerances for each pesticide and crop, and the Delaney Clause, enacted in 1958, which prohibits the addition to the human food supply of any chemical that had caused cancer in humans or animals. The ostensible purpose of the Delaney Clause was the prevention of cancer in humans. Under Sections 201(s) and 409 of the FD&C Act, any substance that was intentionally added to food was considered a food additive and was subject to premarket review and approval by the FDA, unless the substance was generally recognized as safe (GRAS) under the conditions of its intended use or unless the use of the substance was otherwise excepted from the definition of a food additive. The Delaney Clause was embedded within the act under three provisions, each of which regulated a different class of substances: (1) food additives, including artificial sweeteners, preservatives, chemical processing aids, packaging materials, and pesticide residues, among others; (2) color additives in foods and cosmetics; and (3) animal drug residues. Generally, the FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were the two agencies charged with implementing the Delaney Clause provisions under the FD&C Act. The FDA had the responsibility of implementing and enforcing



Delaney Clause 183

regulations concerning color additives, animal drug residues, and all types of nonpesticide food additives, and the EPA regulated pesticide residues in food. Initially, the regulatory agencies adopted a zero-tolerance approach in their interpretation of the Delaney Clause, meaning that there was to be an absolute ban on any compound found to induce cancer. One of the immediate difficulties with the clause was that the FDA had no way of knowing whether an additive was safe before it was consumed. To declare an additive as unsafe, the FDA had to prove it was toxic and injurious to the public’s health, which was often a slow process, leading many to claim the FDA was an unresponsive agency. As well, testing to determine whether an additive was safe at very low doses was largely impractical or possibly insignificant. In practice, the Delaney Clause precluded the FDA from using its discretion to establish tolerance levels of known carcinogens in food additives. Additional concerns were that the clause’s zero tolerance policy failed to recognize the possible beneficial use of pesticides and that consumers’ decisions concerning the acceptance of small risks were ignored. Some confusion had also arisen concerning definitions of “cancerous.” The terms oncogen, oncogenicity, carcinogen, and carcinogenicity, for example, have had disparate usages. The FDA had often interpreted the Delaney Clause as prohibiting approval of carcinogens, whereas the EPA had treated the clause as prohibiting oncogens—theoretically a broader interpretation. By the 1980s, the Delaney Clause’s zero tolerance standard had become, for many (and particularly for pesticide manufacturers and food processers), obsolete. Technological advances now made it possible to detect residue pesticides in parts per billion, rather than in parts per million, as was the case when the clause was first adopted. The clause’s old standard was keeping potentially safer pesticides off the market. In 1987, the EPA, under the advice of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), stopped its literal interpretation of the law and began applying a “negligible risk” standard when setting tolerance levels of pesticides in both raw and processed foods. On August 3, 1996, President Clinton signed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which replaced the Delaney Clause. The FQPA standardized the way the EPA would manage the use of pesticides and amended both the FIFRA and the FD&C Act; it would use a “reasonable certainty of no harm” as the general safety standard. The FQPA mandated a health-based standard for pesticides used in foods, provided special protections for babies and infants, streamlined the approval of safe pesticides, established incentives for the creation of safer pesticides, and required that pesticide registrations remain current. Robert L. Perry See also: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996).

Further Reading

Appel, Adrianne. 1995. “Delaney Clause Heads for the History Books.” Nature 376(6536): 109.

184

Dermal Exposure

Burdock, George A., and Wendan Wang. 2017. “Our Unrequited Love for Natural Ingredients.” Food and Chemical Toxicology 107(A): 37–46. Davis, F. R. 2014. Banned: A History of Pesticides and the Science of Toxicology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. FindLaw. n.d. “Highlights of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.” Accessed August 1, 2018. ­https://​­corporate​.­findlaw​.­com​/­litigation​-­disputes​/ ­highlights​-­of​-­the​-­food​ -­quality​-­protection​-­act​-­of​-­1996​.­html. Gilhooley, Margaret. 1988. “Plain Meaning, Absurd Results and the Legislative Purpose: The Interpretation of the Delaney Clause.” Administrative Law Review 40(2): 267–301. National Research Council (U.S.). 1987. Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Picut, Catherine, and George A. Parker. 1992. “Interpreting the Delaney Clause in the 21st Century.” Toxicological Pathology 20(4): 317–627.

Dermal Exposure According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2013), it is estimated that more than thirteen million workers in the United States are potentially exposed to chemicals that are absorbed through the skin. This is called dermal exposure. The risk of this type of exposure can result in occupational skin disease and systemic toxicity in the body. The focus of human exposure of workplace chemicals has been on inhalation and ingestion; however, dermal exposures are one of the primary risks for contact with toxic chemicals. Dermal exposure can result in a variety of diseases for humans. These exposures can involve allergic contact or irritant dermatitis, skin cancers and infections, and other skin injuries. The CDC (2013) estimates that contact dermatitis is one of the most common types of occupational illnesses, with an “annual cost over $1 billion.” Some of the occupations that are at higher risk for dermal exposure include food service, cosmetology, health care, agriculture, cleaning, painting, construction, and printing. The pathways for dermal exposure vary. These can include direct contact, depositing of air contaminants, immersion, or simple splashing of chemical agents. Extreme temperatures, such as freezing or burning levels, as well as radiation from the sun or nuclear materials are considered physical agents that can be dangerous for dermal exposures. Other types of exposures can be mechanical or biological. For instance, lacerations, burning, and abrasions of the skin are considered mechanical trauma. Parasites, plants, and other bacteria or fungi are biological agents that can cause problems for the skin. Skin disease in the United States exceeds respiratory illness according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA 2019). Most chemicals are easily absorbed through the skin, often without being observed by the worker. Kelly A. Tzoumis



Dermal Toxicity 185

See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Dermal Toxicity; Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2013. “Skin Exposures and Effects.” July 2, 2013. Accessed March 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­niosh​/­topics​/­skin​ /­default​.­html. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2019. “Dermal Exposure.” Accessed March 29, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­dermalexposure​/­index​ .­html.

Dermal Toxicity Dermal toxicity is often described as skin poison. It is the ability of a chemical to significantly impact human health through skin contact. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), measures are determined following acute testing. A dermal toxicity study is designed to reveal toxic effects associated with repeated exposure to a chemical for a period of ninety days, and an LD50 test is used to measure what dose of a substance is lethal in 50 percent of text subjects. This test is usually conducted on the shaved skin of live animals, who undergo continuous twenty-four-hour exposure to the substance; this causes death in half of them within fourteen days. Results are expressed in mg/kg body mass (FDA 2007 [2000]). Skin is the first barrier of protection against toxic substances and other invaders, such as bacteria and viruses. Because it comprises 10 percent of body mass, medical professionals consider skin the largest organ. It maintains the body’s integrity while interacting with the surrounding environment. Chemicals and substances considered to have dermal toxicity take a variety of forms and can induce a local reaction in the skin upon contact or cause reactions strong enough to induce illness or death. Some chemicals are irritants and cause burning or itching, resulting in skin loss or inflammation. Other chemicals can act as sensitizers. These do not cause an immediate visible skin reaction. Instead, as the chemical transfers into the body through the layers of skin, it causes activity in the immune system. Reactions then occur after multiple or chronic exposures over time. This can often go undetected by exposed persons, who most often are workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH 2012) estimates that more than thirteen million workers in the United States are potentially exposed to hazardous agents that can be absorbed through the skin, which can result in a variety of occupational diseases and disorders, including occupational skin diseases (OSD) and systemic toxicity. Dermal toxic chemicals are the primary route of exposure for OSD and skin disorders and occur because of contact with contaminated surfaces, aerosol sprays, splashes, or immersion. Dermal toxins have more incidents of exposure than inhalation in the workplace because most chemicals are readily absorbed through the skin. Most occupational exposure prevention, though, has focused on

186

Developmental Neurotoxicity

inhalation. As a result, no standardized tests have been developed to evaluate dermal toxic exposures in the workplace (NIOSH 2012). Industries and occupations with the highest risk of dermal toxicity are manufacturing (especially from chemicals such as pesticides and organic solvents), agriculture, painting, construction, food service, cosmetology, printing, and cleaning. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Lethal Dose 50% (LD50); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Dermal (Skin).” Toxic Substances Portal, March 3, 2011. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxorganlisting​.­asp​?­sysid​= ​­2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2012. “Skin Exposures and Effects.” Last updated April 30, 2012. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­niosh​/­topics​/­skin​/­default​.­html. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Dermal Exposure.” Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­dermalexposure​/­index​ .­html. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2007 [2000]. “Guidelines for Toxicity Tests: Acute Oral Toxicity Tests.” In Redbook 2000 (updated in 2007), 97–99. College Park, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­fda​.­gov​/­downloads​/­food​/­g uidanceregulation​/­ucm222779​.­pdf.

Developmental Neurotoxicity Neurotoxicity occurs when the exposure to substances impacts the normal functioning of the human nervous system. These substances are referred to as neurotoxicants. Some of the negative impacts to the nervous system can occur by disrupting, or even permanently damaging, the neurons, which are the cells that link the brain to other parts of the nervous system. Humans can experience neurotoxicity in a variety of exposure paths, both intentional and unintentional. For instance, exposures can result from substances used in chemotherapy, radiation treatment, drug therapies, and organ transplants. Other exposures from pollutants can arise from exposure to heavy metals, such as lead and mercury; certain foods and food additives; pesticides; industrial solvents; and cosmetics. The effects to human health may appear immediately after exposure or be delayed. Symptoms may include limb weakness or numbness; loss of memory, vision, or intellect; headache; cognitive and behavioral problems; and sexual dysfunction (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 2018). Some substances have less impact on adults. For instance, several chemicals, such as alcohol, nicotine, and certain pesticides, exert profound neurotoxic effects when exposure occurs during the brain growth spurt (Giordano and Costa 2012). When exposure occurs in utero (meaning “before birth”) or during the early stages of human development, this impact is referred to as developmental neurotoxicity. It is widely known that the developing central nervous system is more vulnerable to



Developmental Neurotoxicity 187

neurotoxicants than a mature one in an adult. One of the important handbooks produced on this topic is by Slikker et al. (2017). Some neurotoxicants have multiple modes of direct and indirect impacts on the nervous system. As a direct impact, a neurotoxicant can alter the morphology of the neuron or the cells surrounding it. Examples of indirect impacts include damage to hepatic or cardiovascular structures, or interference with the endocrine system. For example, some halogenated compounds may interact directly with brain cells, and affect the development of the nervous system by altering thyroid hormone homeostasis (Giordano and Costa, 2012). The field of developmental neurotoxicity is not as well developed as the research findings in adult humans. Some studies estimate that there are over two hundred neurotoxicants that have significant nervous system impact to adults and that there are even more that impact developmental stages of humans (Miodovnik 2011). Responses to a neurotoxicant in adults may include induced confusion, fatigue, irritability, and other behavioral changes. Two established developmental neurotoxicants, methylmercury and lead, and two classes of chemicals, the polybrominated chemicals used as flame retardants and organophosphorus insecticides, are emerging as potential developmental neurotoxicants and are examined by Giordano and Costa (2012). The authors explain that although neurons maintain the ability to make new synapses throughout life, the period of brain development is critical for the formation of the basic circuitry of the nervous system. This period both in utero and in early development can cause permanent impacts to humans. Developmental neurotoxicants may also cause what is termed “silent damage,” which manifests itself only as the individual ages and may contribute to neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases (Giordano and Costa 2012). Some substances, such as methylmercury and lead, cause impacts to the central nervous system and degenerative diseases of the brain. Other substances, such as the organic solvents trichloroethylene (TCE) and carbon disulfide, impact the peripheral nervous system, causing weakness and tingling of the limbs that progresses to loss of coordination. Some of the developmental neurotoxicants are highlighted below. METHYLMERCURY Methylmercury is a well-known neurotoxicant. One of the most dangerous releases of this toxic chemical occurred in a fishing village in Minamata, Japan, that led to contamination of methylmercury. In 1956, methylmercury-­contaminated wastewater was released from the Chisso Corporation’s chemical factory. This highly toxic chemical bioaccumulated in shellfish and fish in Minamata Bay and the Shiranui Sea, which was then eaten by local residents and resulted in mercury poisoning; it is estimated that over a couple thousand of people died with tens of thousands of additional people being exposed. This kind of exposure is now named after the village, Minamata disease, a neurological disease that causes a range of chronic disorders with varying severity, including anxiety; appetite loss; damage to hearing, speech, and vision; loss of muscle movement and coordination; and paralysis, coma, and death.

188

Developmental Neurotoxicity

There can be different responses to the exposure of methylmercury depending on the developmental stage of a child versus an adult. Children born from mothers living around Minamata Bay who consumed the contaminated fish were born with severe neurological impacts, while their mothers appeared unaffected or suffered only mild symptoms. Another community exposure to methylmercury occurred in Iraq from the consumption of grain contaminated with the neurotoxicant. In both cases, significant health outcomes resulted depending on whether the development of the human was young, exposed in utero or as a child, or an adult. Giordano and Costa (2012) explain that although damage in adults is restricted to the cerebellum and the visual cortex of the brain, diffuse damage is seen in the developing brain. It has been estimated that the nervous system during early development in utero has a fivefold greater vulnerability to exposure. Symptoms in children include mental retardation, movement disorders, seizures, primitive reflexes, and speech difficulty.

LEAD Lead is a neurotoxicant metal that affects both adults and children. In adults, lead poisoning’s main effects involve the peripheral nervous system and are reversible by removal of the exposure path. Like methylmercury, lead exposure of a developing human can be permanent and directly impact the central nervous system at much lower exposures than those of adults. Lead is known to cause lower performance levels in mental capacity, such as IQ and academic performance. Hamblin (2014) reviews the studies associated with linking IQ points with lead-based paints and gasoline exposure to young children. The elimination of lead in gasoline additives and paints in the 1970s was critical to improving protection of young children in the United States.

FLAME RETARDANTS Polybrominated chemicals are used as additive flame retardants and have been widely used in recent years in a variety of consumer products. These chemicals can leach out into the environment and have become persistent organic pollutants (POPs), having been detected in human blood and breast milk. Flame retardants have been added to manufacturing materials, such as plastics, textiles, and surface coatings, and numerous consumer products, including children’s clothes and toys, but they have proven mutagenic and carcinogenic to animals. New flame retardants have been developed and used, but health concerns still exist. In the late 1970s, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the use of certain flame retardants in children’s pajamas.

INSECTICIDES Organophosphorus chemicals were created as part of the World War II war effort during the mid-1940s. These chemicals are extremely effective insecticides,



Developmental Neurotoxicity 189

and they also have significant negative impacts on human health. Hamblin (2014) outlines the history of chlorpyrifos, one of the insecticides that was used. It was marketed by Dow Chemical beginning in 1965 and was the most widely used insect killer in American homes. Then, in 1995, Dow was fined $732,000 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for concealing more than two hundred reports of poisoning related to chlorpyrifos (Hamblin 2014). It paid the fine and, in 2000, withdrew chlorpyrifos from household products. Today, chlorpyrifos is classified as “very highly toxic” to birds and freshwater fish and “moderately toxic” to mammals, but it is still widely used in agriculture on food and nonfood crops, in greenhouses and plant nurseries, and on wood products and golf courses. The brains of infants and children are uniquely sensitive to environmental neurotoxicants at levels far below those that are known to harm adults. There are multiple windows of vulnerability during which environmental exposures can interfere with normal development. The timing and duration of neurotoxicant exposures during development can give rise to a broad spectrum of structural and functional deficits. According to Miodovnik (2014) only about two hundred chemicals out of more than eighty thousand registered with the EPA have undergone extensive neurotoxicity testing, and many chemicals found in consumer goods are not required to undergo any developmental neurotoxicity testing. Despite the fact that developmental neurotoxicity may be more severe and irreversible compared with adult toxicity, there is a relatively little data on developing humans for the vast majority of chemicals. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Carbon Disulfide (CS2); Dow Chemical Company; Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Insecticides; Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg); Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

Further Reading

Giordano, Gennaro, and Lucio Costa. 2012. “Developmental Neurotoxicity: Some Old and New Issues.” International Scholarly Research Network 2012: 814795. doi:10.5402/2012/814795. PMID: 23724296; PMCID: PMC3658697. Hamblin, James. 2014. “The Toxins That Threaten Our Brains.” The Atlantic, March 16, 2014. Accessed January 4, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­theatlantic​.­com​/ ­health​/­archive​/­2014​ /­03​/­the​-­toxins​-­that​-­threaten​-­our​-­brains​/­284466. “Mercury Poisoning.” 2017. Dawn, January 2, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­dawn​.­com​/­news​/­1305818. Miodovnik, A. 2011. “Environmental Neurotoxicants and the Developing Brain.” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 78(1): 58–77. Accessed January 9, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pubmed​/­21259263. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. 2018. “Neurotoxicity.” Accessed July 10, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ninds​.­nih​.­gov​/ ­Disorders​/­All​-­Disorders​/ ­Neurotoxicity​ -­Information​-­Page. National Research Council. 1992. Environmental Neurotoxicity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/ ­books​/ ­NBK234243. Slikker, William, Jr., Merle G. Paule, and Cheng Wang, eds. 2017. Handbook of Developmental Neurotoxicology. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press.

190

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was the most widely used insecticide from the 1940s to 1960s due to its high effectiveness at killing insects and low manufacturing costs. DDT is a mixture of several chemicals. It is a manmade substance, not found in nature, and was first synthesized in 1874. Its function as an insecticide was discovered by Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller (1899–1965), who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1948 for discovering that DDT kills insects by interfering in their nerve impulses. The chemical was put to use as an insecticide in 1939 (WHO 1979). It was initially used by the military to control malaria, typhus, and certain other vector-borne diseases during World War II (NPIC 1999; WHO 1979). After that, DDT was used for crops in farmland and pest control in cities worldwide. DDT is estimated to have saved several hundred thousand human lives by killing insects that cause vector-borne diseases; however, it is also responsible for the decline of several bird species. DDT was extensively used in agriculture with global production volume at 40,000 tonnes (metric tons) per year during the 1950s and 1980s. About 1.8 million tonnes have been produced worldwide. In the United States, an estimated peak annual production and use was between 80,000 and 82,000 tonnes in 1962. That year, concerns about extensive uses of DDT were sparked by the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1907–1964), which documented the detrimental effects of pesticides, primarily DDT. Total production was more than 600,000 tonnes before it was banned in 1972 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DDT is persistent in air, water, and sediment and cannot be easily broken down by microorganisms. The half-life (the time that half of a compound takes to degrade) of DDT is 150 years in the aquatic environment (NPIC 1999). The level of DDT in soil more than ten years after application was found to be similar to the initial level at application (WHO 1979). DDT can transport by wind over long distances. The DDD and DDE found in the environment are usually products of degraded DDT; they are more stable than DDT and thus have longer half-lives. DDT and its metabolite (product of metabolism) DDE accumulate in fatty tissues of humans and animals, and concentrations tend to be higher up the food chain. DDT can be metabolized to DDE, DDD, and other degradation products in the human body. DDT and its metabolites have been detected in human urine, feces, and breast milk. DDT and its metabolites have been recognized as causes of the decline in bald eagle populations in the mid–twentieth century (Elliott and Harris 2001; Bowerman et al. 2002). They caused eggshell thinning and bird embryo deaths. DDT has high toxicity to aquatic animals, moderate toxicity to amphibians, and weak acute toxicity to mammals and humans. It can cause hyperexcitability, tremors, incoordination, convulsions, and liver damage to laboratory animals, and it may induce liver tumors in mammals and mice; however, no evidence has shown that DDT causes cancer in humans, so it is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the United States and international authorities (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2017). DDT is one of the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) listed for restricted production and use in the global Stockholm Convention (EPA 2017). Because of its

Dioxins 191

effectiveness in reducing malaria, DDT is still used in some countries in South America, Africa, and Asia today. Jiehong Guo See also: Carson, Rachel (1907–1964); Environmental Movement (1970s); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2002. Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Accessed September 17, 2017. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf. Bowerman, William W., Amy S. Roe, Michael J. Gilbertson, David A. Best, James G. Sikarskie, Rachel S. Mitchell, and Cheryl L. Summer. 2002. “Using Bald Eagles to Indicate the Health of the Great Lakes’ Environment.” Lakes & Reservoirs 7(3) (September 2002): 183–187. Elliott, John, and M. L. Harris. 2001. “An Ecotoxicological Assessment of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Effects on Bald Eagle Populations.” Reviews in Toxicology 4(1) (January 2001): 1–60. National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). 1999. “DDT (General Fact Sheet).” December 1999. Accessed September 17, 2017. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ddtgen.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “DDT—A Brief History and Status.” August 11, 2017. Accessed September 17, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/ingredientsused-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status. World Health Organization (WHO). 1979. DDT and Its Derivatives. Environmental Health Criteria 9. International Programme on Chemical Safety. Geneva: World Health Organization. ­http://​­www​.­inchem​.­org​/­documents​/­ehc​/­ehc​/­ehc009​.­htm.

Dioxins Dioxins (also referred to as “dioxins and furans”) are among the chemical pollutants of the highest concern due to their potentially high toxicity and their widespread detection in the environment. The word dioxin as used by the general public is an abbreviation for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Similarly, the word dioxins often represents a group of 210 different chemicals, including 75 polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and 135 polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). Together, they are frequently abbreviated to PCDD/Fs in research literature and often called “dioxins and furans.” Sometimes, the word dioxins also includes the 12 “dioxin-like” polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCDD/Fs have never been intentionally produced, except for small quantities for research purposes. However, they were generated as by-products during some industrial manufacturing of pesticides. Dioxin was one of the major constituents of the herbicide Agent Orange, which was heavily used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. Severe health problems resulted from the use of Agent Orange for both U.S. veterans and local Vietnamese. Residents in Times Beach, Missouri, and Seveso, Italy, where manufacturing facilities were once located, suffered from the dioxin exposure because of hazardous wastes from the processes. Another

192 Dioxins

pesticide, pentachlorophenol (PCP), was made for treating construction wood materials in the past. PCDDs, especially the fully chlorinated octachlorodibenzop-dioxins (OCDDs), were generated as by-products during PCP production. PCDFs were major contaminants of commercial PCB products. In pulp and paper mills, bleaching using chlorination also generated PCDD/Fs. Other industrial processes that produce PCDD/Fs include scrap metal melting when polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is present, the chloralkali processes that produce sodium hydroxide and chlorine from sea salt, and others. In addition to industrial sources, PCDD/ Fs have been released to the environment from various combustions, such as the incineration of industrial, medical, and domestic wastes, and backyard burning of biomass and household wastes. Dioxins and furans mainly enter the human body through eating fatty meat, dairy products, and fish (especially those from fresh waters). Breathing contaminated air is another mode of dioxin intake. These toxic chemicals tend to accumulate in the body, mostly in adipose (fat) tissues; their concentrations in serum tend to increase when people get older. The health effects on humans are difficult to examine. Dioxins are classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as probable human carcinogens (ATSDR 1998, 10). These chemicals weaken the human immune system. Dioxin also affects the reproduction and development of tested animals. People with high-dose intake may suffer from skin damage (ATSDR 1998). Dioxins have been extensively investigated for their presence in the environment. Dioxins were found in almost all air samples collected by the EPA National Dioxin Air Monitoring Network between 1998 and 2004 (EPA 2013). In soils, the highest concentrations (two thousand parts per million) were found around the production sites in the 1980s, but some background soils were not detected for dioxins and furans (ATSDR 1998). A great deal of effort has been made to reduce the release of dioxins and furans to the environment. As a result, levels of dioxins in the environment have been decreasing at most places over the past twenty years. An Li See also: Dermal Exposure; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Herbicides; Pesticides; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Workplace and Occupational Exposure.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1994. Toxicological Profile for Chlorodibenzofurans. May 1994. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Accessed September 15, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​ /­ToxProfiles​/­t p32​.­pdf. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1998. Toxicological Profile for Chlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins. December 1998. Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​ .­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxprofiles​/­t p104​.­pdf. Food Safety and Inspection Service. 2015. Dioxin FY2013 Survey: Dioxins and DioxinLike Compounds in the US Domestic Meat and Poultry Supply. May 2015. n.p.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­fsis​.­usda​ .­gov​/­w ps​/­wcm​/­connect​/­d a1d623d​-­3005​- ­4116​-­bef7​-­2a61d1ebd543​/ ­Dioxin​-­Report​ -­FY2013​.­pdf​?­MOD​= ​­AJPERES.



Dow Chemical Company 193

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds. EPA 100, Report R-10/005, December 2010. Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed September 15, 2017. ­https://​­rais​ .­ornl​.­gov​/­documents​/­dioxin​_tef​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. National Dioxin Air Monitoring Network (NDAMN) Report of the Results of Atmospheric Measurements of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins (PCDDs), Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and Dioxin-Like Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Rural and Remote Areas of the United States from June 1998 through November 2004. EPA 600, Report R-13/183F, August 2013. Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​ ­cfpub​.­e pa​.­gov​/­ols​/­c atalog​/­a dvanced​_ full​_ record​.­cfm​?&­F IELD1​= ​­SUBJECT​ &­I NPUT1​= ​­Laboratory​&­T YPE1​= ​­EXACT​&­LOGIC1​= ​­AND​&­COLL​= ​&­SORT​_ TYPE​= ​­MTIC​&­item​_count​= ​­3159​&­item​_accn​= ​­469245. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Dioxin.” Last updated August 27, 2018. Accessed September 15, 2017. h­ ttps://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­dioxin.

Dow Chemical Company In 2016, Dow Chemical was a multinational company, headquartered in Midland, Michigan, that employed approximately fifty-six thousand people worldwide with 189 manufacturing facilities in thirty-four countries. It also ranked as the top leader in chemical production in the United States with sales of $48.2 billion—making it the second-largest chemical company in the world—and approximately 34 percent of that, or $16.6 billion, was generated from sales in the United States. It was a supplier of an array of products and the chemical foundations of products, such as paints, dyes, pesticides, and many plastics (SEC 2016). In September 2017, Dow Chemical merged with another chemical manufacturer, DuPont, to form DowDuPont. The new DowDuPont company was considered the largest chemical company in the world. However, the merger proved to be a financial failure. As a result, on June 1, 2019, DowDuPont was dissolved with the companies returning to separate private companies. Before the merger, Dow Chemical Company had five operating areas, called segments, with the areas of plastics, performance materials, and chemicals being responsible for more than half of the total revenue. In the agribusiness area, it produced insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides as well as seeds. In the consumer solutions area, it manufactured diverse products, such as semiconductors and organic light-emitting diodes (OLED), adhesives and foams used by the transportation industry, chemicals for pharmaceutical formulations, home care and beauty products, food products, and silicone solutions used in consumer goods and automotive applications in addition to electronics and infant care products. As part of the infrastructure area of Dow Chemical, products included architectural and industrial coatings, construction material ingredients, building insulation and materials, adhesives, microbial protection for the oil and gas industry, telecommunications, and light and water technologies. Performance materials and chemical area products included chloralkali and vinyl chemicals, industrial solutions, and polyurethanes. The performance plastics area manufactured products for the electrical and telecommunications sectors and products used in such items as shoes, toys, recreation goods, housewares, and food and medical packaging.

194

Dow Chemical Company

The company was founded in 1897 by chemist Herbert Henry Dow, who was the inventor of a new method for extracting bromide underground from brine in Midland, Michigan. By 1898, Dow Chemical Company was manufacturing potassium bromide and bleach. In 1906, the company ventured into agricultural products. After World War I, Herbert Henry Dow focused the company on the growing field of organic chemicals, manufacturing agricultural, pharmaceutical, water purification, energy, and automotive products. During the economic depression in the United States, Herbert’s son, Willard H. Dow, expanded research at the company, which led to its growth. For instance, Dow’s Midland Physics Lab was responsible for several new patents and products that remain in our society: PVC, Saran, ion-exchange resins, polystyrene, and Styrofoam. During World War II, Dow Chemical was the main magnesium supplier to the British air force for use in aircraft parts. Since the 1960s, Dow Chemical has expanded its global markets and established manufacturing plants throughout the world, and Dow Chemical products, such as Saran Wrap and Scrubbing Bubbles, are commonly used in U.S. households. Over the years, Dow Chemical had been involved in disputes about chemical contamination from the manufacture and use of its products and the liability from the acquisition of subsidiaries. One of the more recent liabilities involves its nineteen hundred–acre facility in Midland, Michigan, that is located on the Tittabawassee River. This facility produced carcinogens, such as dioxins and furans, as by-products from manufacturing chlorine products. Elevated dioxin levels in and along the Tittabawassee River, and downstream, appear to primarily be attributable to liquid wastes the facility discharged directly into the river. Contamination of the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers extends over fifty miles downstream and into Saginaw Bay. As of 2016, the company had accrued $137 million for environmental remediation and investigation associated with the Midland sites. In addition, $36 million was spent for environmental remediation at these sites. Rohm and Haas was a wholly owned Dow Chemical company associated with the Wood-Ridge, New Jersey, Ventron/Velsicol Superfund site and the adjacent Berry’s Creek Study Area (collectively referred to as the “Wood-Ridge sites”). This contamination involves a mercury-processing facility, where wastewater and waste handling resulted in contaminated soils and adjacent creek sediments. As of 2016, the company had accrued $91 million for environmental remediation at the Wood-Ridge sites (SEC 2016). Dow Chemical was associated with 131 Superfund sites and 189 sites being remediated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. As of December 31, 2016, Dow Chemical had accrued $909 million for environmental remediation, including $151 million associated with the remediation at Superfund sites across the United States. Actual costs could potentially be twice these estimates once final remediations are complete (SEC 2016). As of December 2016, Dow Chemical owned 5,651 patents in the United States and 25,449 foreign patents (SEC 2016). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: DowDuPont, Inc.; DuPont Chemical Company (E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company).



DowDuPont, Inc. 195

Further Reading

American Chemical Society. n.d. “DowDuPont.” Chemical & Engineering News. Accessed August 11, 2017. ­http://​­cen​.­acs​.­org​/­sections​/­us​-­top​-­50​.­html. Carmody, Steve. 2017. “Dow-DuPont Merger Inching Closer to Final Approval.” Michigan Radio, July 3, 2017. Accessed August 16, 2017. ­http://​­michiganradio​.­org​/­post​ /­dow​-­dupont​-­merger​-­inching​-­closer​-­final​-­approval. Tullo, Alexander H. 2017. “C&EN’s Global Top 50 Chemical Companies of 2016.” Chemical & Engineering News 95(30) (July 24, 2017): 30–35. Accessed August 11, 2017. ­http://​­cen​.­acs​.­org​/­articles​/­95​/­i30​/­CENs​- ­Global​-­Top​-­50​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. “Superfund Site: Tittabawassee River, Saginaw River & Bay, Midland, MI.” Accessed August 11, 2017. ­https://​­cumulis​ .­epa​.­gov​/­supercpad​/­cursites​/­csitinfo​.­cfm​?­id​= ​­0503250. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2016. Annual Report Form 10-K: The Dow Chemical Company. Washington, DC: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

DowDuPont, Inc. DowDuPont Inc., is the parent company of the Dow Chemical Company (referred to in the past as Dow) and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (referred to in the past as DuPont). The final merger of these subsidiaries into DowDuPont was completed in December 2015, with some amendments in March 2017. Before the merger, both of these companies focused their products into agriculture, materials science, and what the company calls “specialty product” businesses. DowDuPont formed two wholly owned subsidiaries, Dow Holdings Inc. (materials science products) and Corteva, Inc. (agriculture products). The new DowDuPont company was considered the largest chemical company in the world. However, the merger proved to be a financial failure. As a result, on June 1, 2019, DowDuPont was dissolved with the companies returning to separate private companies. DowDuPont had eight business segments, which include agriculture, performance materials and coatings, industrial infrastructure, packaging and plastics, electronics and imaging, nutrition and bioscience, transportation and polymers, and safety and construction. In 2018, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2019, 39), 37 percent of the company’s net sales were to customers in the United States and Canada; 28 percent were in Europe, Middle East, and Africa; 24 percent were in the Asia Pacific; and 11 percent were in Latin America. The company reported net sales for 2018 of $86 billion. In agriculture, DowDuPont was a global leader in developing advanced genetic seeds for hybrid corn and soybeans under its Pioneer brand. It also produced seeds for sunflowers, wheat, alfalfa, canola, cotton, rice, and sorghum. The company also produced pesticides and herbicides. The majority of the net sales in this area were to the United States and Canada, with Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia being less than 50 percent of the sales (SEC 2019, 6). In the nutrition and biosciences, the company was a large producer of materials used in the global food and beverage industry, in dietary supplements such as probiotics, and in pharmaceuticals.

196

DowDuPont, Inc.

The performance materials and coatings segment included home care and personal care products and architectural and industrial coatings. This included coatings used in wood, metal packaging, traffic marketing, thermal paper, and leather as protective coatings. Acrylics and silicone-based agents were used on a variety of these products. These included home and personal care products, such as cleaning; laundry; skin care, such as sunblock lotion; and hair products. The majority of the net sales for these segments came from consumer sales in the United States, Canada, and the Asia Pacific. The industrial infrastructure segment included intermediary chemicals needed in manufacturing, such ethylene oxide, latex, acrylics; other chemicals needed in coatings, such as polyurethanes, foams, and vinyl chlorides; and materials for construction and roofing, such as gypsum, cement, and construction-related building materials. The company was the world’s largest producer of ethylene oxide. It also is the largest global producer of ethylene which is used in plastics and packaging. DowDuPont produced plastics for toys and infant products, sporting goods, food supply packaging, cosmetics, electrical transmission, telecommunication, footwear, housewares, and health and hygiene products. The electronics segment was a leading supplier of chemicals needed for the manufacturing of photovoltaics and solar cells, semiconductors, and materials for the military and consumer electronics. The transportation segment included the delivery of chemicals for infrastructure components for automotive, aerospace, electronics, health care, consumer, and industrial areas. The company had thirteen thousand plants in the United States and over forty-two thousand plants elsewhere (SEC 2018, 21). Some of the more well-known brand included Dow Styrofoam insulation, Corian, and Tyvek. DowDuPont had historical environmental liabilities that it continues to manage. From the merger with Dow Chemical Company, it inherited a large number of asbestos-related lawsuits that have been in the state courts over the past four decades from products related to Union Carbide Corporation, which was owned wholly by Dow Chemicals. Likewise, the company inherited environmental problems from DuPont. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a contaminant for which environmental litigation and costs were passed on to DowDuPont. DuPont had litigation related to perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in Fayette, North Carolina, in 2017, and a release of methyl mercaptan in La Porte, Texas, at its Crop Protection facility. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a resolution-in-principle with the company for past actions for $3.1 million regarding certain EPA civil claims. The resolution-in-principle was approved by the court in the third quarter of 2018 and has been paid (SEC 2018, 33). The former companies of Dow and DuPont have numerous environmental violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and overall management of hazardous chemicals and wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These environmental pollution issues include actions in the states of Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and New York.



Drain Cleaners 197

DowDuPont reported that as of December 2018, it has accrued $1,201 million for environmental remediation and cleanup costs, including $210 million related to Superfund sites (SEC 2018, 82). The company also indicated its concern for the impact of global climate change on its operations. The total Superfund sites that the new DowDuPont company was involved with is 69 (from DuPont) and 131 (from Dow). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Dow Chemical Company; DuPont Chemical Company (E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company).

Further Reading

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2018. Annual Report Form 10-K: The DowDuPont Inc. Washington, DC: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Drain Cleaners Drain and pipes in industry and homes can become clogged with debris over time, requiring treatment. Two chemicals are used in drain cleaners to break down clogs and release the blockage of debris. These include sodium hydroxide, which is commonly known as lye, and sulfuric acid. These two chemicals are corrosive agents that interact to weaken the debris in the clog and quickly open the pipe. Drain cleaners can be bought at local stores in the form of a liquid, foam, or gel. These chemicals are extremely caustic and can damage pipes made of copper, steel, or iron. They are only used to flush a clog not to remove a completely blocked pipe because of the time the chemicals would have to interact with the pipe. Other industrial cleaners may contain trichlorobenzene or trichloroethane. Household drain cleaners contain corrosive chemicals that require the unused portion to be treated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These chemicals are considered a solid municipal waste and are regulated by the state and local governments. Drain cleaners should not be disposed of in sewers, backyards, surface waters, or household garbage. State and local governments, with the help of nonprofit organizations, sponsor collection days when leftover, unused drain cleaners can be brought to a common location and then neutralized by the collectors before disposal. Precautions when using drain cleaners is important to avoid burns to skin and surrounding items, such as clothing and household items. Special care must be taken not to combine drain cleaners with other household cleaners that can cause toxic gases. These chemicals are poisons that must be shielded from children and pets. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2019) recommends avoiding the use of drain cleaners by using a plunger or plumber’s snake tool to unclog pipes. There are also alternatives on the market that use enzymatic agents to biologically decompose the clog, which is usually composed of organic food materials. These agents are not hazardous materials or caustic agents. Other

198

DuPont Chemical Company

alternatives include the use of vinegar and baking soda to decompose the food debris in the clog. John Munro See also: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Beyond Toxics. 2019. “Drain Cleaners.” Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­beyondtoxics​ .­org​/­work​/­green​-­home​-­cleaning​-­campaign​/­drain. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Household Hazardous Waste (HHW).” May 2, 2019. Accessed June 20, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­hw​ /­household​-­hazardous​-­waste​-­h hw.

DuPont Chemical Company(E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company) DuPont is a multinational company with global employment of about forty-six thousand people as of 2016. The company had operations in ninety countries worldwide, and 61 percent of sales are made to customers outside the United States. It invested heavily in research and development, with approximately $2 billion spent annually on product development. As of 2016, the company owned about sixty-five hundred active patents and about ten thousand international patents, which are primarily related to its agricultural products (SEC 2016). In September 2017, DuPont merged with another chemical manufacturer, Dow Chemical, to form DowDuPont. The new DowDuPont company was considered the largest chemical company in the world. However, the merger proved to be a financial failure. As a result, on June 1, 2019, DowDuPont was dissolved with the companies returning to separate private companies. DuPont was founded in 1802 by scientist Éleuthère Irénée (E. I.) du Pont (1771– 1834). As a young teen, du Pont researched the manufacturing of gunpowder, which he applied at his position in the Central Powder Agency in France. During the French Revolution, in 1800, he relocated to the United States to begin his company in Brandywine, Delaware. He contributed to community issues, such as free education, assistance for the blind, and relief for the poor. In 1834, du Pont died of heart failure. DuPont consisted of seven business divisions that are aggregated into six segments: agriculture, electronics and communications, industrial biosciences, nutrition and health, performance materials, and production solutions. In agriculture, DuPont Pioneer and DuPont Crop Protection companies specifically targeted seed products for higher yields and the production of insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. This area of DuPont comprised 57 percent of the company’s total research and development expense in 2016. (Today DuPont Pioneer is a world leader in hybrid corn seed and soybean seed production and development.) Pioneer had seed production facilities located throughout the world. The company’s seed sales amounted to 27 percent of sales from 2014 to 2016. Agriculture net sales outside the United States accounted for 51 percent of the segment’s total sales in 2016. DuPont has produced many types of chemicals used in agriculture, from weed control to insecticides, that protect seeds from diseases.



DuPont Chemical Company

199

DuPont was a major supplier of materials for consumer electronics, photovoltaics, semiconductors, digital printing, and packing materials. Net sales from outside the United States in these areas accounted for 79 percent of the segment’s total sales in 2016. DuPont also provided materials for animal nutrition, detergents, food manufacturing, ethanol production, and carpet and fabrics. They were involved with the production of food ingredients for sweeteners, probiotic cultures, and soy-based food products. DuPont’s performance materials segment involved the production of polymers, elastomers, resins, and films, including automotive and transportation sectors, packaging for food and beverages, electronic components, construction, semiconductors, and aerospace. The segment has several large customers, primarily in the motor vehicle industry. The net sales for the performance materials segment outside the United States accounted for 71 percent of its total sales in 2016. In the production solutions segment, DuPont was involved with a variety of more well-known household brands, such as Corian, Corian Quartz (formerly known as Zodiaq), and Montelli solid surfaces. Tyvek and many roof underlayments were associated with DuPont. In 2015, DuPont separated its performance chemicals for the creation of the Chemours Company. That same year, it announced a planned merger with the Dow Chemical Company. This was completed in September 2017, the new organization being an equal merger of the two chemical companies, now called DowDuPont. As of 2016, DuPont had potential liability at about five hundred sites with contamination being addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund). Environmental remediation is taking place at ninety of these sites. DuPont has completed remedial actions or satisfied the environmental requirements at seventy sites. DuPont was involved with many litigation cases associated with environmental contamination. Several involved the La Porte Plant facility in Texas located east of Houston. In 2014, the facility had a release of methyl mercaptan, a volatile organic compound (VOC) that is a colorless gas and smells like rotting cabbage, that resulted in four worker fatalities inside the facility. The toxic chemical is used in the manufacture of insecticides and fungicides. DuPont was under federal investigation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). In 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited the facility for fourteen violations based on the 2014 release (twelve serious, one repeat, and one other than serious) with an aggregate associated penalty of $99,000. In 2015, OSHA conducted a Process Safety Management (PSM) audit of the Crop Protection and Fluoroproducts units at the La Porte Plant. DuPont was cited three willful, one repeat, and five serious PSM violations. OSHA placed the company in its Severe Violator Enforcement Program and proposed a penalty of $273,000. DuPont estimated environmental remediation costs for this facility at up to $900 million. In the DuPont Sabine Plant in Orange, Texas, the EPA and the DOJ were involved in discussions about the findings of an inspection by the EPA conducted at the facility both in 2009 and 2015. The concern regarded management of

200

DuPont Chemical Company

materials in the facility’s wastewater treatment system, hazardous waste management, and flare and air emissions, including leak detection and repair. In 2016, DuPont reached a settlement in principle, costing about $50 million, with the U.S. Department of Interior and the Commonwealth of Virginia to resolve remediation claims associated with mercury contamination in the South River and South Fork Shenandoah River watershed. If approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, the settlement will require DowDuPont to make a cash payment of about $42 million and undertake certain remediation activities. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Dow Chemical Company; DowDuPont, Inc.

Further Reading

DuPont. n.d. “Innovation Starts Here.” Accessed September 12, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­dupont​ .­com ​/­corporate​-­f unctions​/­our​-­company​/­dupont​-­history​.­html. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2016. Annual Report Form 10-K: The DuPont Chemical Company. Washington, DC: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Accessed September 12, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­investors​.­dupont​.­com​ /­investors​/­dowdupont​-­investors​/­filings​-­and​-­reports​/­default​.­aspx. Widener, Andrea. 2014. “4 Workers Killed at DuPont Chemical Plant.” Scientific American, November 18, 2014. Accessed September 12, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­scientificamerican​.­com​/­article​/­4 ​-­workers​-­killed​-­at​-­dupont​-­chemical​-­plant.

E Eastman Chemical Company The Eastman Chemical Company (referred to as Eastman) has its headquarters in Kingsport, Tennessee, the location of its largest manufacturing site. It has approximately 14,500 employees worldwide. Its products are associated with industrial and chemical processing, tobacco, transportation, consumer goods, personal and home care products, food, agricultural and crop production, and building and construction. The company has four business segments: additives and functional products, advanced materials, chemical intermediates, and fibers. Eastman has forty-eight manufacturing sites and equity interests in three manufacturing joint ventures in fourteen countries that supply products to customers throughout the world. It claims that 55 percent of its revenue is generated globally outside of Canada and the United States (SEC 2017). It has sales to customers in over one hundred countries. Eastman (2018) reports that the company had a $9.5 billion sales revenue in 2017. It has over seven hundred patented products in the United States and another sixteen hundred international patents for products that are used worldwide. Eastman produces chemical formulations for tires, adhesives, containers, and thermoplastic processing and functional films. For instance, Eastman produces Crystex, which is a sulfur rubber additive. It also produces resins for automotive coatings and industrial and food packaging materials. The fibers segment produces cigarette filters and yarns for use in home furnishing and apparel. The company is the world’s largest manufacturer of acetate yarn, which is approximately 9 percent of Eastman’s total sales (SEC 2017). In the fiber market, there is a limited number of competitors, which makes it a significant leader in this market sector. George Eastman was a pioneer of the photographic industry and founded the Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester, New York. He invented photographic film and was the leader in producing cameras. His first patent was film for cameras in the late 1880s. As a result of World War I, his work experienced interruptions in the supply of chemicals, such as methanol and acetone, plus other critical chemicals for his photographic business. Because of the company’s dominance in cameras, antitrust litigation was pursued by the federal government during this period against Kodak because of its monopoly in the camera industry. As a result, in the early 1920s, Eastman created the Tennessee Eastman Corporation in Kingsport, Tennessee, to manufacture the chemicals needed for the Eastman Kodak Company. He used the dry distillation of wood to manufacture these chemicals for production of his film, which is what

202

Eastman Chemical Company

brought him to the Tennessee area; he purchased a wood reduction company from the government along with thirty-five acres. Cellulose acetate was a chemical produced for the film that was then built into a new Eastman product called acetate yarn and fabrics; it remains one of Eastman’s profitable products today. By 1932, the Eastman company’s sales were greater than those supporting its original customer, Eastman Kodak Company. That same year, George Eastman, who was suffering from a spinal disorder, took his own life. The company continued to expand its work during World War II by supplying hydroquinone, which was a chemical that supported the rubber in jeeps and aircraft tires. It also contributed to the production of explosives for the war effort. The work performed on explosives led the federal government to have Eastman direct the operations of the Oak Ridge Plant, helping to develop the atomic bomb in 1943. Post–World War II, the company continued the work on acetate yarn and fabric and expanded into food additives. In 1951, the Tennessee Eastman Corporation became a division of the Eastman Kodak Company. In 1968, the Eastman Chemical division was formed in Eastman Kodak, which included the Tennessee Eastman Company. The Eastman Chemical Company separated from Eastman Kodak in 1994 to become the tenth-largest chemical company in the United States and held the rank of thirty-fourth internationally (Eastman 2018). Eastman Kodak continued as a separate company and invented the digital camera in 1975. Both Eastman Kodak and the Eastman Chemical Company are potentially responsible parties to several environmental remediation efforts over the lifetime of their operations. The Eastman Kodak has been a party to many contamination releases and cleanups. It generates hazardous wastes at its manufacturing sites and has violations under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Some sites are in conjunction with other responsible parties or predecessor companies. Several of the Eastman subsidiaries have violations under both Superfund and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Eastman Chemical is reported to have over $5.76 trillion and Eastman Kodak $53.8 million in fines associated with environmental violations since 2000, based on the Good Jobs First Report in 2018 which lists individual violations extracted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s national enforcement and compliance data. In 2015, the company was fined for shipping in 2,010 tons of methamphetamine to Mexico under its subsidiary Taminco. In 2016, Eastman Chemical was fined as one of two companies that had a chemical spill that poisoned drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people in Charleston, West Virginia. The spill required the governor to declare a state of emergency for nine counties, and water was restricted to about three hundred thousand people for several days. Eastman sold the chemical methylcyclohexane methanol to the company that operated the storage tank that leaked into the Elk River. It failed to let customers know about the storage incompatibilities of the chemical corrosive properties in relation to the tanks. The release caused nausea, vomiting, and eye irritations, leading to infections, after it entered the water supply stream in January 2014. At the Sauget Superfund site in Illinois, located near St. Louis, Eastman is one of the responsible parties in a multiparty cleanup associated with its subsidiary



Eastman Chemical Company 203

Solutia, Inc., for the disposal of industrial wastes from the 1930s to 1980s. Eastman will continue to bear the costs for removing materials that contaminated the groundwater as well as capping and maintaining hazardous waste sites (Szal 2017). Eastman has been fined for serious violations of occupational safety and health regulations in Tennessee and for explosions and a fire that occurred at its Tennessee plant. During the 1970s, Eastman was impacted by the oil embargos in the Middle East. The company built a coal gasification facility to produce its acetic anhydride, making it independent of oil supplies. No one was seriously injured in the coal gasification plant explosion, which was caused by a failed valve. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation fined Eastman for polluting in the South Fork Holston River over several years for at least six separate incidents. The releases included wastewater discharges, motor oil, and acetic anhydride. Most recently, the Yakima Tribal Nation sued Eastman Chemical as one of the thirty responsible parties to recover Superfund costs from the remediation of the Portland Harbor and Willamette River, which impacts their fishing rights. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Groundwater Contamination; Oil; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Eastman. 2018. “Company Profile.” Accessed August 30, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­eastman​.­com​ /­Company​/­About​_Eastman​/ ­Pages​/ ­Profile​.­aspx. Egan, Martha. 2018. “Tennessee Eastman Company/Eastman Chemical Company.” Tennessee Encyclopedia. Tennessee Historical Society, March 1, 2018. Accessed August 31, 2018. ­https://​­tennesseeencyclopedia​.­net​/­entries​/­tennessee​-­eastman​-­companyeastman​ -­chemical​-­company. Good Jobs First. 2018a. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary: Eastman Chemical.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­parent​ /­Eastman​-­chemical. Good Jobs First. 2018b. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary: Eastman Kodak.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​ /­parent​/ ­Eastman​-­Kodak. Herehse, Rebecca. 2016. “$151 Million Settlement Deal Reached over West Virginia Water Poisoning.” NPR, November 1, 2016. Accessed August 30, 2018. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­npr​.­org​/­sections​/­thetwo​-­way​/­2016​/­11​/­01​/­500086140​/-­151​-­million​-­settlement​ -­deal​-­reached​-­over​-­west​-­virginia​-­water​-­poisoning. Morabito, Nate. 2015. “Eastman Fined Thousands of Polluting South Fork Holston River.” WJHL, July 9, 2015. Accessed August 30, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­wjhl​.­com​/­news​ /­eastman​-­fined​-­thousands​-­for​-­polluting​-­south​-­fork​-­holston​-­river​/­969186440. Szal, Andy. 2017. “ExxonMobil, Eastman Subsidiaries to Pay Cleanup Costs at Illinois Industrial Site.” ­Manufacturing​.­net, February 24, 2017. Accessed August 30, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­manufacturing​.­net​/­news​/­2017​/­02​/­exxonmobil​- ­eastman​-­subsidiaries​ -­pay​-­cleanup​-­costs​-­illinois​-­industrial​-­site. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “Eastman Chemical Company: Form 10-K.” December 31, 2017. Accessed August 30, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­eastman​ .­com​/­Company​/­investors​/ ­Documents​/ ­EMN​-­2017​-­10K​.­pdf.

204

Ecolab Inc.

WCYB. 2018. “Eastman Fined for Violation Related to Last Year’s Explosion.” April 30, 2018. Accessed August 30, 2018. ­https://​­wcyb​.­com​/­news​/­tennessee​-­news​/­eastman​ -­fined​-­for​-­violations​-­related​-­to​-­last​-­years​-­explosions.

Ecolab Inc. Ecolab Inc., produces an array of hygiene and energy technologies along with their related services. These include products and services that involve safe food, optimization of water and energy use, health care, and industrial markets in over 170 countries worldwide. Ecolab products include chemicals for sanitizing and cleaning, pest elimination, and technologies used in water treatment, pollution control, oil production and refining, steelmaking, paper manufacturing, and energy conservation. Founded in 1924, the company’s headquarters is located in St. Paul, Minnesota. According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2017), the company is divided into three segments: global industrial, global institution, and global energy. The global industrial segment includes the food and beverages, textile care, paper, power generation, and pharmaceutical industries. This segment includes Nalco Water, which provides water treatment products for industry. Global institutional includes cleaning and sanitizing products for the health-care, education, retail, and food service industries. Global energy primarily operates under Nalco Champion, which supports the chemical and water treatment requirements of the petroleum and petrochemical industries. This segment includes support to the energy industry in drilling, oil and gas production, refining, and water treatment. Both the global industrial and global institution segments equally share about 72 percent of the sales. Global energy is the smallest with only 23 percent of the sales of the three segments. Over 50 percent of sales are in North America, with Europe being the second-largest sales area. Ecolab also has customers in China, Asia Pacific, and Latin America. A business segment in the other business category includes pest elimination, kitchen repair, and fee-for-services. According to the SEC (2017), the company has 48,400 employees and $13.8 billion in sales. In its annual report (Ecolab Inc. 2018b), the company reported three million customer locations worldwide. Ecolab was founded by M. J. Osborn as Economics Laboratory, Inc. The first product was a carpet cleaner in 1923. The company developed Soilax, which became the major dishwashing detergent and color detergent in 1924. By 1928, the company had patents for the dish detergent dispensing system for commercial dishwashing machines. During the Great Depression, Ecolab operated at a loss. However, in 1934, it became profitable and began to rebound. In 1936, Soilax was used in homes and sold through retail stores. The company primarily continued working on dishwashing detergents. During World War II, Ecolab developed sanitizing products for soldiers to prevent the spread of dysentery. After the war, the company held nearly 230 patents and became global. During the 1960s, the company continued developing sanitizing products for dairy producers. However, in 1964, when the company acquired Magnus Chemical



Ecolab Inc. 205

Company, Inc., which was a cleaning company focused on aviation, marine, pulp and paper, petrochemical, and industrial cleaning, it began to grow. The expansion into global markets continued in the 1970s, with expansion into laundry services by hotels, restaurants, linens, and uniforms. The company purchased Apollo Technologies, which manufactured chemicals and pollution control equipment. It adopted the name Ecolab in 1986. The company acquired ChemLawn Corporation and established a pest elimination division in the late 1980s. In the mid-1990s, Ecolab acquired several companies to provide water treatment products. In 2011, Ecolab purchased Nalco, expanding its markets in water management, energy, and institutions. In 2013, Ecolab purchased Champion Technologies, which it transformed into Nalco Champion, a global energy specialty producer. Today, Ecolab has nearly eighty-five hundred patents and over twenty-three thousand patents in the past. In 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2017) gave Ecolab the Safer Choice Partner of the Year award. Just two years earlier, the EPA awarded the company the Climate Leadership Award for its 22 percent reduction in climate change gas management. Ecolab is a potentially responsible party for various sites, including thirty-five waste disposal sites, in the United States under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). It has additional liability at seven sites outside the United States. The company reports that it has been named in litigation alleging personal injury due to exposure to hazardous substances from its products and services. The company reports (SEC 2017) that its net expenditures for contamination remediation were $6 million in 2017 and $9 million in 2016 worldwide. They estimate future remediation expenditures to be at $21 million. Nalco was named as a defendant for the dispersant chemical used in the cleanup of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil accident in the Gulf of Mexico in a class action lawsuit. This case was dismissed. As of 2017, there are additional cases pending against Nalco. Ecolab is reported to have over $2.4 million in fines associated with environmental violations since 2000, according to the Good Jobs First Report in 2018, which lists individual violations extracted from the EPA’s national enforcement and compliance data. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980).

Further Reading

Ecolab Inc. 2018a. “About Us.” Accessed September 11, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ecolab​.­com​ /­about. Ecolab Inc. 2018b. Annual Report 2017. St. Paul, MN: Ecolab Inc. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­http://​­w ww​.­annualreports​.­com​/­Company​/­ecolab​-­inc Good Jobs First. 2018. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary: Ecolab.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­prog​.­php​?­parent​= ​ ­ecolab. Reuters. 2018. “Profile: Ecolab Inc (ECL).” Accessed September 11, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­reuters​.­com​/­finance​/­stocks​/­companyProfile​/ ­ECL.

206

Electronics Recycling (E-Waste)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “2016 Safer Choice Partner of the Year Award Winners: Innovators.” March 27, 2017. Accessed September 11, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­saferchoice​/­2016​-­safer​- ­choice​-­partner​-­year​-­award​-­winners​ -­innovators. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “Ecolab Inc.: Form 10-K.” Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­sec​.­gov​/­Archives​/­edgar​/­data​/­31462​/­000155837018000999​ /­ecl​-­20171231x10k​.­htm.

Electronics Recycling (E-Waste) Simple materials such as glass, aluminum, paper, steel, and various types of plastic are readily and easily recycled. In the United States, numerous communities have programs in place to handle and reuse these materials, although recycling rates are still low according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2017a). In stark contrast, there are other items collectively referred to as e-waste (short for electronic waste), which includes devices such as computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, and televisions. These are complex multicomponent devices that frequently must be remanufactured (disassembled) to recover valuable metals and separate hazardous materials. The number of electronic devices going to waste has been dramatically increasing worldwide. The United Nations estimates that 41.8 million tons of e-waste items were disposed of in 2014, up by 25 percent from 2010. Although electronics represent a small portion of the total American waste stream (estimates range from 2% to 5%), they are the largest source of hazardous materials and the fastest-growing sector (UNEA 2020). CURRENT REGULATORY SITUATION At present, there are no federal laws requiring the recycling of electronic devices. The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act (RERA, H.R. 2791), introduced in 2013, sought to restrict the shipping of hazardous electronic waste outside of the European Union or countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation (OEC) and to promote research into the recovery and recycling of materials in electronic devices. At present, the OEC does not include China, Russia, Indonesia, India, or South Africa. In particular, China and India have become depositories for many American electronics. The RERA stalled in committee and has seen no action since. The best EPA (2017a) estimates are that electronic recycling rates are below 25 percent in the United States. The only significant regulatory exception concerns cathode ray tubes (CRTs), which contain significant amounts of lead, primarily in the glass components. The current market for CRTs has collapsed with the advent of flat panel display technology. Presently, twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have enacted regulations to address this situation with a patchwork of differing approaches (National Center for Electronics 2020).



Electronics Recycling (E-Waste) 207

INDUSTRIAL EFFORTS TOWARD RECYCLING Numerous original electronic manufacturers (OEM) have undertaken efforts toward electronic waste recycling, collection, and disposal, principally for the types of devices they manufacture. In many cases, ink and toner cartridges printers can be returned to the OEM and refilled or refurbished. Computers and cell phones in particular have seen the development of specialty recycling firms. See the further reading section for references to companies that participate in e-waste recycling. The complex nature of electronic devices means that components in a faulty or unwanted device may be functional and able to be used again. Ultimately, reuse of a device after repair or refurbishment is preferred to recycling, which is preferred to placement in a landfill.

E-WASTE TOXICITY The need for proper disposal and treatment of e-waste is twofold: first, to remove hazardous compounds prior to disposal by landfill and, second, to recover valuable metals and components. E-waste, depending on the device, may contain a wide array of materials of a hazardous nature, which should be removed prior to sending to a landfill. Rechargeable batteries usually contain lithium (Li), or silver (Ag) along with cadmium (Cd), or nickel (Ni), all of which are toxic to humans. In addition, lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) are present and represent significant health hazards. Typical health hazards of these metals include nerve toxicity, birth defects, and damage to internal organs and the brain. Many of the metallic components of e-waste are water soluble, meaning they can enter aquifers without proper disposal. In addition to metals, there are a variety of plastics to contend with that bring potential for leaching of hazardous materials as well.

E-WASTE RECOVERY OF VALUE A wide array of valuable materials (primarily metals) can be recovered from e-waste. Gold, for example, is used in electrical contacts due to its high conductivity. Central processing unit (CPU) chips, various memory chips and boards, and hard drives frequently contain gold. Cell phones in particular contain small quantities of gold. Copper is perhaps the easiest material to recover from electronic devices due to its presence in cords, ribbon wire, and power supplies. Aluminum is present as a framing material in computers, the housing of hard drives, and as a reinforcement to the plastic casing. Aluminum is frequently used in heat sinks (devices that facilitate cooling of electrical components). Steel, though less valuable than gold, copper, or aluminum, is still present in various types of e-waste and easily recovered due to its magnetic nature. In general, screws and some framing elements are made of steel. A group of seventeen elements commonly referred to as the rare earth elements are routinely found in devices with strong magnets, electronic storage,

208

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

or display screens (generally computers and cellular phones), although they have an enormous array of important high-technology applications. The rare earth elements are neodymium (Nd), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), gadolinium (Gd), yttrium (Y), terbium (Tb), europium (Eu), dysprosium (Dy), holmium (Ho), lutetium (Lu), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), scandium (Sc), thulium (Tm), erbium (Er), and ytterbium (Yb). Rare earth elements are not rare in the sense that they are hard to find; rather, they are not present in high concentrations and are difficult to recover. They are frequently isolated as by-products from other types of metal mining, particularly thorium and uranium. They are of immense strategic value due to their importance in all manner of high-technology applications. Traces of all rare earth elements, with the exception of promethium (Pm), which is the only radioactive member of the group, are found in many modern electronic devices, cellular phones in particular. The largest producer of rare earth elements by a wide margin is China. The EPA (2017b) estimates that for every million cellular phones recycled, one could recover 35,000 pounds of copper (Cu), 772 pounds of silver (Ag), 75 pounds of gold (Au), and 33 pounds of palladium (Pd), in addition to other valuable rare earth metals and components. Recovery of these metals would use considerably less energy and resources than obtaining them by mining. Robert L. Perry See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

National Center for Electronics. 2020. “About NCER.” Accessed January 2, 2020. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­electronicsrecycling​.­org. Responsible Electronics Recycling Act (RERA). H.R. 2791. 113th Cong., 1st sess., 2013. Accessed January 2, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­congress​.­gov​/ ­bill​/­113th​-­congress​/ ­house​ -­bill​/­2791. United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). 2020. “Dimensions of Policy: Waste.” Accessed January 2, 2020. ­https://​­web​.­unep​.­org​/­environmentassembly​/­waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017a. “Electronic Donation and Recycling: Why Donate or Recycle Electronics.” Accessed January 5, 2020. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­recycle​/­electronics​-­donation​-­and​-­recycling​#­why. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017b. “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling.” Accessed January 2, 2020. h­ ttps://​­www​ .­e pa​ .­g ov​/­f acts​-­a nd​ -­f igures​-­a bout​-­m aterials​ -­w aste​-­a nd​-­r ecycling​/­n ational​ -­overview​-­facts​-­and​-­figures​-­materials​#­Recycling​/­Composting.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986) The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 is a stand-alone bill that was passed by Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan. It is often considered part and parcel of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. The legislation largely came about because of problems



Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 209

encountered with the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). The legislation met with considerable debate in Congress because of the perception of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) heavy-handed and dismissive attitude toward the citizens living in areas where Superfund sites were established. Most specifically, it involved Times Beach, Missouri, where the EPA had often failed to hold meetings or inform residents of its ongoing operations. Surprisingly enough, these types of policies led to members of the community refusing to leave their homes, even though they were condemned, as they did not trust the EPA leadership to tell residents the truth. Eventually, the EPA had to buy all the property under eminent domain to get residents to leave their homes. In return, the EPA and Democrats in Congress received more funding for the Superfund trust and increased reporting requirements on companies that produced, manufactured, or operated facilities that stored hazardous chemicals. In addition, it also created a typology of various chemicals for use in the United States Code and EPA regulations. The funding mechanism established in CERCLA often led to potentially responsible parties (PRP) spending considerable time and resources keeping the EPA tied up in federal court, disputing the EPA’s judgment that they had directly engaged in policies that created the massive need for cleanup in various locations on the Superfund list. As a result, the legislation came to a grand compromise; the EPA was required to hold meetings and inform local and state governments of happenings as it pertained to cleanup, and congressional Republicans, who would not just refill the Superfund trust, agreed to give it more funding than it had previously received. However, one of the bigger problems with the Superfund was exposed in the mid-1990s with the sunsetting, or purposeful expiration, of the chemical company tax revision. As a result, to this day, the Superfund runs under budget and requires year-to-year appropriations from Congress. Although the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 was passed on its own, it is considered part of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. As a result, it is impossible to discuss and describe the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act without also discussing the debate and deliberation on the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act as well. However, the drafting of the legislation and subsequent hand-wringing and fighting in Congress about the reason for the legislation was more political than the substantive effects of the legislation. The impetus for both bills was twofold: the Bhopal disaster and a political compromise regarding the replenishment of the Superfund cleanup trust fund. The Bhopal disaster rapidly garnered the attention of both the American public and elites in Washington, DC. In December 1984, the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, had a leak of methyl isocyanate, a dangerous and lethal pesticide that it manufactured. The leak caused the deaths of roughly five thousand people as well as extensive injuries and public health consequences that affected more than fifty thousand Indians. However, even though the Union Carbide plant subsequently spent millions of dollars to improve the safety of the plant and limit the potential for future leaking of dangerous chemicals, the plant again leaked the toxic and

210

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

lethal methyl isocyanate pesticide. The second leak proved less fatal and was less severe as a public health crisis, but it still represented a danger to public health. Although the main problem in the Bhopal disaster was the leaked methyl isocyanate, the fact that the company and the national and local governments of India did not communicate and tell the citizens through proper channels also exacerbated the problems. As a result, Congress wanted to ensure that if a public health disaster like Bhopal occurred in the United States, the ability of the federal government to communicate with other local governments and get the information to the public would not be stunted. The law eventually came about as a result of a political compromise between the two parties in Congress. Republicans in Congress showed considerable concern for the heavy-handed approach of the EPA, especially by the nonpolitical appointees in the EPA. One of the more salient examples of this problem occurred at the Times Beach, Missouri, Superfund site. In that case, dioxin, a chemical purported by the EPA to cause considerable public health effects, found its way into residential areas as a result of a flood. However, the EPA largely failed to inform the public regarding the cleanup efforts or to give individuals the ability to voice their opinions and reservations about the cleanup. Even more, the federal government decided to buy all the houses in Times Beach, Missouri, without much input from the citizenry. The lack of communication and hostility in the community inspired individuals to run for local elective office to counteract the influence of the EPA in the town. As a result, Republicans in Congress, especially those interested in the devolution of the federal government’s power to state and local governments, became interested in requiring the EPA to involve community leaders and be accountable to the areas where it was cleaning up. However, at the same time, Democrats in Congress felt that the number of appropriations granted to the EPA Superfund were much less than needed and hampered the ability of the agency to engage in the cleanup of various polluted and contaminated areas. More specifically, the types of sites that found their way onto the National Priorities List (NPL) and then designated as Superfund sites represented considerable risk to public health. The original legislation that established the fund was the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). In that bill, funding for the Superfund sites came from several sources. The greatest source of funding came from appropriations from Congress. In each budget cycle, the EPA included in its budget requests an amount to fund Superfund cleanup. However, to ensure that these appropriations did not find their way into the EPA general account, the congressional appropriations were put into a dedicated trust fund. The Superfund trust fund also received resources from agreements with the companies and industries that polluted the sites on the NPL. However, this presented a problem, as cleanups are extremely costly. In fact, many of the eventual agreements required companies to pay multi-billion-dollar settlements. As a result, companies that may have had a role in the contamination of sites on the NPL spent millions of dollars in attorney and legal fees to ensure that they would not find themselves paying billions of dollars for cleanup.



Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 211

Even more, finding the actual polluter became more difficult than EPA regulators thought it would be when CERCLA became law. Oftentimes, sites on the NPL were operated by companies that changed hands over time, and in other cases, some of the companies that contributed to contamination of the site were no longer in business. As a result, the EPA and the companies spent considerable time in federal court trying to ascertain the amount of responsibility each company should take for the contamination. For example, at the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Compound, companies that had engaged in mining silver and lead for generations had dumped the tailings into the Coeur d’Alene River. Eventually, the site was placed on the NPL as one of the most polluted regions of the entire country. The Coeur d’Alene River became so polluted in some parts that the river had turned a shade of gray from the silver tailings. However, discerning and proving which of the various companies had dumped the tailings into the river became quite a complicated exercise for not only the scientists but also for the federal courts. In fact, the contentious nature of the wrangling required that the scientists testify to the amount and type of the tailings, and the EPA also brought in a historian of the river, the different companies that operated, and their lineages. As a result, the deal that the parties struck presented an ideal compromise for Congress: both parties were relatively unhappy with the eventual deal, which means that both sides received some of the things it wanted and neither side received everything it wanted. For the Republicans, it included a new direct funding to the Superfund trust that was much higher than it originally wanted: $8.5 billion. One of the other important parts of the legislation included more reporting requirements on facilities, companies, and corporations that housed or stored chemicals that could lead to potential contamination if released. If the facility that stored the hazardous chemical had any release of the chemical into the environment, it must report the event or circumstance of the leak. This included the name of the chemical, the location of the release, the method in which it was released, the known or anticipated health risks, and whether it required medical attention. Finally, it also required that the company tell local authorities and organizations of the proper precautions for dealing with the potentially dangerous chemical. The consequences of not complying with the disclosure requirements also had sharp teeth. For every day that the incident was not reported accurately and correctly, the business faced $25,000 in fines, and for criminally negligent individuals, this also included prison sentences of up to two years and fines of $25,000 for the individuals involved. The law also included a new set of chemical classifications released by the EPA and included their use in the future for different types of substances. The first type was called extremely hazardous chemicals because of their overtly hazardous properties. If one of these chemicals is released, an immediate reporting of the release is required by federal law. There are currently around three hundred chemicals on this list. The second type is hazardous chemicals, which are chemicals that the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act deems as needed for cleanup immediately or as soon as feasibly possible. Normally, if any area becomes

212

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

contaminated with these chemicals, it finds itself on the NPL almost immediately. The third and final type is toxic chemicals. Congress (with the help of the EPA) devised this list based on the chemicals’ chronic and long-term ability to cause considerable public health effects to society at-large. Additionally, because of the legislation, all releases of these chemicals are required to be reported and go into a national database. An annual report is compiled once a year detailing the releases and the possible effects on public health. However, the Democrats in Congress had to add a couple of provisions to the legislation that were also unpalatable. First, they had to coordinate and get approval, at least marginally, in each step of the process from state regulators. The EPA lobbied very hard against this requirement because it seemed that some state and local governments, especially in more politically conservative states, facilitated opposition to the EPA’s cleanup actions in multiple states. Second, the EPA had to consciously and by rule put more weight on the potential public health effects of the contamination and cleanup than the environmental effects of the cleanup. This came as another central complaint from Republican lawmakers: the EPA cared too much about affecting the environment while not paying nearly as much attention to potential public health aspects. However, one of the bigger problems that was not or could not have been addressed by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act involved the funding going forward. One of the other ways in which the original legislation was funded was through a tax on chemical companies. Although this may seem slightly off, it was not that unusual, as the bulk of the toxic contamination cases came from various chemical companies. However, to gain support to enact the tax, the tax had to have a sunset date, meaning as of a certain date, the tax on chemical companies would have to be reauthorized by Congress. The chemical company tax was originally written to expire in 1995. The EPA thought that the progress of the work done at the cleanup sites would leave no choice for the Republicans in Congress but to reorganize the tax. However, they never felt any real pressure to reauthorize the chemical company tax when they won their first legislative majority in the House of Representative in a generation in 1994. In addition, it did not help that very few of the sites that had been placed on the NPL and designated as Superfund sites had been removed by that time. Many chalked it up to a failure of the EPA to adequately clean up contaminated sites in a timely fashion, even if that view was unsupported by science or fairness. Even after the wrangling in Congress that has gone on for decades, the Superfund remains largely dependent on year-to-year transfers of appropriations from Congress. The amount of funds used by the EPA largely depends on the party that holds power in Congress and the presidency. For example, during the Obama administration, the EPA received large appropriations for the cleanup of Superfund sites. However, when the Republican Party won control of the House in 2010, these funds became politically expedient, and the Obama administration did not fight nearly as hard as needed to restore them.

Encapsulation 213

However, the Trump administration has pledged considerable funds to the Superfund sites in its proposed budgets. Although the proposed budgets are required by law and almost never go into effect as written, the Trump administration has put an emphasis on requesting more funds to help address the Superfund. However, some environmental activists have balked at the administration’s proposed increases. Although the administration has proposed increased appropriations, which cannot be used for crosscutting purposes, it has also proposed shrinking the EPA’s discretionary funds, which would likely put a damper on other enforcement priorities. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

Chemical Engineering News. 1984. “India’s Bhopal Disaster: Chemical Mishap Raises Thorny Issues.” December 17, 1984. Accessed December 17, 2019. ­https://​­pubs​.­acs​ .­org​/­doi​/­abs​/­10​.­1021​/­cen​-­v062n051​.­p006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Requirements.” February 4, 2012. Accessed December 19, 2019. ­https://​­web​.­archive​.­org​/­web​/­20130414105027​/ ­http://­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​ /­oem​/­content​/­epcra.

Encapsulation When a site is contaminated with pollutants that can either be harmful to human health or pose a significant threat of migration, one remediation alternative that has frequently been used is encapsulation. Encapsulation is best described as a physical or contact chemical barrier separating the pollutant from the external environment. This is a means of isolating or containing the contaminant, preventing exposure to humans and the environment, rather than treating the waste in some manner or incinerating it. Encapsulation includes two major categories, which are physical engineering barriers and contact chemicals. There are several options for encapsulation depending on the hazardous substance needing to be contained. Physical barriers may include layers or liners around the substance to prevent permeability, fences or other landscaping barriers, slurry walls, grout barriers, or clay caps. Contact encapsulation usually involves sealants, spray-on resins, tapes, epoxies, and other methods to engulf the contamination to prevent any exposure or migration (Khan et al. 2004). Encapsulation is commonly used at sites containing asbestos. Because asbestos is only problematic when inhaled or ingested, the pollutant is often best left in place with encapsulation. The removal of asbestos may cause the pollutant to become airborne because it is friable, so there is less risk to leaving it in place and encapsulating the hazard. Encapsulation requires that the material used for the containment remain intact over time. Any decomposition or impairment of the encapsulation would render

214 Encapsulation

the remediation technique a failure. Also, encapsulation requires monitoring over time because of this risk of failure. Leaching or a breach in the barrier used for encapsulation is a health risk. One example of encapsulation used as a remediation solution for dealing with contaminated soil is to mix it with a solid substance such as concrete and store it on-site. This prevents the contaminated soil and its pollutants from migrating away from the solid concrete structure, and it does not require the cost of off-site disposal. This type of encapsulation does not treat the hazardous substance as much as prevent migration into the environment. Silica treatment is also used in contaminated soils for immobilizing metals, hydrocarbons, and acids from mines (Camenzuli and Gore 2013). Specifically, microencapsulation of hydrocarbons and other chemicals using a liquid-based silica in water on a contaminated surface that is then dried transforms the chemicals into a solid for disposal. This form of microencapsulation was patented in the United States (Billings and Burns 1997). This is a technique that can be used for the cleanup of toxic spills or releases that require immobilization of hazardous chemicals. For instance, heavy metal contaminants such as mercury, nickel, and chromium in hazardous wastes can be treated with a slurry of cement to form a solid that serves as encapsulation of the pollutants. Another example of encapsulation is used when sealing lead-based paint. Dust and chips of lead-based paint become problems when ingested or inhaled. An encapsulant material is used to provide a barrier between the impaired paint and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2016a) recently funded the use of encapsulation for biological contaminants in transportation systems, such as railway cars, buses, and aircraft. This encapsulation is important to homeland security and terrorism protection. The material encapsulates and kills the biological contaminants that can also be used for chemical and radiological hazardous substances. This same encapsulating material can be transferred to mold remediation and asbestos abatement. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are often encapsulated in lieu of removal from the site. In this context, encapsulation is controlled because it can be contained with a low permeability film or sealant directly to the PCB-contaminated materials. PCBs can be found in caulk and other materials used in construction of buildings prior to 1979, when the chemical was banned. Encapsulation is a method used to reduce exposure to PCBs in buildings that may have air, dust, soil, or caulking materials containing the hazardous material. Painting the contaminated surface with a coating material, such as an epoxy, to serve as an encapsulating barrier prevents the release of the pollutant. However, the EPA (2016b) states that encapsulation is only effective at reducing the air concentration of PCBs when the source is low. Encapsulation has a long history of being recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO 2016) as a low-cost option for waste disposal of pharmaceuticals by placing them into a solid block within a plastic or steel drum. These drums are then filled with cement and placed in a landfill. Kelly A. Tzoumis



Endocrine Disruptors 215

See also: Chromium (Cr); Heavy Metals; Mercury (Hg); Nickel (Ni); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

Billings, Richard, and Lyle D. Burns. 1997. “Microencapsulation of Hydrocarbons and Chemicals. United State Patent.” October 14, 1997. Patent Number 5678238. Camenzuli, Danielle, and Damina B. Gore. 2013. “Immobilization and Encapsulation of Contaminants Using Silica Treatments: A Review.” Remediation: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies, and Techniques 24(1): 49–67. Khan, Faisal, Tahir Husain, and Ramzi Hejazi. 2004. “An Overview and Analysis of Site Remediation Technologies.” Journal of Environmental Management 71: 95–122. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016a. “Encapsulation of Biological Contaminants in Transportation Systems.” December 5, 2016. Accessed September 20, 2018. ­https://​­cfpub​.­epa​.­gov​/­ncer​_abstracts​/­index​.­cfm​/­f useaction​/­display​ .­abstractDetail​/­abstract​/­10762. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016b. “Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs in Building Materials).” November 28, 2016. Accessed September 20, 2018. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­pcbs​/­polychlorinated​-­biphenyls​-­pcbs​-­building​-­materials​#­Research. World Health Organization (WHO). 2016. “Guidelines for the Storage of Essential Medicines and Other Health Commodities.” Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­3mdg​.­org​/­sites​/­3mdg​ .­org​/­files​/­publication​_docs​/­storage​_ guideline​_english​_22​_nov​_16​_reduced​.­pdf.

Endocrine Disruptors Endocrine disruptors are substances that impact the human body’s endocrine system. The endocrine system includes hormones and glands than help control the functioning of the body. The human body relies on the endocrine system to regulate many complex functions, such as reproduction, sleep, moods, metabolism, development of the body, and sexual development. These functions are carried out by a variety of glands and hormones along with certain organs throughout the body that work in concert. One set of glands that comprise the endocrine system is located on the brain: the hypothalamus and the pituitary and pineal glands. The thyroid and parathyroid located in the neck are also part of the endocrine system. Other glands throughout the body, such as the thymus, adrenals, and pancreas, in addition to the reproductive organs are part of the endocrine system. Endocrine disruptors interfere with the functioning of this complex set of glands and organs. In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program to screen potential chemicals that may cause this impact. These chemicals often include pesticides, toxic chemicals, and other contaminants that affect estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormones. Some well-known endocrine disruptors include dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and bisphenol A (BPA). Consumer and health advocates have become increasingly concerned about these types of substances because exposure can be widespread. These chemicals

216

Endocrine Disruptors

may be present in household products such as plastic water bottles and children’s cups, flame retardants in clothing and furniture, food and food packaging, toys, cosmetics and personal care products, and detergents. Endocrine disruptors can also include naturally occurring substances, such as phytoestrogens that occur in plants. These chemicals can mimic hormone activities within the human body. According to the EPA (2017), endocrine-disrupting chemicals can interfere with reproduction, increase cancer risks, cause malfunctioning of the immune and nervous systems, and create developmental malformations. The agency uses the example of the prescription drug diethylstilbestrol (DES), which is a synthetic estrogen that was banned in the 1970s. Approximately five million pregnant women were prescribed the medicine to prevent spontaneous abortion and promote fetal growth. After the children went through puberty, it was discovered that DES had affected the development of the reproductive system and caused vaginal cancer. In the 1990s, two pieces of legislation were adopted due to the concern about the impacts of these types of chemicals to humans. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) included pesticide screening for endocrine effects. As a result of this legislation, in 1996, the EPA created a scientific advisory committee called the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee. In 1998, the committee proposed a screening and prioritizing codification scheme for these chemicals in the United States. This advisory committee established a two-tiered system of evaluation for identifying these types of chemicals. According to EPA (2017), it has identified over eighteen hundred chemicals as estrogen receptors in 2015 as well as fifty-two pesticide chemicals for endocrine disruption. Since 1998, the EPA has implemented the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, which includes the recommendations of the federal advisory committee. In 2007, the National Research Council published Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century as a strategy for assessing chemicals, including endocrine disruptors. The first group of sixty-seven chemicals identified for testing were primarily pesticides (National Research Council 2007). Today, the EPA has created the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program for the 21st Century Dashboard for accessing information about these chemicals. Currently, studies are being conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to examine the impact of these chemicals to fertility, endometriosis, and cancer. Studies show that these chemicals can have the greatest adverse impact to fetuses and early newborns, when the major organs and nervous system are in development. These chemicals can not only be transferred in utero to the fetus but can also occur in breast milk. Major research is being done by the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP) to examine the relationships between endocrine disruptors and breast cancer in females during development stages, when the human body is more susceptible to increased breast cancer from these chemicals (BCERP 2018). At the international level, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) was established by the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM) in February 2006. More recently, in 2012, the World



Endocrine Disruptors 217

Health Organization (WHO) in conjunction with the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) published a report titled the State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, which outlines the research and concerns about the exposure to these chemicals during human development. This report reflects the global concern for endocrine disruptors that has emerged over time. Earlier reports on these chemicals came from the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) and the Environment Leaders of the Eight in 1997. In 2002, the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), a joint program of the WHO, the UNEP, and the International Labor Organization (ILO), developed a report entitled Global Assessment of the State of the Science of Endocrine Disruptors. These reports highlight some international concerns about these chemicals. For instance, up to 40 percent of young men in some countries have low semen quality, which lowers their ability to reproduce. The reports also show that endocrine-related cancers (breast, endometrial, ovarian, prostate, testicular, and thyroid) have been increasing over the past forty to fifty years (WHO 2012). The prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes has dramatically increased worldwide over the last forty years. The WHO (2012) estimates that 1.5 billion adults worldwide are overweight or obese and that the number with type 2 diabetes increased from 153 million to 347 million between 1980 and 2008. There are several different groups working in the area of endocrine disruption. These include physicians, medical providers, research scientists, and public and community health advocates. One of the oldest groups associated with working on endocrine disruption is the Endocrine Society. It was created in 1916 as an organization of physicians who specialize in endocrinology. It publishes the journal Endocrinology and several other scientific journals focused on the subject and has had annual conferences since its founding. The Endocrine Society’s membership consists of over eighteen thousand scientists, physicians, educators, nurses, and students in more than one hundred countries. Another organization, the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), serves as a leading global network of seven hundred nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working in more than one hundred developing countries. It works to establish and implement safe chemical policies and practices to protect human health and the environment. It has worked globally within the SAICM international policy framework since 2003 to develop an international approach within the SAICM organization; IPEN represents the public interest position. Together, in 2014, the organizations published an Introduction to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: A Guide for Public Interest Organizations and Policy-Makers. Based on the findings of this report, of the hundreds of thousands of manufactured chemicals, it is estimated that about one thousand of these chemicals may have endocrine-acting properties (Endocrine Society 2014). Many advocacy public health and environmental groups, such as the Environmental Working Group, have identified what has been called the “dirty dozen list of endocrine disrupters,” which includes several metals (lead, arsenic, mercury) fire retardants, perchlorates, ethers (in paint), pesticide additives, and consumerbased plasticizers. Kelly A. Tzoumis

218

Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)

See also: Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP); Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); Dioxins; Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Pesticides.

Further Reading

Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP). 2018. “The Chemical Connection.” Fact Sheet. Accessed August 27, 2018. ­https://​­bcerp​.­org​/­wp​-­content​/­uploads​ /­2017​/­01​/­4​_BCERP​_Outreach​_TheChemicalConnection​_NEW​-­cmk​_508​.­pdf. Endocrine Society. 2014. “Introduction to Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals: A Guide for Public Interest Organization and Policy-Makers.” December 2014. Accessed August 27. 2018. ­https://​­www​.­endocrine​.­org​/-/­media​/­endosociety​/­files​/­advocacy​ -­a nd​ -­o utreach ​ /­i mportant​ - ­d ocuments​ /­i ntroduction​ -­t o ​ -­e ndocrine​ - ­d isrupting​ -­chemicals​.­pdf. Endocrine Society. 2018. “Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals.” Accessed August 27, 2018. ­https://​­w ww​.­endocrine​.­org​/­topics​/­edc. Environmental Working Group. 2013. “The Dirty Dozen Endocrine Disruptors.” October 28, 2013. Accessed August 27, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ewg​.­org​/­research​/­dirty​-­dozen​ -­list​-­endocrine​-­disruptors. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 2010. “Endocrine Disruptors.” Fact Sheet. Accessed August 27, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/ ­health​ /­materials​/­endocrine​_disruptors​_508​.­pdf. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 2018. “Endocrine Disruptors.” Last updated May 21, 2018. Accessed August 27, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­niehs​ .­nih​.­gov​/ ­health​/­topics​/­agents​/­endocrine​/­index​.­cfm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Endocrine Disruption.” Last updated February 22, 2017. Accessed August 27, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­endocrine​-­disruption ​/­what​-­endocrine​-­disruption. World Health Organization (WHO). 2012. State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals—2012. Accessed August 27, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­ceh​/­publications​ /­endocrine​/­en. World Health Organization (WHO). 2018. “Children Environmental Health.” Accessed August 27, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­ceh​/­risks​/­cehemerging2​/­en.

Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is a national nonprofit organization whose membership comprises state and territorial environmental agency leaders. It is funded through state dues, meeting fees, publication sales, donations, grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with federal agencies and foundations. This nonpartisan association was established to “share information among the state and territorial environmental commissioners” and to “engage in the development and implementation of environmental rules, procedures, policies, and statutes” (ECOS 2018). According to ECOS, “State government agencies are the keys to delivering environmental protection afforded by both federal and state law.” As such, ECOS’ purpose is to improve the capability of state environmental agencies and their leaders to protect and improve human health and the environment of the United States (ECOS 2018). Its mission is to provide leadership on environmental issues



Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) 219

of national importance and to play a critical role in facilitating quality relationships among and between federal and state agencies. To fulfill this mission, ECOS will (1) articulate, advocate, preserve, and champion the role of the states in environmental management; (2) provide for the exchange of ideas, views, and experiences among states and with others; (3) foster cooperation and coordination in environmental management; and (4) articulate state positions to Congress, federal agencies, and the public on environmental issues (ECOS 2016). ECOS was established in December 1993 at a meeting of approximately twenty states in Phoenix, Arizona. In June 1994, it was incorporated in Delaware as a 501(c)6 corporation but later transitioned to a more traditional organization style with a permanent staff. The first full-time executive director was established on March 1, 1995, and the first Washington, DC, office opened on May 1, 1995. ECOS later created a 501(c)3 education and research subsidiary in 1997: the Environmental Research Institute of the States (ECOS 2017, 3–5). ECOS membership is composed of state and environmental agency leaders and their appointed staff members. Current membership includes leaders from all fifty states plus Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. In the fiscal year ending in 2016, forty-six states and the District of Columbia were dues-paying members. ECOS recognizes as the official member the executive branch environmental official with the primary responsibility for air, water, and waste programs in each state or territory. This official may also designate others from his or her state to participate in ECOS. The organization also recognizes and allows membership to “alumni members,” those who have served as state environmental commissioners or deputy commissioners since the establishment of ECOS. State and territorial environmental protection agency leaders serve as ECOS leaders. The organization is governed by an executive committee that is responsible for overall leadership and day-to-day decision-making, coordination of committees and conferences, secretarial relations, development of policy proposals for consideration by members, regular meetings with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leadership, and special projects, including research efforts. ECOS focuses its work and policies on the areas of air, chemical and emerging contaminants, compliance and enforcement, energy, federal facilities, information management, legal trends, management and budget, environmental data, mercury, sustainability, land and waste, and water. ECOS STRATEGIC PLAN (2016–2020) According to the ECOS strategic plan (2016), five goals for the organization include the following: • Effectiveness of state environmental agency leadership: enhance ECOS’ role in facilitating peer support and learning among state environmental agency leadership. • Effectiveness of state environmental agencies: support the effectiveness of state environmental agencies as they carry out their core responsibilities.

220

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

•

ECOS’ and states’ relationship with federal agencies: cultivate and maintain a positive working relationship among state agencies and the federal government that is based on the principle of cooperative federalism. • ECOS as a voice in environmental policy: solidify ECOS’ position as the primary point of contact for state perspectives on environmental policy. • ECOS’ organizational performance: support ECOS as an effective, high-­ performing organization. Brigette Bush-Gibson See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). 2016. “ECOS Five-Year Strategic Plan 2016–2020.” Accessed October 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ecos​.­org​/­w p​-­content​/­uploads​ /­2016​/­05​/ ­ECOS​-­5​-­Year​-­Strategic​-­FINAL​-­web​-­1​.­pdf. Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). 2017. Environmental Council of the States Annual Report. Accessed October 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ecos​.­org​/­w p​-­content​ /­uploads​/­2017​/­06​/ ­FY16​-­A nnual​-­Report​.­pdf. Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). 2018. “ECOS.” Accessed October 21, 2018. ­http://​­w ww​.­ecos​.­org.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is an environmental interest group estimated to have over two million members in more than fifteen counties. It began in 1966 in New York with a small group of scientists and a lawyer. Its original focus was concern about the impact of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) pesticide on the osprey population. The group achieved a ban on DDT through litigation, which spurred the creation of EDF in 1967. EDF has expanded its mission and focus to preserving the natural systems on which all life depends. It characterizes itself as an evidence-based organization that relies on science and economic incentives to drive environmental progress. Today, with a staff of approximately 675 scientists, economists, lawyers, and policy experts, it is one of the largest—and is considered the most powerful—environmental advocacy groups in the United States. EDF has partnerships with a variety of groups in business, government, community, and farming to advocate for nonpartisan strategies to influence environmental policy. The main areas it focuses on are climate, oceans, ecosystems, and health. It is a strong proponent of limiting greenhouse gases (GHGs), protecting tropical rainforests that assist with carbon storage for these gases, and using science and economic approaches as it advocates for clean energy. The organization supports research to find solutions to environmental problems. For instance, EDF recently worked with the fishing industry to promote more economical incentives for managing fish populations. The study promoted the implementation of market reforms, such as securing fishing rights to increase fish populations, increasing profits, enhancing food production, and helping fisheries become more resilient to climate change.



Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism 221

EDF’s work is being adapted to other countries, such as Belize and the Philippines. Unlike other advocacy group approaches, EDF uses a multidisciplinary solution that incorporates economics and practical applications. As part of its focus on ecosystems, the organization works with farmers on the use of chemicals in agriculture. It also has campaigns on water scarcity and extinction protection, and it worked on restoring the coastal area of Louisiana after the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. EDF published an influential report in 1997 titled Toxic Ignorance. It outlined health information that was not available for many widely used chemicals. Today, EDF is still active in advocating for policies to protect human health and the environment from toxic chemicals. In 2016, EDF was a main policy advocate for the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which requires safety reviews of chemicals in use and those proposed for the market. This law is considered a major victory for updating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. EDF has taken some controversial positions on policies that have sparked some attention, such as supporting hydraulic fracking with controls and limitations. One of its more influential successes in 1990, when EDF partnered with McDonald’s Corporation to begin the conversion of packing materials to eliminate wastes and move to a more sustainable packaged product. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016); Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). n.d. “About Environmental Defense Fund.” Accessed October 13, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­edf​.­org​/­about. Song, Lisa, and Katherine Bagley. 2015. “EDF Sparks Mistrust, and Admiration, with Its Methane Research.” Inside Climate News, April 8, 2015. Accessed October 13, 2017. ­https://​­insideclimatenews​.­org​/­news​/­07042015​/­edf​-­sparks​-­mistrust​-­and​-­admiration​ -­its​-­methane​-­leaks​-­research​-­natural​-­gas​-­fracking​-­climate​-­change.

Environmental Health Trust(see Davis, Devra)

Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, which specifically outlined an environmental justice (EJ) community as “minority, low-income, tribal and indigenous populations or communities in the US that potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risks due to exposures or cumulative impacts or greater vulnerability to environmental hazards.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken the lead in the implementation of providing EJ policy for federal agencies conducting projects that may impact these communities.

222

Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism

The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a federal advisory committee to the EPA that was created in 1993 to provide recommendations on EJ initiatives undertaken by the agency. Its members (EPA 2018) represent a cross section of grassroots members of EJ communities, academics, nonprofits groups, private- and public-sector organizations as well as tribal governments. It is not clear when the EJ movement began in the United States. However, in 1982, there was a large protest in Warren County, North Carolina, of a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) landfill in a low-income African American community. This protest received national media attention and was the subject of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation in 1983. from its qualitative case study of four hazardous waste landfills, GAO found that African American populations were the majority in the communities where the landfills were located. This protest is considered the catalyst event that brought EJ to the attention of the national agenda. Unlike the modern environmental movement of the 1960s–1970s, which focused on environmental pollution, the EJ movement of the 1990s included issues of race and income that were previously not focused on. In the 1980s, professors at the University of Michigan worked with local EJ groups to begin discussions and introduce research to the EJ policy agenda. In 1987 and 1990, the United Church of Christ produced reports that included statistical analysis that showed the correlation of race and income to environmental contamination. Robert Bullard has been referred to as the “father of the environmental justice movement” because of his extensive research on the topic. His most famous book, Dumping on Dixie (1990), is regarded as one of the most important pieces of literature on EJ. Although several legislative bills were introduced in the early 1990s on EJ, none were passed by the Congress. Executive Order 12898 as well as the EPA’s guidance remain the major policy drivers of EJ policy in the United States. The executive order (EO) applies to all federal agency actions that may impact the environment. The EJ movement can be best described in its 1991 Principles of EJ, which was the outcome of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Conference held in October 1991. Today, the EJ movement includes a diverse array of people and organizations. Groups such as the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) in Chicago, which is a local nonprofit working on such neighborhood issues as pollution from coal-fired power plants, and more nationally known groups, such as the SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP), are included in the EJ discussion. Indigenous peoples, tribal nations, and, more recently, children’s health are included as vulnerable communities. While the EJ movement contains a diverse population of organizations and people, its overriding focus is on where we live, work, and play. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Bullard, Robert (1946–); Executive Order 12898 (1994); Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO); Overburdened Community; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP); Toxic Waste and Race in the United States (1987 and 1990); Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests (1983).



Environmental Movement 223

Further Reading

Bullard, Robert. D. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Bullard, Robert D. 2018. “Dr. Robert Bullard—Father of Environmental Justice.” Accessed August 15, 2018. h­ ttp://​­drrobertbullard​.­com. Executive Order 12898. 1994. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register 59(32): 7629–7633. First National People of Color Environmental Leadership. 1991. “Principles of Environmental Justice.” Held October 24–27, 1991, in Washington, DC. Accessed August 15, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­ejnet​.­org​/­ej​/­principles​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Plan EJ 2014. Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Justice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “National Environmental Advisory Council (NEJAC) Members and Biographies.” December 10, 2018. Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­environmentaljustice​/­national​-­environmental​ -­advisory​-­council​-­nejac​-­members​-­and​-­biographies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Environmental Justice.” March 28, 2019. Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­environmentaljustice. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1983. “Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities.” June 1, 1983. GAO/RCED-83-168.

Environmental Movement(1970s) The modern environmental movement has its roots in the conservation movement that gained prominence in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The frontier had an abundance of cheap agricultural land and natural resources, such as furs, bison, gold, silver, petroleum, and coal, that led many pioneers to exploit the land and its resources, with little or no concern for future generations. Land was treated as a commodity to be exploited for economic gain. The political response to this exploitative worldview was the conservation movement. A prominent objective of the movement was to set aside especially scenic tracts of public land as national parks. The movement was led by President Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot (first chief of the U.S. Forest Service), who were committed to the preservation of iconic symbols of natural beauty as well as the efficient use of natural resources through a conservation ethic. Another early environmental leader, John Muir, was committed to a radically different view of the relationship between man and nature, in which man was immersed in nature rather than having the biblically appointed role of subduing and establishing dominion over it. His earth-centered perspective and unique ability to influence political leaders helped preserve Yosemite Valley and Sequoia National Park as well as many other wilderness areas throughout the Western United States. He also founded the Sierra Club. Muir was the spiritual leader to many modern environmental leaders, including David Brower and Rachel Carson.

224

Environmental Movement

THOUGHT LEADERS OF THE MODERN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT The environmental movement of the 1970s was inspired by three seminal books and one series of photo essays produced by the director of the Sierra Club. The first of these was Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring, which informed the public of the dangers of pesticides to birds, other wildlife, and, ultimately, humans. The book sold more than two million copies and made a powerful argument that if humans poisoned nature, nature would ultimately poison humans. Although much of the information and data that Carson used in her book was research findings of other researchers, she was the first scientist to describe synthetic pesticides in such a way that the message reached the public consciousness. The message was both simple and profoundly different from how much of the public viewed the environment: pesticides that killed bugs could also make their way up the food chain to threaten birds, fish, and other animals. Ultimately, humans, especially children, would be made ill by a chemical that was once thought to be both a lifesaver and benign for humans (Carson 1962). Until the publishing of Carson’s book, most of the public did not understand the interconnectedness of the environment. Carson’s book led to a presidential commission that largely endorsed her findings and helped shape a political movement that would produce many of the cornerstone environmental laws passed during the 1970s. The second environmentalist who played a major role in the modern environmental movement was David Brower, president of the Sierra Club from 1952 through 1969. Brower was a native of Berkeley, California. Brower championed the use of media strategies to promote environmental goals while heading the Sierra Club. His strategies included publishing over seventy books, many of which were coffee table books filled with grand and inspirational pictures of the Colorado River, Dinosaur National Monument, and Grand Canyon National Park. These books inspired a national movement of individuals that successfully prevented dams from being built in Dinosaur National Mountain and the Grand Canyon. To this day, many environmentalists consider Brower as the founding father of the modern environmental movement. The third influential force was Paul Ehrlich and his book The Population Bomb (1968), which described the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and the adverse impacts population growth and overconsumption could have on the earth’s finite resources. The central objective of The Population Bomb was to empower policies that would gradually reduce birth rates and eventually initiate a general global decline in population to one that is sustainable over the long term. The book began as an effort to encourage the environmental movement to take up the issue of population growth and ended in a global debate that continues today between those that are against birth control of any type and those that believe zero growth is critical to environmental sustainability. Erich’s views on population continue to be controversial, especially considering the socioeconomic effects of aging populations due to fewer births. Many demographers argue that populations that are aging not only place an increased



Environmental Movement 225

burden on social welfare systems but also reduce the innovative nature of society, which, arguably, depends on the inflow of creative young minds into science and society. Finally, Barry Commoner, with his book The Closing Circle, picked up where Carson left off and fully explained ecological concepts in a manner the public could readily understand. Commoner (1971, 3) wrote, Every living thing is dependent on many others, either indirectly through the physical and chemical features of the environment or directly for food or a sheltering place. Within every living thing on the earth, indeed within its individual cells, is contained another network—on its own scale, as complex as the environmental systems—made up of numerous, intricate molecules, elaborately interconnected by chemical reactions, on which the life properties of the organism depend.

The interdependence of natural and living systems provided an explanation of how human actions negatively affected a variety of species at various locations on the food chain or in other parts of the environment. Pesticides targeted at fields or pests often have serious spillover consequences for other species and habitats, both close at hand and many miles away. ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS AND CATASTROPHES OF THE 1960S AND 1970S These iconic books and the ideas and inspirational images they contained were reinforced in the minds of the public by a series of environmental catastrophes that reinforced the importance of enacting laws that provided greater environmental protection. By the 1960s, environmental problems had been well documented by the media, and the public was increasingly aware of the risks they faced through what they read and were directly experiencing across the country. In 1966, it was reported that eighty New York City residents died when the hot summer raised smog levels past what was physically tolerable. The 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, California, which turned the sandy beaches into tar pits and killed thousands of birds, was another environmental catastrophe that built public consciousness and activism. In 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire once again, which, in turn, caught the attention of Time magazine. The magazine described the river as one that “oozes rather than flows” and “a place where swimmers do not drown but decay” (“Americas Sewage System” 1969). In 1978, Love Canal, a residential area located near Niagara Falls, New York, was discovered to have been built over an extensive waste dump. Hundreds of families were forced to sell their homes to the federal government and evacuate. The site contained twenty-one thousand tons of toxic industrial waste that had been buried over several decades. The crisis eventually resulted in the passage by Congress of Superfund legislation that to this day helps pay the costs of remediation and recover expenses from the original polluters. Significant global environmental events included an explosion at a chemical facility in Northern Italy on July 10, 1976, that produced a cloud of the toxic

226

Environmental Movement

chemical dioxin that rested on the town of Seveso and its population of seventeen thousand. Animals died first, with humans becoming ill about four days later. Children were most affected by the toxic airborne chemical. The symptoms ranged from nausea to disfiguring sores from a skin disorder known as chloracne. The town was eventually evacuated after weeks of indecision, and the center of the city was closed for years to prevent human access to contamination. Another issue that was receiving increasing attention during the 1970s was acid rain. Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) were carried through the atmosphere from coal-burning electric utilities in the Midwest all the way to the Northeast United States and Ontario, Canada, where contaminated rainfall caused lakes and forests to become acidic. Acidic streams and lakes posed a threat to fish and wildlife as well as vegetation by causing animals and plants to greatly increase their uptake of aluminum. Some acidic lakes in the Northeast lost all their fish. Many forests and old-growth trees died due to acid rain. Apart from the role played by scientists, authors, and the media in generating widespread concern over health and environmental threats to the nation’s air and water, growing opposition to the Vietnam War throughout the early 1970s, in association with the counterculture movement, generated a level of public activism and mistrust of government heretofore unseen. Opposition to the Vietnam War helped energize the environmental movement of the 1970s. The war and environmental pollution were viewed as two sides of the same problem: governmental indifference to the public will and corporate greed. Even Vietnam was exposed to toxic chemicals, such as Agent Orange, a powerful herbicide used by the U.S. military to eliminate forests and crop cover for North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers. Over twenty million gallons were sprayed over Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos from 1961 through 1971. For decades to follow, former U.S. soldiers that had served in Vietnam and their families suffered from cancer, birth defects, and severe neurological disorders. These diseases were scientifically attributed to the military use of Agent Orange, which contained large amounts of the toxic chemical dioxin.

THE RISE OF POLITICALLY SOPHISTICATED ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS The growing public environmental consciousness and movement of the 1960s led to the growth in memberships in older environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, which increased its membership from 113,000 in 1970 to 183,000 by 1980. The movement also led to the creation of new organizations that established sophisticated lobbying operations in Washington, DC. The environmental movement of the 1970s became a powerful force for new environmental protections. Environmental organizations did more than promote environmental legislation; they also served as watchdogs over the federal government. A group of ten major environmental organizations met regularly to discuss political strategy. The group consisted of the Defenders of Wildlife, the National Audubon Society, the Izaak



Environmental Movement 227

Walton League, the National Wildlife Federation, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Environmental Policy Institute, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Two other important environmental organizations would splinter the environmental movement in the 1980s: Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. These organizations considered mainstream environmental organizations to be ineffective and argued that protection and preservation of the environment required fundamental economic and political change through direct action. COURTS AND THE MODERN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT One of the tools available to environmentalists working to stop development projects has been the use of courts and litigation. We often take for granted the use of courts to protect environmental values, but before rulings by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission (1965) and subsequently by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), it was not clear whether environmental organizations had the “standing” to sue to stop projects that would harm the environment but cause no direct economic harm to a particular environmental organization or member of the public. Although the Sierra Club lost the Sierra Club v. Morton case, the Supreme Court, adopting the logic of Scenic Hudson, reaffirmed that “aesthetic and environmental wellbeing, like economic wellbeing, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society, and the fact particular environmental interests are shared by the many rather than the few does not make them less deserving of legal protection through the judicial process” (Sierra Club v. Morton 1972). The decision directly contradicted the Federal Power Commission holding that one must have personal economic injury to have standing. ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS, LEGISLATION, POLICIES, AND INSTITUTIONS IN THE 1970S Coinciding with the growing activism of the environmental movement, the environmental watershed of the 1970s started with the first Earth Day in 1970. Earth Day was originally designed as a national teach-in organized by Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), but it soon became the iconic symbol of a national and international environmental movement. Senator Nelson was inspired by the 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, California, as well as the student-led anti–Vietnam War movement. The senator realized he could infuse political energy into an emerging public consciousness about air and water pollution. He enlisted Pete McCloskey, a conservationist Republican congressman, to serve as cochair, and he persuaded Denis Hayes, from Harvard University, to serve as the national coordinator for a national teach-in on the

228

Environmental Movement

environment. Hayes built a staff of eighty-five to promote Earth Day events across the country. On April 22, 1970, approximately twenty million Americans demonstrated across the country for a healthy environment. The first Earth Day was a rare alignment between the two major parties and a Republican president and directly led to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the end of 1970. Today, Earth Day is celebrated by a billion people across the globe. Key federal environmental statutes passed at the end of 1960s through the beginning of the 1980s included the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which was the first modern environmental protection law enacted in the United States. Other major environmental statutes included the following: • • • • • • • • •

Clean Air Act of 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 Noise Control Act of 1972 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 Clean Water Act of 1977 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

These laws would never have come to exist without the activism of the modern environmental movement. The 1970s was a period of rapid change in favor of environmental protection. An organized environmental movement along with a supportive public brought about an environmental policy revolution in a political system that was designed by the founders to slow or obstruct change. John Munro See also: Carson, Rachel (1907–1964); Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Environmental Defense Fund (EDF); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974); Sierra Club; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

“Americas Sewage System and the Face of Optimism.” 1969. Time, August 1, 1969. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­content​.­time​.­com​/­time​/­magazine​/­article​/­0,9171,901182,­00​ .­html. Carson, Rachael. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Commoner, Barry. 1971. The Closing Circle, Nature, Man, and Technology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Ehrlich, Paul R. 1968. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.



Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 229

Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965). Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 Supreme Court. 1361 (1972).

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) On December 2, 1970, President Richard Nixon established the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amid the growing momentum of what has been called the modern environmental movement. This agency was given tremendous regulatory authority over the enforcement of newly created legislation beginning in the 1970s, and this continues today. Several national events occurred that are thought to have set the agenda for the creation of a national agency like the EPA to protect human health and the environment. In Ohio, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire multiple times between 1952 and 1969 because of the oil and hydrocarbons on its surface; the image of it burning was shown across the United States on the national media. During this time, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962), about the problems of pesticides used on wildlife, was published. In the late 1960s, congressional hearings were held about the effects of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and other pesticides on the ecosystem, particularly the avian population. Another contribution to the public’s growing concern was the declaration in 1967 that Lake Erie had “died” from the eutrophication, caused by heavy pollution from industry and sewer waste, that was creating algae blooms that had decreased the oxygen levels in the lake’s ecosystem. The public became exceedingly concerned about the previous decades of the increased use of pesticides, plastics, and synthetic chemicals and the lack of protection for the air and water from these pollution sources. Before the creation of the EPA at the national level, states were required to protect human health and the environment. This led to great variations of protection across the states. Also, there were concerns that states did not have the fiscal capacity, and there was the dual mission to attract industry, which often included lax environmental standards. The public’s concern for protecting the environment was part of a larger social movement that was occurring at that time, which included civil rights (voting, fair housing), equal rights for women, and the anti–Vietnam War protests. This led to Senator Gaylord Nelson calling for April 22, 1970, to be the first Earth Day, and twenty million people participated in cities across the United States. It was later that year, in December, that President Nixon created the EPA as a federal agency, with William Ruckelshaus as the first administrator. The EPA’s mission was to focus on the protection of human health by safeguarding air, waste, and land. The consolidation of implementation and enforcement was written into the many environmental statutes produced in the 1970s, thereby consolidating and reaffirming the EPA’s policy position. The first major piece of environmental legislation that the EPA implemented was the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA). After significant controversy surrounding the private interests in Superfund during the Reagan administration culminated with the resignation of then administrator Anne Burford Gorsuch, Ruckelshaus returned to the EPA to

230

Executive Order 12898

lead it through turbulent times from 1983 to 1985. During his early years as administrator, he focused on air pollution, standards for automobile emissions, and a ban on the use of DDT. The CAA is one of the most significant policies that the EPA implements. Following that legislation, the EPA continued with the implementation of a series of environmental statutes passed by Congress that continue to have significant impact today. They include among them the Clean Water Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Carson, Rachel (1907–1964); Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Cuyahoga River Fires (Cleveland, Ohio); Environmental Movement (1970s); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Carson, Rachel. 2002 [1962]. Silent Spring. 40th Anniversary Edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gajilan, A. Chris. 2019. “Nixon Created the EPA in 1970. Today, It’s a Much Different Agency.” CNN, August 23, 2019. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­cnn​.­com​ /­2019​/­08​/­23​/­us​/­epa​-­evolution​-­toxic​-­t rump​-­cnn​-­special​-­report​/­index​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “EPA History.” May 3, 2018. Accessed April 19, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­history​#­timeline. Vallianatos, E. G., with McKay Jenkins. 2014. Poison Spring. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Executive Order 12898(1994) On February 11, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which created the first policy on environmental justice (EJ). This executive order (EO) has been incorporated into permitting, environmental impact statements, and other documents that guide the activities of the federal agencies. The EO created an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the leader of the group. The goal was for the group to provide guidance and serve as a clearinghouse for federal agencies on the implementation of actions that would prevent EJ impacts. One of the most important provisions of the EO is the term “disproportionate impact.” Under the EO, each federal agency was required to make “achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income



Executive Order 12898 231

populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands” (Executive Order 12898 1994). This EO was preceded by a protest by a predominately low-income African American community in Warren County, North Carolina. The protest took place over several weeks in 1983 because of shipments of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to a local landfill. The community members, including local members, civil rights leaders, and religious representatives, were seen on national television, and this ignited what has been called the environmental justice movement. The protest triggered a congressional investigation through the then U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO 1983) to research whether these communities were more likely to have hazardous landfills. The study did find that these communities were potentially more likely to have these types of facilities. However, the study only included four landfill cases. The United Church of Christ conducted an extensive statistical study in 1987, which was updated in 1990, called Toxic Waste and Race in the United States. In addition, Robert Bullard (1990) published his book Dumping on Dixie Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, which documented the issues of environmental justice. Several professors at the University of Michigan created a working group to further study and provide actionable solutions to this problem. On October 24–27, 1991, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Conference was held in Washington, DC, to call attention to these issues to policy makers in Congress. From this conference, the Principles of Environmental Justice were created. Several bills were proposed in Congress on EJ, but none succeeded in being passed into legislation. One of the provisions of the EO that federal agencies were to address was the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts on EJ communities. Specifically, EJ was to be considered under the analyses performed under the National Environmental Policy Act before any federal government projects were to be implemented. One of the dilemmas facing the Interagency Working Group, and specifically the EPA, was how to define disproportionate impact. The EPA (2011) has issued Plan EJ 2014, which outlines various EJ implementation measures that were planned and executed by the agency. One major concept that it introduces is the notion of overburdened communities. Today, the Office of Environmental Justice at the EPA has produced a friendly user interface tool called EJSCREEN that assists members of the public and decision makers by providing information about hazardous substances in their communities. There are a number of grants and assistance for these communities through the EPA. There is now a National Environmental Justice Advisory Board (NEJAC), a federal advisory committee to the EPA, that was created in 1993 to provide recommendations on EJ initiatives undertaken by the agency. Its members represent a cross section of grassroots members of EJ communities, academics, nonprofits groups, private- and public-sector organizations, and tribal governments. Its goal is to ensure meaningful involvement in EPA decision-making in regard to disproportionately burdened communities. Kelly A. Tzoumis

232

Executive Order 13148

See also: Bullard, Robert (1946–); Cancer Alley (Louisiana); Environmental Justice/ Environmental Racism; Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO); Overburdened Community; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP); Toxic Waste and Race in the United States (1987 and 1990); Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests (1983).

Further Reading

Bullard, Robert D. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Executive Order 12898. 1994. “Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Population and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register 59(32): 7629–7633. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­archives​.­gov​/­files​/­federal​-­register​/­executive​ -­orders​/­pdf​/­12898​.­pdf. First National People of Color Environmental Leadership. 1991. “Principles of Environmental Justice.” Held October 24–27, 1991, in Washington, DC. Accessed August 15, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­ejnet​.­org​/­ej​/­principles​.­html. United Church of Christ. 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New York: Commission for Racial Justice. United Church of Christ. 1990. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New York: Commission for Racial Justice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Plan EJ 2014. Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Justice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019a. “Environmental Justice.” March 28, 2019. Accessed March 30, 2019. h­ ttps://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­environmentaljustice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019b. “Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (EJ IWG).” February 19, 2019. Accessed April 8, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­e pa​.­gov​/­environmentaljustice​/­federal​-­i nteragency​-­working​-­g roup​ -­environmental​-­justice​-­ej​-­iwg. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1983. “Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities.” June 1, 1983. GAO/RCED-83-168.

Executive Order 13148(2000) In April 2000, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management, which requires that the heads of each federal agency take into account impacts to the environment in their agencies’ daily operations and long-term planning processes. EO 13148 stresses environmental accountability “across all missions, activities, and functions” and requires agency heads to consider environmental management “a fundamental and integral part” of creating policy, conducting operations, creating long-term goals, and managing the agencies’ business. GOALS OF EO 13148 EO 13148 outlined seven goals that agency heads were responsible for incorporating into existing policies and agency performance standards: environmental



Executive Order 13148 233

management, environmental compliance, Right-to-Know and Pollution Prevention, release reduction, use reduction, reductions in ozone-depleting substances, and environmental and economically beneficial landscaping. Agency heads were also responsible for providing training to personnel and reporting progress annually to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Environmental Management: Requires the establishment and implementation of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) to ensure environmental stewardship in policies, programs, and procedures to be endorsed by senior-level managers within federal agencies. Environmental Compliance: Requires that each federal agency comply with environmental current regulations, establish pollution prevention (P2) programs and policies, and establish audit procedures to ensure compliance. Right-to-Know and Pollution Prevention: Requires federal agencies to provide timely information to the public and employees about possible pollutant threats associated with facility operations. Release Reduction: Toxic Chemicals: Requires federal agencies to reduce their reported Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) releases and off-site transfers of toxic chemicals for treatment and disposal by 10 percent annually, or by 40 percent overall, by December 31, 2006. Use Reduction: Toxic Chemicals and Hazardous Substances and Other Pollutants: Requires each agency to reduce its use of selected toxic chemicals, hazardous substances, and pollutants or its generation of hazardous and radioactive waste types at its facilities by 50 percent by December 31, 2006. Reductions in Ozone-Depleting Substances: Requires each federal agency to evaluate present and future uses of ozone-depleting substances and to initiate procurement and use of safe, cost-effective, and environmentally preferable alternatives. Each agency is also required to develop a plan to phase out the purchase of Class I ozone-depleting substances for all nonexcepted uses by December 31, 2010. Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Landscaping: Requires each agency to implement cost-effective, environmentally sound landscaping practices at federal facilities and on federal lands and to create programs to reduce adverse impacts to the natural environment.

IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY Each federal agency and department head are responsible for implementation of EO 13148. By April 2001, each agency and department was required to have a plan in place to integrate all associated provisions of the EO into its organizational processes; to have developed an EMS strategy for the organization; and to have submitted an annual implementation progress report to the EPA administrator. To help agency heads facilitate implementation of the EO, the EPA was directed to create a forum in which senior-level representatives from all federal

234

Executive Order 13148

agencies or departments could seek guidance and discuss implementation strategies of the EO. The EPA created a work group of senior officials that would not only provide a means for agency heads to discuss any issues but also monitor the progress of the federal departments in implementing the requirements of EO 13148. While EO 13148 tasked agency heads with its implementation across federal agencies, the EPA was tasked to provide general oversight for government-wide execution of the EO’s provisions. The EPA was to provide technical assistance on EMS implementation and audits; establish an environmental leadership awards program; and provide program oversight by conducting reviews and inspections for compliance, reviewing corrective action plans for noncompliant agencies and departments, and providing an annual report to the president on compliance measures. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (EMS) AND THE CODE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES (CEMP) FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES Most important in the execution of EO 13148, was the creation of an Environmental Management System (EMS) at all “appropriate” federal facilities. The EPA defines an EMS as “a set of processes and practices that enable an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and increase its operating efficiency.” According to the EPA, an EMS helps an organization address its regulatory demands in a “systematic and cost-effective manner” and helps reduce the risk of noncompliance and improve health and safety practices for employees and the public. EO 13148 cites the Code of Environmental Management Principles (CEMP) for Federal Agencies as the basis for creating an agency-based EMS. Yet, the CEMP is tailored after many of the common essential elements of International Organization for Standardization (ISO), such as ISO 14001, created in 1996, which is the official international standard for an EMS. The basic elements of an EMS are environmental policy, planning, implementation and operation, checking and corrective action (evaluation), and management review. Environmental Policy: Executive managers make a commitment to environmental performance and environmental improvement by establishing policies that emphasize environmental stewardship, sustainability, pollution prevention, and compliance with environmental regulations. The policy is the foundation of the EMS. Without full support from executive management, EMS establishment is nearly impossible. Planning: An environmental plan is created based on the policy established by executive management. An organization may identify its environmental impacts from its operations and prioritize significant environmental impacts to target or take action. Implementation and Operation: The organization implements the components of the action plan established in the planning phase.



Executive Order 13148 235

Checking and Corrective Action (Evaluation): The organization evaluates its performance through audits or other means to determine whether targets have been met. Evaluation also identifies deficiencies and enhancements needed to improve the process. Management Review: Executive management reviews the results of the evaluation to determine attainment of the EMS goals. Management determines whether the established environmental policy aligns with current organizational values. The plan is then revised to optimize the effectiveness of the EMS. The review stage creates a loop of continuous environmental improvement for the organization. EO 13148 therefore sets the standard for an organization’s environmental performance through EMS—that is, how well an organization interacts with the environment and the impacts (whether positive or negative) that result from these environmental interactions. OTHER EMS PROGRAM COMPONENTS While buy-in from top management and effective planning and implementation are crucial to a successful EMS, other EMS program components are necessary to recognize full organizational integration of an EMS. Compliance audit programs, staff training, public involvement, and performance evaluation for continual improvement are also integral parts of an EMS. Typically, audits are conducted to ensure EMS programs are functioning properly. Audits of records and processes are most commonly used to determine the effectiveness of an organization’s EMS. Audits of records are routine reviews of documentation and records. Audits of processes determine whether the systems in the EMS are working. These audits are conducted by internal or external agency personnel. Agency staff that are familiar with and involved in the daily operations of the plant complete the internal audits. External auditors are not affiliated with the facility. External auditors are typically EPA staff or outside consultants. Training the environmental staff to implement the EMS is also an integral part of successful EMS execution. Ultimately, all staff, even those without daily environmental duties, will need to understand their role in minimizing the environmental impacts of their facilities. Training takes two forms: (1) top-level instruction on the EMS and its intent and (2) detailed procedural instruction at all appropriate levels. One of the primary tenets of EO 13148 is the concept of “Right-to-Know,” which means providing transparent information to the interested and affected people. Federal facilities must conduct timely planning and reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to Know Act (EPCRA). Agencies must also act responsibly and inform the general public and facility staff of potential facility pollution sources. EO 13148 specifically discusses federal facilities’ roles in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) reporting and other chemical use and release reduction activities.

236

Executive Order 13423

The keys to continual improvement are measuring, monitoring, and evaluating the EMS. This ensures that an organization performs according to its environmental policy and objectives. The facility should evaluate EMS performance by identifying causes of nonconformance, identifying and implementing necessary corrective actions; implementing or improving existing controls to avoid repeating a nonconformance action, and recording changes in written procedures that result from corrective action. Frequent internal compliance audits can keep a facility compliant with EMS standards. EO 13148 prescribed Environmental Management Systems (EMS) as the ultimate step to increase compliance, reduce waste, and measure and manage an organization’s impact on the environment. The idea was to ensure that federal facilities not only comply with environmental regulations but also go a step further to include pollution prevention programs, make reductions in toxic chemical releases, and develop and encourage right-to-know programs. Establishing an EMS allows organizations to demonstrate consistent environmental performance, effectively manage wastes and resources, and reduce costs. EO 13148 was revoked on January 24, 2007, by EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. Brigette Bush-Gibson See also: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Further Reading

Botsford, C., and J. Koizum. 2001. “Environmental Management System Design & Implementation under EO 13148.” Presented at NDIA Environmental Conference, April 17–19, 2001. Arlington, VA. Accessed October 1, 2017. ­http://​­static1​.­squarespace​ .­c om ​/ ­s t atic​/ ­5 5f4e4d1e4b029b54a77cf 2d ​/ ­t ​/ ­5 5fdfde6e4b0eb7cda5977b5​ /­1442708966398​/­paper236​_EO​.­pdf. Executive Order 13423. 2007. “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.” Federal Register 72(17): 3917–3923. Grossarth, S., and A. Hech. 2007. “Sustainability at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 1970–2020.” Ecological Engineering 30(1): 1–8. Johnson, G. 2000. “Overview of Executive Order 13148: Requirements for Environmental Management Systems at Federal Facilities.” Quality Assurance 8(3–4): 153–160. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Implementation Guide for the Code of Environmental Management Principles for Federal Agencies (CEMP). USEPA, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. EPA 315-B-97-001. (2261A). Accessed December 31, 2018. ­https://​­p2infohouse​.­org​/­ref​/­21​/­20787​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “How to Develop an EMS.” Accessed October 1, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­ems.

Executive Order 13423(2007) On January 24, 2007, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management. The purpose of this executive order (EO) was to require federal agencies to



Executive Order 13650 237

implement actions that are environmentally, economically, and fiscally sound in a sustainable manner. The goal was to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of every federal agency. The policy was focused on several areas, including energy and water consumption, the reduction of toxic and hazardous chemicals, and more reliance on sustainable goods and services. The lead agency for implementing this policy was the Council on Environmental Quality, with assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for evaluation and compliance. Specifically, the EO required a 3 percent reduction of energy utilization annually through the end of fiscal year 2015, or 30 percent by the end of fiscal year 2015, relative to the baseline of the agency’s energy use in fiscal year 2003. It also advocated that the agencies use renewably produced energy. Agencies were also directed, starting in 2008, to reduce water consumption intensity through life-cycle cost-effective measures by 2 percent annually through the end of fiscal year 2015 or 16 percent by the end of fiscal year 2015. It required agencies to use energy- and water-efficient goods and services that included recycled products to focus on sustainable products. This included the use of paper of at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber content and a reduction of toxic and hazardous materials used or disposed of by the agency. This included the construction of new buildings and renovations, which were required to include sustainable practices. In the area of transportation, federal agencies were directed to decrease their total use of petroleum-based vehicles by 2 percent annually until the end of 2015 and included the use of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Electronic products were to feature the Energy Star performance in the area of energy efficiency, particularly for computers and monitors. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

Executive Order 13423. 2007. “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.” Federal Registrar 72(17): 3919–3923.

Executive Order 13650(2013) President Barack Obama, on August 1, 2013, signed Executive Order 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. The policy focused on facilities that manufacture, store, distribute, and use chemicals. It was prompted by a disaster in which a fire involving ammonium nitrate at a fertilizer company in West, Texas, exposed people to health risks, in addition to other chemical incidents in California, Louisiana, Washington, and Texas. The goal was to provide enhanced preparedness for chemical accidents and spills. This included improving first responder and emergency management training and coordination across the various emergency responders. Part of this process was to improve the data management and sharing of information regarding facility records. It required the modernization of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Risk

238

Executive Order 13693

Management Plan regulations and included improvements for prevention and preparation for chemical spills that impact drinking water and specifically incidents involving ammonium nitrate, as well as others. The EO established a working group headed by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with representation from many of the other federal departments and agencies. There was a blueprint laid out for stronger collaboration with the federal agencies and with state, local, and tribal governments; nonprofits organizations; and affected communities. Stakeholder input was one of the key features of the EO to get information to interested and affected parties. The EO directs the federal agencies to improve operational coordination with state, local, and tribal partners; enhance federal agency coordination and information sharing; modernize policies, regulations, and standards; and work with stakeholders to identify best practices (Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group 2014). According to the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group (2014, 1), thousands of facilities in the United States use, manufacture, and store chemicals, encompassing everything from petroleum refineries to pharmaceutical manufacturers to hardware stores. The chemical industry manufactures over “70,000 unique products, many of which are critical to the health, security, and economy of the Nation. The chemical industry employs nearly one million people and generates $700 billion in revenue per year.” This report lists twenty-seven significant incidents occurring from 2009 to 2013 that are associated with chemical safety hazards. These incidents included seventy-five facilities, the number of injuries to employees, and the impact to the communities (Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group 2014, 71–73). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Risk Assessment; Workplace and Occupational Exposure.

Further Reading

Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group. 2014. Executive Order 13650: Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security—A Shared Commitment: Report for the President. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​ /­chemicalexecutiveorder​/­final​_chemical​_eo​_status​_report​.­pdf. Executive Order 13693. 2013. “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.” Federal Registrar 78(152): 48029–48033.

Executive Order 13693(2015) President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13693, Planning for the Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, on March 25, 2015. The policy focused federal agencies on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sustainability. The goal was for federal agencies to reduce agency direct GHG emissions by at least 40 percent over the next decade. The Council on Environmental Quality and the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) were charged with setting percentage reduction



Exxon Mobil Corporation 239

targets for agencywide reductions. The goal was that agencies would be returning to 2008 emissions by 2025. In addition, specific energy efficiency and energy reductions were outlined for agencies in the areas of transportation, heating/cooling, power consumption, and the deployment of green infrastructure features. Many of the provisions of President George W. Bush’s 2007 Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, were included and accelerated, with added specific measures on what federal agencies had to achieve by specific deadlines. Moreover, the executive order (EO) required resiliency plans and chief sustainability officers designated for implementation. Federal agencies were required to implement and annually update an integrated Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. EO 13693 introduced new requirements and expanded on previous requirements for federal agencies to reduce GHG emissions and improve energy conservation. It went further than previous policies by requiring the use of renewable energy, green building technology, and water use and efficiency (including stormwater management) and the diversion of at least 50 percent of nonhazardous solid waste annually. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Executive Order 13423 (2007); Groundwater Contamination.

Further Reading

Executive Order 13423. 2007. “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.” Federal Registrar 72(17): 3919–3923. Executive Order 13693. 2015. “Planning for the Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.” Federal Registrar 80(57): 15871–15884.

Exxon Mobil Corporation Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (commonly referred to as Exxon) business focus includes energy, crude oil and natural gas exploration and production, and the manufacture of petroleum products. It markets products made from petrochemicals, such as plastics and other chemicals. The Exxon Mobil Corporation has several subsidiaries and brands, which include Exxon, Esso, and Mobil. Exxon has 69,600 employees along with an additional 1,600 employees at its retail sites. The company reports that it had $19.7 billion in earnings for 2017. Exxon is the world’s largest international oil and gas company that is traded publicly. It is heavily invested in oil, petroleum, and chemical sales. It is a major producer of oil and manufacturer of energy products. Exxon (ExxonMobil 2017) provides a variety of details for its operations in its annual report. The company claims it has 4 million net oil equivalent barrels per day of production. It reports that it sells 5.5 million barrels per day of petroleum products. In addition to oil production, the company claims that it has 25.4 million tons of chemical product sales. It is a major research and development organization in the energy field. For example, each year it generates $350 ­m illion via its technology license and usage fees, and it invests $1 billion annually in research and development programs worldwide. Since 2008,

240

Exxon Mobil Corporation

Exxon (ExxonMobil 2017) has received more than thirty-three hundred patents in the United States. Exxon divides its business segments into what it labels upstream, downstream, and chemical global operations. In the upstream segment, Exxon has active oil and gas operations in thirty-eight countries. These are the development, production, exploration, and research divisions of the company. In the downstream business segment, it is one of the largest fuels and lubricants operations located across twenty-five countries. This division includes refineries as well as and lubricant manufacturing. In the chemical business segment, Exxon has operations in sixteen countries and is considered one of the most profitable chemical companies worldwide. This division includes not only the manufacture of chemicals but also the supply of chemicals needed for the other two segments. This business segment has experienced significant growth and is predicted to continue expanding, particularly in Asia. Of the three business segments, the upstream area had the highest earnings in 2017 at $13.4 billion (ExxonMobil 2017). Downstream had $5.6 billion, and chemical had $4.5 billion in earnings (ExxonMobil 2017). According to the Fortune 500 rankings of the companies with the highest revenues, Exxon is listed as second in the United States, with revenues of approximately $2.4 billion (Fortune 2018). Exxon rose from the fourth-ranked company on the Fortune 500 list to the second, behind Walmart, due to rising oil prices. According to Exxon, it expects the demand for global energy to increase approximately 25 percent from 2016 to 2040 (SEC 2017) and estimates that it will be concentrated in developing countries. Transportation and electricity are significant drivers for this energy demand. Oil is expected to remain the largest source of energy at about one-third of the supply through 2040. Coal is the second-largest source, but it is expected to be surpassed in the 2020–2025 period. The company estimates that the world’s available oil and gas supplies will not meet growing demand from new explorations and discoveries. Instead, Exxon (SEC 2017) estimates that increases will come from already discovered fields through the use of technology. The chemical segment of Exxon benefits from the strong demand from manufacturers of industrial and consumer products in the Asia Pacific regions. In 1859, the first oil well was established in Titusville, Pennsylvania. The oil industry rapidly expanded in the United States, with Exxon’s predecessors being the main leaders. J. D. Rockefeller created the Standard Oil Company in Ohio, which became the facility with largest refining capacity in the world. Standard Oil Company acquired Vacuum Oil Company in 1879, which introduced lubricants into the operations, which continues today. In 1882, the company supplied lubricants for the first electrical generation system for Thomas Edison, and it formed the Standard Oil Trust. In 1885, the trust moved to New York City. In 1906, the company provided kerosene for small lamps in China. The company was growing at a fast rate, and this led to the U.S. Supreme Court decision to separate the large company into thirty-four different organizations. One of those companies, Jersey Standard, produced the first petrochemical of isopropyl alcohol (common rubbing alcohol) in 1920. Later, in 1937, Jersey Standard



Exxon Mobil Corporation 241

produced artificial rubber that was used in tires, surgical tapes, and protective coatings. The company continued to provide refineries, perfecting the technology for producing gasoline, and offered blending agents to produce gasoline for aviation in 1938. Jersey Standard changed its name to the Exxon Corporation in 1972. In 1999, Exxon and Mobil joined to form the Exxon Mobil Corporation. Today, it continues to be a major corporation in the United States and worldwide. Exxon has significant environmental liabilities from its operations and is involved with several multiparty sites as a potentially responsible party (PRP). For 2017, it estimated that its environmental liabilities were $302 million. They were $665 million in 2016 (SEC 2017). One of Exxon’s subsidiaries, XTO Energy Inc., in January 2018, entered into a consent decree concerning violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding vapors at well pads and tank farms at the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. Penalties were accessed in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to the Corporate Research Project (Mattera 2018), a nonprofit center that assists community, environmental, and labor organizations in research and analyzing companies, Exxon has an extensive history of environmental liabilities that it has reported on, particularly with the acquisition and mergers of companies over time. Exxon is reported to have over $980 million in fines associated with environmental violations since 2000, based on the Good Jobs First Report in 2018, which lists individual violations extracted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) national enforcement and compliance data. A sample of the Exxon environmental releases or spills is profiled by the EPA as cases. The EPA (2017a) reports on a variety cases from Exxon activities that have adversely affected the environment. One case required Exxon to eliminate thousands of tons of toxic air contaminants from eight of Exxon’s petrochemical manufacturing sites in both Texas and Louisiana. The violations included twenty-six flares (used to burn waste gas before it is released in air) at the company’s facilities that use or produce olefins and propylene. Olefins support the production of plastic products used in the household, such as food wrappers, packaging for consumer items, and items such as garbage bags. Propylene is used in the production of fabrics for furniture, carpets, boats, and different automotive parts. Several polymer plants were included that provide for the chemicals to make plastics used in diapers, shipping boxes, liners in truck beds, and food packaging. Eight plants were subject to the settlement, including plants located in Baton Rouge, Baytown, Beaumont, and Mont Beliveau. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and various hazardous air pollutants, including benzene, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matters (PM), prompted the violations. The penalty included $2.5 million for Exxon to implement federal supplemental environmental projects that benefit the towns where air quality was impacted. In 2001, Exxon entered into a consent order for the mismanagement of waste at its Port Mobil terminal on Staten Island, New York. The waste contained benzene, which is a known carcinogen. This settlement was $11.2 million, with $3 million to provide protection of environmentally sensitive lands in New York City along the Arthur Kill waterway. This overall penalty was the largest collected under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

242

Exxon Mobil Corporation

The most famous accident involving Exxon is the Exxon Valdez oil spill that occurred on March 24, 1989. The Exxon Valdez was an oil tanker that spilled over eleven million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound of the Gulf of Alaska. This was the largest spill of crude oil in the history of the United States, and the area was significantly impacted. It was home to a large commercial fishing industry, ten million migratory birds, hundreds of sea otters, a variety of whales, and seals and porpoises (EPA 2017b). Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 as a result of this massive spill, which required the U.S. Coast Guard to increase its oversight on the transport of oil in vessels. According to the EPA (2017b), tanker hulls are now better protected from spills, and communications between the captains and traffic centers have been improved for transportation. In 2017, the New York Times reported that Exxon had misled the public on climate change based on a review of information produced from internal communications and reports from 1977 to 2014 released by the company. This reporting was a follow-up to a 2015 claim that Exxon was suspected of spreading doubts about the risks of climate change. The immediate response by Exxon was that these documents did not show the initial claims were false. However, two professors from Harvard University examined the same information and found that the company did mislead the public about climate change, and the documents contained evidence that Exxon’s scientists, regarding climate change, cited gases as a risk. Professors Supran and Oreskes (2017) published their findings, which showed that the Exxon information had approximately 80 percent agreement from the scientists, indicating climate change was occurring and is caused by anthropogenic sources. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Benzene (C6H6); Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976); Oil; Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

ExxonMobil. 2017. ExxonMobil: 2017 Summary Annual Report. Accessed September 5, 2018. ­https://​­corporate​.­exxonmobil​.­com​/-/­media​/­Global​/ ­Files​/­investor​-­relations​ /­a nnual​-­meeting​-­m aterials​/­a nnual​-­r eport​- ­s ummaries​/­2017​- ­Summary​-­A nnual​ -­Report​.­pdf. Fortune. 2018. “Fortune 500.” Accessed September 7, 2018. ­http://​­fortune​.­com​/­fortune500. Good Jobs First. 2018. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­parent​/ ­Exxon​-­mobil. Mattera, Phillip. 2018. “Exxon Mobil: Corporate Rap Sheet.” Corporate Research Project. Last updated April 24, 2018. Accessed on September 7, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­corp​ -­research​.­org​/­exxonmobil. Schwartz, John. 2017. “Exxon Misled the Public on Climate Change, Study Says.” New York Times, August 23, 2017. Accessed on September 7, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​ .­com​/­2017​/­08​/­23​/­climate​/­exxon​-­global​-­warming​-­science​-­study​.­html. Supran, Geoffrey, and Naomi Oreskes. 2017. “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications.” Environmental Research Letters 12: 8. August 23, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2018. ­http://​­iopscience​.­iop​.­org​/­article​/­10​.­1088​/­1748​-­9326​ /­aa815f.



Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

243

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “ExxonMobil Corporation Hazardous Waste Settlement.” December 16, 2016. Accessed September 7, 2018 ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­enforcement​/­exxonmobil​-­corporation​-­hazardous​-­waste​-­settlement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017a. “Exxon Mobil Corporation: ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Clean Air Act Settlement.” October 31, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­enforcement​/­exxon​-­mobil​-­corporationexxonmobil​-­oil​ -­corporation​-­clean​-­air​-­act​-­settlement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017b. “Exxon Valdez Spill Profile.” January 19, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2918. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­emergency​-­response​ /­exxon​-­valdez​-­spill​-­profile. U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “Exxon Mobile Corporation: Form 10-K.” December 31, 2017. Accessed September 5, 2018. ­https://​­ir​.­exxonmobil​ .­com​/­static​-­files​/­7ed6ad4d​-­1cf0​- ­4328​-­817c​-­2e0844d382b6.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill(1989) The disaster known as the Exxon Valdez oil spill began shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989, when the 987-foot tank vessel Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef, near Valdez, Alaska, spilling somewhere between eleven and thirty-two million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound. Up until that point, it was the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history, until it was surpassed by the explosion and subsequent wellhead leak of British Petroleum’s (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster tested the abilities of local, national, and industrial organizations to respond to such incidents. The cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill took more than three years and cost in excess of $2.1 billion (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 1994). The environmental impact of this spill is still in question. The accident became an important rallying point for environmentalists and lawmakers and also prompted hundreds of scientific studies looking at the implications of the disaster on local people, the ecosystem, remediation practices, and oil spill responses. In the aftermath of the incident, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which required the U.S. Coast Guard to strengthen its regulations on oil tank vessels and oil tank owners and operators. When the Exxon Valdez left port at the Alaska oil pipeline terminal at Valdez, Alaska, on the night of March 23, 1989, few expected any trouble. This was the ship’s twenty-eighth voyage through the Prince William Sound, into the Gulf of Alaska, and then on to Long Beach, California. The ship’s skipper, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, was a twenty-one-year veteran of oil tankers, and the ship was nearly new (Haycox 2012). Early into the voyage, the Exxon Valdez encountered icebergs in the shipping lanes, and Captain Hazelwood ordered Helmsman Harry Claar to take the ship out of the shipping lanes to go around the icebergs. For reasons that remain unclear, the ship ran aground on Bligh Reef at 12:04 a.m. on March 24, 1989. Captain Hazelwood, who was perhaps drunk, was in his quarters at the time. Captain Hazelwood struggled for nearly two hours to power the ship off its perch on Bligh Reef, to no avail. The underwater rocks along the reef tore huge

244

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

holes in eight of the vessel’s eleven giant cargo holds. Computations aboard the Exxon Valdez showed that 5.8 million gallons had gushed out of the tanker in the first three hours. Because the spill occurred in coastal waters, the U.S. Coast Guard’s on-scene coordinator (OSC) had authority over cleanup activities. A Coast Guard investigator, along with a representative from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, visited the scene of the incident to assess the damage caused by the spill. By noon on Friday, March 25, the Alaska Regional Response Team was brought together by teleconference. The National Response Team, which also included EPA bioremediation specialists and weather forecasters from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was activated soon thereafter. Many animals were in immediate danger from the spill: about ten million migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, hundreds of sea otters, several varieties of whales, and dozens of other species, such as harbor porpoises and sea lions. The Alyeska Pipeline Service Company first assumed responsibility for the cleanup. Its response capabilities to deal with the spreading sea of oil would later be deemed inadequate. Owing to this inadequacy, Exxon took control of the response. Along with Exxon’s response, the efforts of the Coast Guard and state and local agencies were mixed but showed an overall incapability, at least initially, to contain the oil spill. Eventually, it was determined that somewhere between eleven million and thirty-two million gallons of oil, of the fifty-three million that the ship was carrying, had been spilled (NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration 2018). The combination of the spill’s location along Alaska’s relatively pristine subarctic waters and the fact that spring was coming on made it particularly devastating. The first method used in attempting to clean the spill was burning, wherein a trial burn was conducted during the early stages of the spill. A fire-resistant boom was placed between two ships that then towed the boom away from the slick, and the oil was ignited. However, owing to unfavorable weather conditions, this method was soon discontinued. Another method used booms and skimmers, but this would prove problematic in that they were not readily available during the first twenty-four hours following the spill. Alyeska had booms and other mechanical containment equipment available, but there was not enough equipment to contain an eleven-million-gallon spill. The barge that Alyeska’s response team normally used was being repaired. It took several hours to prepare and load the barge and another two hours to reach the Exxon Valdez. Once there, the oil and heavy kelp tended to clog the equipment, and the repairs to damaged skimmers were time-consuming. As with the use of burning, continued bad weather slowed down the recovery efforts. A third method was the use of dispersants, which proved to be controversial. There was little dispersant available in the area, so a private company applied dispersant with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Because there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water, the Coast Guard concluded that the dispersants were not working, and so their use was discontinued (EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 2016).



Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

245

Hot-water treatments for separating the oil, the most common method of dealing with oil spills, continued to be used, even though it was determined that the treatment was perhaps causing more damage than the oil. The process involved dozens of people holding fire hoses and spraying the beaches. The oil floating on the water was trapped within several layers of boom and either scooped up, sucked up, or absorbed using special oil-absorbent materials. As a result, several macroalgae and benthic invertebrates were killed by the chemical toxicity and physical displacement from their habitat by the pressure washing. Exxon’s first attempt to get past the limitations of hot-water treatments was its proposed use of the chemical cleaner Corexit, a kerosene-based product. Although Exxon insisted on Corexit’s effectiveness (though it had never fully gotten past the testing stage), the public’s nonacceptance of the further use of chemical treatments of areas that had already been fouled by oil would be problematic. The State of Alaska would not allow the chemical to be sprayed. Both state and federal environmental scientists agreed that although Corexit was good at taking oil off rocks, it was not necessarily more efficient or less disruptive than the hot-water treatments already in place. Given that hot-water washing, manual pickup, and other existing methods did an acceptable job of cleaning within an acceptable range of side effects, there was no need to gamble the rest of the cleanup on a chemical that had not been proven to be much less damaging or much more effective (EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 2016). During the next few months, storms continued to drive oil onto the sand and rock beaches along Alaska’s outer coast on the Gulf of Alaska, eventually spreading nearly five hundred miles from the spill site and fouling one thousand miles of irregular shoreline. Cleanup efforts were mainly targeted on the massive and expanding problem of on-the-water recovery. Efforts to save sensitive areas were begun early in the cleanup. Seal pupping locations and fish hatcheries were given the highest importance. However, wildlife rescue was slow. Adequate resources for this task did not reach the accident scene quickly enough. Through direct contact with oil or because of a loss of food resources, many birds and mammals died. One of the biggest challenges then became collecting the dead animals—particularly sea otters, harbor seals, and seabirds—which ending up involving thousands of people and taking far longer than originally anticipated (EPA 2016). Scientists would continue to study the ongoing effects of the spill. Their efforts were boosted when Exxon agreed to pay $900 million in a civil settlement with the U.S. and Alaskan governments to restore Prince William Sound (Haycox 2012). As the spill continued to reach more beaches, mechanical cleanups were also attempted on some beaches, where backhoes and other heavy equipment tilled the beaches to expose the oil underneath so that it could be washed out by high tides and storms that often occurred in the area. This method, termed storm-berm relocation, was generally accepted as a way to expose oil to weathering and bioremediation (ADEC 1993). Bioremediation was successful on several beaches where the oil was not too thick. This method involved adding oleophilic fertilizer and a slow-release soluble fertilizer to enhance the growth of bacteria naturally present in the environment,

246

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

which would then naturally degrade certain toxic hydrocarbons in the oil. A few solvents and chemical agents were also used, although none extensively. Subsequent analyses would show that were several basic problems with cleanup efforts among all the respondents. Blurred lines of authority complicated the work, and there was often no clear definition as to what constituted a “clean beach.” A report from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) noted problems such as uncoordinated spraying, wherein state monitors often observed Exxon crews spraying hoses randomly on the shorelines rather than working systematically down a beach; carelessness in applying treatment; poor scheduling and reporting of results, which meant that crews were often deployed on moderately oiled shorelines that could be completed quickly rather than on more heavily oiled shorelines that took more time; and poor choices in the usage of equipment, wherein some places used the more effective method of combining “omnibooms” with low-pressure beach deluge systems, but other places did not use the combination (ADEC 1993). In the year following the Exxon Valdez incident, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, which the EPA and the Coast Guard used to strengthen regulations on oil tank vessels and oil tank owners and operators. By June 1992, more than three years after the spill, the Coast Guard announced that cleanup activities would end, even though several pools of oil were still left. The justification was that the harm caused to the ecosystem was considered too small compared to the likely costs of further cleanup (EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 2016). In terms of litigation stemming from the oil spill, Exxon was fined $150 million, which up to that point was the largest fine ever imposed for an environmental crime. The court forgave $125 million of that fine in recognition of Exxon’s cooperation in cleaning up the spill and in paying certain private claims. In 1990, attorneys for plaintiffs also filed a class action suit on behalf of thirty-four hundred fishermen, boat owners, natives, local governments, and others seeking restitution for damages. A jury originally awarded the plaintiffs $5 billion, but Exxon appealed, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in a reduction of the award to $507 million, one-tenth of the original jury decision (Haycox 2012). In the wake of the disaster, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOSTC) was formed to oversee restoration of the injured ecosystem through the use of Exxon’s 1991 $900 million civil settlement. In November 1994, the EVOSTC adopted an official list of resources and services injured by the spill in its Restoration Plan. One of the continuing issues with the Restoration Plan is that when it was drafted, the distinction between the effects of the oil spill and the effects of other natural or anthropogenic stressors on affected natural resources was not clearly delineated, nor was the definition of “recovery”; so, as time passes, the ability to distinguish effects of oil from other factors affecting fish and wildlife populations has diminished (EVOSTC 1994). Nevertheless, a substantial body of research has addressed wildlife injury and recovery following the spill, which has allowed for greater understanding of the timelines and mechanisms of population recovery following catastrophic spills (Essler et al. 2018). Much of the research conducted in the wake of the spill would



Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

247

later be used to ameliorate the environmental damage inflicted by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Robert L. Perry See also: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010); Exxon Mobil Corporation; Oil; Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990).

Further Reading

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 1993. “The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final Report, State of Alaska Response.” Accessed June 21, 2018. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­evostc​.­state​.­ak​.­us​/­static​/ ­PDFs​/­deccleanuptechniques​.­pdf. Alaska Oil Spill Commission. 1990. “Final Report.” Accessed June 21, 2018. ­http://​­www​ .­evostc​.­state​.­ak​.­us​/­index​.­cfm​?­FA​= ​­facts​.­details. Essler, Daniel, and Brenda E. Ballachey, Craig Matkin, Daniel Cushing, Robert Kaler, James Bodkin, Daniel Monson, George Esslinger, and Kim Kloecker. 2018. “Timelines and Mechanisms of Wildlife Population Recovery Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 147: 36–42. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOSTC). 1994. “Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan.” Accessed June 20, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­evostc​.­state​.­ak​.­us​/ ­Universal​ /­Documents​/ ­Restoration​/­1994RestorationPlan​.­pdf. Guterman, Lila. 2009. “Exxon Valdez Turns 20.” Science 323(5921): 1558–1559. Haycox, Stephen. 2012. “‘Fetched Up’: Unlearned Lessons from the Exxon Valdez.” Journal of American History 99(1): 219–228. Lubick, Naomi. 2009. “Lasting Legacy of the Exxon Valdez.” Nature, March 20, 2009. Accessed June 20, 2018. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1038​/­news​.­2009​.­176. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Response and Restoration. 2018. “Response to the Exxon Valdez Spill.” Accessed June 20, 2018. ­https://​­response​.­restoration​.­noaa​.­gov​/­oil​-­and​-­chemical​-­spills​/­significant​-­incidents​ /­exxon​-­valdez​-­oil​-­spill​/­response​-­exxon​-­valdez​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 2016. “Response to Oil Spills.” In Understanding Oil Spills and Oil Spill Response, 37–44. Accessed June 20, 2018. ­https://​­archive​.­epa​.­gov​/­emergencies​/­docs​/­oil​/­edu​ /­web​/­pdf​/­chap8​.­pdf.

F Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)(1938) On June 25, 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the 1938 Federal Drug, Food, and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act), which was a group of related bills meant to regulate substantial portions of each industry. Even though the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster, which involved the deaths of more than one hundred people after a company marketed a toxic drug, is thought to have been the impetus for the bill, it involved a much longer process and various drafts of similar legislation introduced in multiple previous Congresses. However, the disaster served as the shot in the arm needed to pressure skeptical members of the industry and Congress to pass the legislation. It required manufacturers to label drugs with adequate instructions; required U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before marketing, promotion, and sale; and tightened regulations on false or misleading claims of products. Prior to its passage, the FDA only held limited regulatory powers under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 (PFDA). Almost immediately following the passage of the act, it became clear that the regulatory power given would not fulfill the spirit and mission of the law. Although the law created the FDA and granted some regulatory powers, it did not devote enough resources to ensure the safety of drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies. Multiple scandals arose from various manufacturers, and this signaled to the media, public, and sympathetic members of Congress that the original act could not regulate the industry in the way needed to protect the health and safety of consumers. Nevertheless, various reforms and revisions languished in the U.S. Senate for years as a result of objections from both politicians and the industries affected. For the most part, objections dealt with both statutory and conceptual objections among Congress and the industry. Manufacturers worried that the broad powers given to the FDA would seriously hamper the drug industry. However, the tides would turn with the Elixir Sulfanilamide scandal. Years prior, manufacturers began making a product that combated several illnesses and administered it via a pill. This product showed considerable promise and was manufactured by some of the largest drug companies in the world. A smaller company, S. E. Massengill, believed it could produce a liquid version of the drug in the hope of widespread sales. After it went to market, instances of deaths linked to the usage of the drug popped up around the country. The product used diethylene glycol as a solvent, a chemical used to dissolve another chemical to render a solution, which is toxic to humans. When all was said and done, seventy-four adults and thirty-four children had died from diethylene glycol poisoning. The New York

250

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)

Times estimated that eight of every ten persons who used the liquid version of the drug died. Because of the deaths, the scandal soon hit the newspapers, with the New York Times asserting that the deaths did not occur from the medical ingredient sulfanilamide but from S. E. Massengill’s use of diethylene glycol to produce a liquid version of the product. Many of the victims’ families demanded an investigation into the product and the company held accountable for their actions. However, it became clear relatively early that S. E. Massengill did not violate the PFDA, other than the false advertisement of the product’s capabilities. Under the marketing of the product, S. E. Massengill labeled the product as an “elixir.” Under the PFDA, for a company to market a product as an elixir, it must contain ethanol, which the drug did not contain. The PFDA did not establish civil or criminal liabilities for the sale of drugs as long as the company disclosed the chemicals used in the product. As a result, the drug manufacturer was relatively in the clear. Not surprisingly, this shocked the public and generated considerable energy to rectify the situation. As a result, the public outcry gifted the original iteration of the 1938 FD&C Act a much-needed boost in Congress. Even with the tragic deaths, drug companies still lobbied against passage of the bill, arguing that it granted too much arbitrary power to the FDA. However, with a strong push from a large part of the Congress and public support of the bill by President Roosevelt, it became law. The law substantially affected American politics, especially government regulation. It required that drugs receive approval prior to their marketing and sale. During this approval process, companies would need to show the safety of the drug. In that same process, the company and the FDA would also provide instructions on the label for the directed use of the drug. If the company had been required to receive approval for the marketing of Elixir Sulfanilamide, the toxicity of the product would have likely been uncovered, and the more than one hundred Americans who died from the drug likely would not have. Although it was the first premarketing approval regulation on the books, the FD&C Act has undergone multiple alterations and reauthorizations since. These include the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, which established the first rules for prescription-only and over-the-counter drugs, and the Kefauver-Harris Amendment, which required drug companies to show not only the safety of the drug but also its effectiveness. With the passage of the FD&C Act and the consequent reauthorizations and amendments, the FDA transformed into one of the more respected government regulators. The 1938 FD&C Act helped put the FDA on track to become one of the more successful government agencies, with a legacy that stands to this day. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996).

Further Reading

“Drug Fatality Cause Is Traced to Elixir: A.M.A. Chemists Say Diethylene Glycol Added to Sulfanilamide Killed 13.” 1937. New York Times, October 20, 1937. Accessed



Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 251

April 22, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­1937​/­10​/­20​/­archives​/­drug​-­fatality​-­cause​ -­is​-­t raced​-­to​-­elixir​-­ama​-­chemists​-­say​-­diethylene​.­html. Wax, Paul M. 1995. “Elixirs, Diluents, and the Passage of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.” Annals of Internal Medicine 122(6): 456–461.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the federal statute that governs the registration, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides in the United States. The law requires pesticide manufacturers to register all pesticides with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before the product enters the market and to prove that the pesticides will have no adverse effects on humans or the environment. There are approximately one thousand active ingredients found in nearly eighteen thousand products used for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating pests in the United States. These products include herbicides, disinfectants, pheromones, insect repellants, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, rodenticides, and growth regulators. These products typically consist of one or more active ingredients that are mixed with inert ingredients such as common food commodities (e.g., certain edible oils, spices, herbs) and some natural materials (e.g., beeswax, cellulose) that serve as carriers or solvents and help the pesticide destroy the target pest (Cohen 2014). Currently, the United States is the world’s second-largest user of pesticides, after China. The number of pesticides in the United States has not appreciably decreased in the last twenty-five years, and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last ten years (Donley 2019). Federal pesticide legislation largely began in 1910 after Congress enacted the Federal Insecticide Act, which authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to set standards for the manufacture of insecticides and fungicides and to require them to be labeled. The legislation allowed the USDA to inspect and remove products from the market that were deemed ineffective or were not up to the government’s standards. However, one of the noted weaknesses with the act was that, because it was primarily directed toward labeling requirements (for the safety of farmers and not necessarily for the public), it did not require pesticide registration, nor did it establish specific standards for pesticide efficacy, the environment, or human safety (Lau 2014). Pesticide use largely increased as a result of World War II. During the war itself, research efforts geared toward increasing the food supply were stepped-up. There was also the need to protect soldiers from pest-borne diseases, such as malaria and typhus. As a result, research in chemical warfare led to the discovery of several chemicals that were lethal to insects. In the immediate post–World II era, as farm populations dwindled and farm sizes increased, pesticide use became more common. Pesticide usage was often viewed as a way to solve major agricultural problems of the day, particularly in terms of dealing with bugs, beetles, worms, and weevils. Among the more popular

252

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

pesticides was the chlorinated hydrocarbon known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), whose use had become a major factor in Southern cotton production. Given that pesticides were seen as a major factor in the U.S. economy, there was not much questioning of their safe use. Congressional members from farm bloc states were largely supported by fellow members as well as a contented public (Finegan 1989). However, as new pests appeared and chemical pesticides became even more commonly used, public attitudes toward pesticide use changed, and Congress sought to regulate synthetic pesticides, which were not necessarily covered under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) of 1938. The potential risks of chlorinated hydrocarbons and organophosphate insecticides were of increasing concern. It was generally recognized, however, that organophosphates typically broke down into relatively harmless components over the course of a few weeks, but chlorinated hydrocarbons accumulated in the bodies of humans and wildlife (Davis 2014). Before World War II, the country’s pesticide registration policy was largely handled by the Pesticide Regulation Division (PRD) of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), part of the USDA bureaucracy. Unfortunately for the public, the PRD largely operated behind closed doors, which meant that registration policy was largely shaped by pesticide manufacturers, whose interests were often closely aligned with farmers’ interests (who often saw chemical technology as a mean to greater profits). This in turn meant that several thousand products, containing hundreds of different chemical compounds, were on the market without being fully tested (Nownes 1991; Daniel 2005). In May 1947, the FIFRA was signed into law. The act was an attempt to require the registration of all pesticides and other “economic poisons” intended for interstate or international sale. Ostensibly, it was implemented to protect consumers against fraudulent pesticide product claims. FIFRA also gave states the authority to enforce pesticide sale, use, and distribution within their respective boundaries. Under the new law, to register a pesticide, the manufacturer had to file a statement with the USDA that contained a complete copy of the proposed label to accompany the pesticide, including directions for its use, and a statement of all claims made for the product. The USDA could also order a manufacturer to supply a description of the tests conducted on the pesticide, the results on which claims for the product were based, and the complete formula of the pesticide. If the USDA determined that the article did not warrant the claims made for it or if its label did not meet statutory requirements, the manufacturer was notified and given an opportunity to make specified corrections. Manufacturers were also required to color powdered insecticides to prevent confusion with other household products, such as flour, sugar, baking soda, or salt. The USDA could refuse to register the product if the changes were not made (Large 1973; Davis 2014). Generally, the pesticide manufacturer had thirty days to correct the problem or to file an objection and request that the matter be submitted to an advisory committee composed of experts selected by the National Academy of Sciences (Large 1973). By the 1950s, as public concern over possible risks of insecticide-tainted food supplies increased, Congress passed two amendments to the FD&C Act: the



Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 253

Miller Amendment (which eventually became part of the Pesticide Residues Amendments of 1954), which granted the FDA the authority to set tolerances for each pesticide and crop, and the Delaney Clause, enacted in 1958, which prohibits the addition of any chemical to the human food supply that has been shown to cause cancer in humans or animals. By the 1960s, public concern over the environment was growing. Of particular importance to the burgeoning environmental movement was the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which detailed pesticide-related threats to falcons, bald eagles, ospreys, pelicans, and other wildlife. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy ordered a review of pesticide policy by his Science Advisory Committee, whose eventual report recommended reduced use of persistent chemicals. Several scientific reports supported the critics of pesticides, and by the mid-1960s, environmental groups such as the Environment Defense Fund (EDF), the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) began targeting the courts (Nownes 1991; Flippen 1997). These lawsuits and the subsequent court decisions underlined that FIFRA was largely inadequate in meeting its original product safety concerns as well as the environmental responsibilities in it (Large 1973). Among the major problems of the 1947 FIFRA was that although the law required labels to explain proper usage, there was really no means provided for enforcement. The law primarily focused on safety within the setting of single-crop fields. Little attention was paid to the potentially harmful effects on nontarget plants and animals, nor to the effects of pesticide drift into other fields, forests, or water supplies. There was also little attention paid to the effects (both long and short term) on humans other than through direct exposure through food ingestion. FIFRA also prescribed criminal penalties for violations related to the registration requirement but lacked any safety requirement. Also, while FIFRA allowed the USDA to cancel the use of an unsafe pesticide, it allowed for an extended appeals process during which the questionable chemical remained on the market (Lau 2014). Overall, the major problem with FIFRA was that the relationship between the USDA and pesticide manufacturers remained closed. The original assumption in the act was that the USDA would institute all actions under FIFRA, with the manufacturer as the only respondent (Large 1973). In essence, FIFRA failed to allow for outside consumer input. In the spring of 1969, President Nixon appointed a commission under the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to study pesticide policy. At issue was the continued use of DDT. The commission concluded that persistent pesticides were indeed harmful to the environment. In reaction, environmental groups petitioned the USDA to exercise its authority under FIFRA to initiate cancellation proceedings against DDT. However, the petition was denied (Flippen 1997). In 1970, after much public reaction and congressional debate, the USDA announced a ban on DDT. As a further result of continued public pressure, the Nixon administration believed that a complete revision of FIFRA was necessary, particularly in terms of allowing public input, as well as a strengthening of protections against specific pesticides. However, the debate over jurisdictional issues concerning the proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) complicated matters. Environmentalists

254

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

largely felt that the USDA protected farm interests, and farmers felt that the USDA should continue its jurisdiction (Flippen 1997). In the end, when the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) was passed in 1970, the EPA, rather than the USDA, the FDA, or HEW would oversee all pesticide regulation, including registration, tolerance setting, and research functions. In addition, the EPA would provide formal bureaucratic access for environmental groups (Large 1973). FIFRA, which had largely gone unchanged for nearly thirty years, underwent a drastic overhaul with the passage of the amendment known as the Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act (FEPCA) in 1972. The 1972 law replaced the 1947 law. The idea behind the new law was to expand registration measures so that there was more product control throughout the manufacturing and sales process. FEPCA also initiated a system of use control that had not existed under FIFRA. Under the new law, pesticide manufacturers were required to prove that their products would not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” The EPA was allowed to refuse registration for what it deemed were unsafe products. FEPCA expressly outlawed any use of a pesticide that was not in accordance with the product label—which was considered a legal document. Such unlawful use was subject to civil and criminal penalties. The availability and application of potential pesticides under the new FEPCA were controlled by a permit system, wherein applicators were educated on the accepted uses of the pesticide in question. The intention was that the EPA would be given the authority to directly move against product misusers rather than outright canceling a product’s registration (Large 1973). One of the immediate problems, however, was the fact that, when it came to defining “adverse effects,” Congress had failed to define such things as “risk,” “cost,” and “benefit” (Davis 2014). FEPCA also gave the public the right to examine industry data concerning the registration request, but only after the product had been officially registered. What was upsetting to environmentalists with FEPCA, however, was that they could not stop registration unless the product proved harmful—something that could take years to do. Unfortunately for the EPA, most pesticides had previously been registered by the USDA under the provisions of FIFRA. Most of data (already over a decade old) had addressed the efficacy and efficiency of the pesticides rather than their toxicity (Davis 2014). Additionally, industry groups were upset that open data could lead to the loss of trade secrets (Nownes 1991).When the FEPCA process began, there were nearly thirty-five thousand pesticide products in existence (Finegan 1989). In 1978, there were several substantial changes made to FIFRA. Congress attempted to streamline the process of pesticide registration by requiring the EPA to review groupings of products with the same active ingredients on a generic instead of an individual product basis. Congress also authorized the EPA to suspend registrations of products if registrants did not provide required test data in a timely fashion (Finegan 1989). It is important to note that FIFRA gave the EPA significant discretion on what pesticides it ultimately decides to cancel. These types of decisions are typically



Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 255

done through cost-benefit analyses. However, because the costs of things like reduced pollination services, reduced water quality, environmental degradation, and reduced quality of life are difficult to accurately quantify, such analyses come with a high degree of subjectivity and potential for influence by the agrochemical industry (Donley 2019). Between 1982 and 1984, several minor changes were made to FIFRA when Congress made some short-term authorizations. In the mid-1980s, the Reagan presidency, in its efforts to deregulate much of the environmental law, sought to overhaul FIFRA. In 1988, Reagan signed a new FIFRA amendment, which was largely a result of a compromise between environmental groups (including the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the EDF) and pesticide manufacturers. The new law required reregistration of over six hundred active ingredients in pesticides within nine years, and it also required manufacturers to pay the EPA a registration fee as well as a small annual maintenance fee (Nownes 1991). In recent years, amendments to FIFRA have primarily involved product review procedures and fee collections. For example, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 provided for the enhanced review of covered pesticide products, the authorization of fees for certain pesticide products, and the extension and improvement of the collection of maintenance fees. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act of 2007 expanded the number of fee categories for registration applications from 90 to 140, continued funding for farmworker protection activities, and established funding for partnership grants and pesticide safety education programs. Lastly, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 amended FIFRA to extend the EPA’s authority to collect annual maintenance fees for pesticide-registered products and to increase the maximum allowable fees for registrants. Despite some of the stringent rules in FIFRA, relative to other agricultural powers, including China, the European Union, and Brazil, the United States still lags when it comes to banning or phasing out pesticides that the others have identified as too harmful for use (Donley 2019). Robert L. Perry See also: Carson, Rachel (1907–1964); Delaney Clause; Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938); Pesticides.

Further Reading

Cohen, Stuart Z. 2014. “The Special Case of Pesticides: Science and Regulation.” Environmental Claims Journal 16(1): 55–68. Daniel, Pete. 2005. Toxic Drift: Pesticides and Health in the Post–World War II South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. Davis, F. R. 2014. Banned: A History of Pesticides and the Science of Toxicology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Donley, Nathan. 2019. “The USA Lags behind Other Agricultural Nations in Banning Harmful Pesticides.” Environmental Health 18: 44. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­ehjournal​.­biomedcentral​.­com​/­articles​/­10​.­1186​/­s12940​- ­019​- ­0488​- ­0. Finegan, Pamela A. 1989. “FIFRA Lite: A Regulatory Solution or Part of the Pesticide Problem?” Pace Environmental Law Review 6(2): 615–641.

256

Fertility Impacts

Flippen, J. Brooks. 1997. “Pests, Pollution, and Politics: The Nixon Administration’s Pesticide Policy.” Agricultural History 71(4): 442–456. Large, Mary J. 1973. “The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972: A Compromise Approach.” Ecology Law Quarterly 3(2): 277–310. Lau, Joanna. 2014. “Nothing but Unconditional Love for Conditional Registrations: The Conditional Registration Loophole in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.” Environmental Law 44(4): 1177–1202. Nownes, Anthony J. 1991. “Interest Groups and the Regulation of Pesticides: Congress, Coalitions and Closure.” Policy Sciences 24: 1–18. Schierow, Linda Jo, and Robert Esworthy. 2012. “Pesticide Law: A Summary of the Statutes.” Congressional Research Service. Accessed June 10, 2019. ­https://​­nationalaglawcenter​ .­org​/­wp​-­content​/­uploads​/­assets​/­crs​/­RL31921​.­pdf.

Fertility Impacts There are many substances that can have an adverse impact on fertility. Some substances are well-known infertility agents, but others are only suspected. Smoking is one of the well-known environmental substances that can impact fertility. Smoking can hurt a developing fetus, but smoking tobacco products and being exposed to secondhand smoke can also drastically affect a woman’s chances of getting pregnant in the first place. According to reports on women’s fertility, “smoking causes up to 13 percent of all infertility case[s]. Cigarette smoke disrupts hormones and damages DNA in both men and women with disrupted endocrine function and can experience significant fertility issues” (Mateo and MacMillan 2016). Scientists theorize that endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment may also reduce fertility. Endocrine disruptors are a class of more than twelve hundred chemicals that can mimic or block hormones, including estrogen, the  primary female sex hormone involved in pregnancy (Konkel 2011). These include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have been banned in the United States but remain widespread in the environment because of their inability to break down chemically. Women’s Voices for the Earth (Thompson 2017) reports that toxic chemicals such as dioxin, phthalates, and lead are some of the major toxic chemicals that impact fertility and should be avoided. Some of the chemicals that impact fertility are found in personal care products, cosmetics, and other items in daily household use, in addition to exposure at the workplace. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2017), scientists are just beginning to uncover the impacts of chemicals on fertility. Some hazardous chemicals in the workplace that the CDC mentions as reducing fertility in women include lead, radiation, and nitrous oxide. Other chemicals that can disrupt hormone production in women include organic solvents, PCBs, carbon disulfide, jet fuel, and pesticides. In regard to male infertility, the Mayo Clinic (2018) reports that industrial chemicals such as toluene, benzene, pesticides, organic solvents, lead, and painting materials can impact reproduction. Heavy metals, radiation, and tobacco

Fertilizers 257

smoke may also cause male infertility. Some occupations, such as welding, have more exposure to these chemicals. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Carbon Disulfide (CS2); Dioxins; Lead (Pb); Phthalates; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Secondhand Smoke; Tobacco Smoke.

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017. “Reproduction Health and the Workplace.” April 20, 2017. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­niosh​ /­topics​/­repro​/­femaleoccupationalhazards​.­html. Konkel, Lindsey. 2011. “Environmental Chemicals May Prove Obstacle for Infertile Couples.” Scientific American, October 12, 2011. Accessed January 24, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­scientificamerican​.­com​/­article​/­environmental​- ­chemicals​- ­obstacle​-­infertile​ -­couples. Mateo, Ashley and Amanda MacMillan. 2016. “15 Causes of Infertility in Woman.” Meredith Health Group. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­health​.­com​/ ­health​ /­gallery​/­0,,20918587,­00​.­html. Mayo Clinic. 2018. “Male Infertility.” September 18, 2018. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­mayoclinic​.­org​/­diseases​-­conditions​/­male​-­i nfertility​/­symptoms​-­causes​/­syc​ -­20374773. Thompson, Nicole. 2017. “The Filthy Five of Toxic Chemicals and Fertility.” Women’s Voices for the Earth, November 17, 2017. Accessed January 24, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­womensvoices​.­org​/­2014​/­11​/­07​/­the​-­filthy​-­five​-­of​-­fertility​-­and​-­toxic​-­chemicals.

Fertilizers Fertilizers provide additional nutrients to the soil for the purpose of enhancing plant growth. There are three main chemicals in nature that impact plant growth: nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. Other nutrients that are required include calcium, sulfur, and magnesium, in addition to several micronutrients. There are several sources of fertilizers that include both natural and manufactured sources. These include sources from commercial chemicals, biosolids and sewage, and those processed from industrial wastes. Commercial chemicals used for fertilizer include nitrogen and phosphorus sources. Industrial wastes that are used as fertilizers supply zinc and other micronutrient metals that are needed for plant growth. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2018), only a small percentage of fertilizers come from industrial wastes. These fertilizers may contain lead, arsenic, or cadmium, which have to be monitored. The EPA has standard limits on levels of heavy metals and toxic chemicals that may be contained in fertilizers. Composts, organic matters, and sewage sludge wastes are common sources of fertilizer. Biosolids (treated human sewage sludge) are nutrient-rich organic materials that are produced in the treatment of domestic sewage at a municipal treatment facility. These residuals can be recycled and applied as fertilizer to improve soil quality and enhance plant growth. Sewer sludge used in agriculture is enforced under the Clean Water Act to limit contaminants that may be in the fertilizer sludge, such as lead, mercury, nickel, arsenic, copper, cadmium, and other pollutants.

258

Fetal Impacts (In Utero Toxicity)

Fertilizers that are excessively applied on agricultural lands can cause nitrogen and phosphorous pollution in the ecosystem. This may result in tremendous overgrowth as the chemicals leach into the water system. In fact, animal manure is a primary source of nitrogen and phosphorous pollution to both surface water and groundwater according to the EPA (2018). The manure from agriculture reaches the water ecosystem through runoff and can cause significant ecosystem damage. In 2014, Lake Erie experienced an algae bloom from the fertilizer runoff of nitrogen sources into the Great Lakes. It was so toxic that the city of Toledo, Ohio, shut down its drinking water system and had a water boil order for all residents. Fertilizers impact the Great Lakes by causing lake eutrophication, which is an overgrowth of algae and plant life that suffocates the oxygen supply for fish and other life in the lakes. Heavy rains create runoff of these nutrients into the rivers, lakes, and, ultimately, the oceans. In the 1970s, Lake Erie was declared “dead” from the impacts of phosphorus leaching into the water from runoff. The lake has since been revitalized after limits were put on phosphorus in detergents and other sources from entering the lake. Chesapeake Bay has also regularly experienced a dead zone since the 1950s. The most famous dead zone from runoff surrounds the mouth of the Mississippi River at the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists are concerned about changes to rainfall from climate change, which will cause additional eutrophication of waterways. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Herbicides; Insecticides; Pesticides.

Further Reading

Schlossberg, Tatiana. 2017. “Fertilizers, a Boon to Agriculture, Pose Growing Threat to U.S. Waterways.” New York Times, July 27, 2017: A13. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2017​/­07​/­27​/­climate​/­nitrogen​-­fertilizers​-­climate​-­change​ -­pollution​-­waterways​-­global​-­warming​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Agriculture Nutrient Management and Fertilizer.” October 29, 2018. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­agriculture​/­agriculture​-­nutrient​-­management​-­and​-­fertilizer.

Fetal Impacts (In Utero Toxicity) A growing body of literature has shown that environmental pollutants play a contributing role in morbidity, mortality, and disability among newborns and children. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a chemical inventory of several thousands of chemicals, many of which are produced or imported in excess of a million pounds per year. As a result, it is not surprising that hazardous chemicals have been found in cord blood, placenta, meconium, and breast milk samples. While these millions of pounds of toxic chemicals, including carcinogens, reproductive toxins, neurological toxins, and suspected respiratory toxins thought to be linked to developmental problems in fetuses, are released into the air, water, and land every year, there is only limited information about the health effects of



Fetal Impacts (In Utero Toxicity) 259

these releases, particularly when it comes to newborns and small children (Agarwal et al. 2010). Although risk assessments have been historically conducted on a chemical-by-chemical basis, regulatory agencies are continuing to study the cumulative risk of chemicals (Rider et al. 2010). The issue of measuring the impacts of fetal toxicity is further complicated by the fact that many studies on adult health may be flawed because of the inability to measure lifetime exposure to toxic chemicals. However, several studies have linked air pollution with preterm births and low birth weight babies. In the United States alone, an estimated 3.3 percent of preterm births can be attributed to air pollutant particulate matter (PM) (Denicola et al. 2018). Without a doubt, pregnant women are likely exposed to several toxic chemicals. What is problematic is the fact that prenatal neurodevelopment can start as early as the second gestational week. Although many neurodevelopmental disorders, such as intellectual disability, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHS), learning disabilities, and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) affect children worldwide, most disorders are thought to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors (Philippat et al. 2017). When it comes to the study of fetuses and infants, evidence of damage to them is available for only a few chemicals, and even then, laboratory data on toxicity is of limited value, given that tests are typically conducted on animals (Currie and Schmieder 2009). Among the chemicals that have been identified as neurotoxic, bisphenol A (BPA), an estrogenic endocrine disruptor widely used in the production of plastics used in many consumer products, such as digital media, some toys, medical devices and food packaging, has been found in more than 90 percent of the examined U.S. population. Animal studies have shown that in utero exposure to BPA produces prenatal and postnatal adverse effects on multiple tissues, including the brain (Philippat et al. 2017; Kundakovic et al. 2013). Of great concern to toxicologists and other health professionals studying the effects of toxic chemical exposures is often the presence of the following in many homes: organophosphate pesticides, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, and combustion-related air pollutants. Triclosan, an antibacterial agent used in personal care products such as antibacterial soaps and toothpastes, has been suspected to affect thyroid hormone homeostasis (Philippat et al. 2017). The group of chemicals known as phthalates—commonly found in plastic toys, personal care products, food wrappings, cleaning products, medical devices, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) flooring—can act as endocrine disruptors, mimicking estrogen, androgen, and other hormonal effects, thereby increasing risk of not only neurodevelopmental disorders but also infertility, breast cancer, and prostate cancer (Denicola et al. 2018). Researchers have noted that the prevalence of childhood eczema is steadily increasing worldwide and may be linked to maternal prenatal exposure to diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) and diisononyl phthalate (DINP) (Soomro et al. 2018). Toxicologists and other health professionals are also greatly concerned about maternal exposure to toxic metals such as cadmium (Cd), whose sources of exposure often include smoking and ingestion of foods grown in cadmium-laden soil; mercury (Hg), through ingestion of contaminated fish; lead (Pb), from such things

260

Fetal Impacts (In Utero Toxicity)

as paint; arsenic (As), from ingestion of contaminated water; and zinc (Zn), a naturally occurring trace element in food and air. Maternal exposure to these metals has been associated with low infant birth weight, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and neonatal and infant mortality (Sabra et al. 2017). Although the specific mechanisms by which toxic or essential metals affect pregnancy outcomes are largely unknown, metals are known to influence the expression of genes involved in critical biological pathways. Smeester et al. (2017) found that in utero arsenic exposure may alter cell-free fetal RNA assessed in amniotic fluid. Similarly, Okabe (2017) found that arsenic not only causes indirect fetal toxicity due to amino acid transport disorders by acting on the placenta but also shows the possibility of directly acting on the fetus to cause fetal toxicity. In terms of preventing in utero toxicity, exposure to harmful chemicals can often be avoided if the product contents (particularly in personal care products) are listed on the product label. To that end, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has developed an information collection project titled Prenatal Assessment of Environmental Risk (PAER), whose long-term goal is to provide reproductive health care professionals informational resources to facilitate reduction in harms associated with environmental chemical exposure to pregnant women and their babies. Robert L. Perry See also: Arsenic (As); Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2); Cadmium (Cd); Mercury (Hg); Phthalates.

Further Reading

Agarwal, Nikhil, Chanont Banternghansa, and Linda T. M. Bui. 2010. “Toxic Exposure in America: Estimating Fetal and Infant Health Outcomes from 14 Years of Tri Reporting.” Journal of Health Economics 29: 557–574. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2018. “Prenatal Assessment of Environmental Risk (PAER).” Accessed March 1, 2019. ­https://​­publiccommentproject​ .­org​/­environ​-­healthsummaries​/­paer​-­info​-­collection. Currie, Janet, and Johannes F. Schmieder. 2009. “Fetal Exposures to Toxic Releases and Infant Health.” American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 99(2): 177–183. Denicola, Nathaniel, Marya G. Zlatnik, and Jeanne Conry. 2018. “Toxic Environmental Exposures in Maternal, Fetal and Reproductive Health.” Contemporary OB/GYN 63(9): 34–38. Kundakovic, Marija, Kathryn Gudsnuk, Becca Franks, Jesus Madrid, Rachel L. Miller, Frederica P. Perera, and Frances A. Champagne. 2013. “Sex-Specific Epigenetic Disruption and Behavioral Changes Following Low-Does In Utero Bisphenol A Exposure.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 110(24): 9956–9961. Okabe, Keisuke. 2017. “Investigation into Fetal Toxicity by Arsenic Exposure to Pregnant Women.” Placenta 59: 178. Philippat, Claire, Dorothy Nakiwala, Antonia M. Calafat, Jérémie Botton, Maria De Agostini, Barbara Heude, Rémy Slama, and the EDEN Mother–Child Study Group. 2017. “Prenatal Exposure to Nonpersistent Endocrine Disruptors and Behavior in Boys at 3 and 5 Years.” Environmental Health Perspectives 125(9). CID: 097014. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1289​/ ­EHP1314.



Fish Contamination 261

Rider, C. V., J. R. Furr, V. S. Wilson, and L. E. Gray Jr. 2010. “Cumulative Effects of In Utero Administration of Mixtures of Reproductive Toxicants That Disrupt Common Target Tissues via Diverse Mechanisms of Toxicity.” International Journal of Andrology 33: 443–462. Sabra, Sally, Ebba Malmqvist, Alicia Saborit, Eduard Gratacós, and Maria Dolores Gómez-Roig. 2017. “Heavy Metals Exposure Levels and Their Correlation with Different Clinical Forms of Fetal Growth Restriction.” PLoS ONE 12(10): e0185645. Smeester, Lisa, Elizabeth M. Martin, Pete Cable, Wanda Bodnar, Kim Boggess, Neeta L. Vora, and Rebecca C. Fry. 2017. “Toxic Metals in Amniotic Fluid and Altered Gene Expression in Cell-Free Fetal RNA.” Prenatal Diagnosis 37: 1364–1366. Soomro, Munawar Hussain, Nour Baiz, Claire Philippat, Celine Vernet, Valerie Siroux, Cara Nichole Maesano, Shreosi Sanyal, Remy Slama, Carl-Gustaf Bornehag, and Isabella Annesi-Maesano. 2018. “Prenatal Exposure to Phthalates and the Development of Eczema Phenotypes in Male Children: Results from the EDEN Mother–Child Cohort Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 126(2). CID: 027002. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1289​/ ­EHP1829.

Fish Contamination One of the major health hazard concerns in the last fifty years has been contaminated fish, whether saltwater or freshwater, that make their way into the human diet. There is a particular risk from eating contaminated fish because of bioaccumulation (wherein organisms absorb toxic substance more rapidly than the substance can be excreted). Added to this, as larger fish eat smaller fish, the toxic effects become magnified as they work their way up the food chain. In some instances, fish may have concentrated toxic substances in their flesh and fat at levels nine million times that of the water in which they live (PETA 2010). This is particularly problematic in the biggest and fattiest fish, such as tuna and swordfish (Barclay 2013). Toxins appear in our waterways by several means, primarily through human activities, industrial and household wastes, and agricultural runoff. One analysis of seafood, for instance, found that fish populations throughout the world’s oceans are contaminated with industrial and agricultural pollutants, collectively known as persistent organic pollutants (POPs). However, the study did find that concentrations of these pollutants have been consistently dropping over the last three decades (Scripps Institution of Oceanography 2016). For instance, for decades, paper mills were one of the major water polluters. Even though the industry has improved its disposal methods, and there are fewer effluents being released into watercourses, because of less paper production and more efficient wastewater treatment techniques, many of the pollutants remain in the sediments and are available to several aquatic species, particularly bottom-feeding fish (Ratia, Vuori, and Oikari 2011). This may become more problematic as storm activity related to global warming increases throughout this century. Another source of fish toxicity is tar. Two studies were conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to address the concern that rainfall runoff

262

Fish Contamination

occurring within hours or days of coal tar–based sealant application may be toxic to fish and other organisms in streams. Pavement sealants that contain coal tar have extremely high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The studies found coal tar–based sealants are indeed toxic to aquatic life in that they damage DNA and impair the ability of the cells to repair DNA damage (USGS 2015). The effects of oils that find their way into waterways are closely related to those from tar. Oil spills, such as those that occurred in the wake of disasters such as the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon, are a prominent source of this type of pollution. Also, when people dump oil on the ground or dispose of it in landfills, the oil can end up in the world’s waterways. Oil binds to small particles in the water that eventually settle to the bottom and may build up in shellfish and other organisms. Such exposure to oil has been shown to produce an induction of ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) enzymes in the livers of fish. Oils have also shown effects on amphibian reproduction (Irwin et al 1997). In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, research found that, compared to their healthy counterparts, oil-exposed fish in the Gulf of Mexico had inhibited cardiac performance, slower ability to find food, and were more likely to become prey (Stuckey 2018). Household products that have proven harmful to fish are such things as laundry detergents and household cleaning products. While most chemical cleaners will break down into harmless substances during water treatment, others can certainly threaten water quality for fish. For example, alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) are commonly used in detergents, disinfectants, laundry stain removers, and citrus degreasers. When some APEs are discharged into municipal wastewater, they do not degrade in the water or soil. In addition, APEs can mimic estrogen, which, in the water, may harm the reproduction and survival of salmon and other fish (OCA 2019). One of the more dangerous components of many of these products are surfactants, which are substances that reduce the surface tension of water, thereby making water “wetter” and more effective in cleaning. Warne and Schifko (1999) point out that surfactants can form micelles (an aggregate of molecules in a colloidal solution) that increase the toxicity of other organic compounds in the same solutions. Their review of the research found that some detergent components may cause sexual disruption of fish and may have estrogenic effects as well. Other harmful aquatic effects from surfactants include modification of gill tissues, causing respiration problems in fish and mollusks, and changes in the nerve receptors of fish that induce disorders in feeding and thermoregulation (Sobrino-Figeroa 2018). Mercury is among the more dangerous aspects of fish consumption for humans. Fish consumption is, in fact, the number one cause of mercury exposure in the United States. The EPA estimates that more than seventy-five thousand babies are born each year with a greater risk of learning disabilities because of their mothers’ mercury exposure (Menon 2016). Mercury is most often emitted into the environment from coal-burning power plants, and then it settles into the world’s lakes, rivers, and oceans.



Fish Contamination 263

Along with mercury, another prevalent toxin found in fish is polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Although the use of PCBs was banned in the United States in 1979, there is still an extensive presence of them throughout the world. The toxic danger for humans from PCBs is that they act like hormones, wreaking havoc on the nervous system and contributing to a variety of illnesses, including cancer, infertility, and other sexual problems. PCB consumption may also affect brain function. One study found that fish eaters with high levels of PCBs in their blood have difficulty recalling information that they had learned just thirty minutes earlier (PETA 2010). In recent years, there has been more attention paid to the amount of plastics in the world’s oceans. As the plastics break down into smaller parts, they are often ingested by fish. One study found that when plastic interacts with the fishes’ internal organs, the chemicals are then transferred to the bloodstream or tissue (Barclay 2013). One group of people in the United States who have been particularly harmed by toxic fish consumption is Native Americans whose diet and economy, as well as culture, are based on fishing. The accumulative effects of toxic chemicals found in fish and other aquatic animals (including arsenic, PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, fungicides, cadmium, lead, and mercury) have been highly problematic. For example, nearly all Inuit have PCB levels far above guideline levels that health officials consider safe, and some have ingested enough toxins from fish that their breast milk and body tissues would be classified as hazardous waste (PETA 2010). Although the consumption of aquatic animals lessened in the wake of several governmental advisories in the 1980s, health issues among Native Americans remain. Authorities are in general agreement that fish are usually safe to eat. Those interested in seeing which types are safest can consult this information provided by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF): ­www​.­edf​.­org​/­content​/­contaminated​-­fish. Robert L. Perry See also: Laundry Detergents; Mercury (Hg); Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); Pesticides; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

Barclay, Eliza. 2013. “How Plastic in the Ocean Is Contaminating Your Seafood.” National Public Radio. Accessed August 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­npr​.­org​/­sections​/­thesalt​/­2013​ /­12​/­12​/­250438904​/ ­how​-­plastic​-­in​-­the​-­ocean​-­is​-­contaminating​-­your​-­seafood. Irwin, R. J., M. VanMouwerik, L. Stevens, M. D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1997. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. Accessed July 16, 2019. ­w ww​.­f ws​.­gov​/­caribbean​ /­es​/­PDF​/­Contaminants​/­oilused​.­pdf. Menon, Shanti. 2016. “Mercury Guide.” ­NRDC​.­org. Accessed August 1, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­n rdc​.­org​/­stories​/­mercury​-­g uide. Organic Consumers Association (OCA). 2019. “How Toxic Are Your Household Cleaning Supplies?” Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­organicconsumers​.­org​/­news​/ ­how​ -­toxic​-­are​-­your​-­household​-­cleaning​-­supplies. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). 2010. “Move Aside Mercury, PCBs Are the Real Toxins in Fish.” Accessed August 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­peta​.­org​ /­living​/­food​/­toxins​-­fish.

264

Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes

Ratia, Heli, Kari-Matti Vuori, and Aimo Oikari. 2011. “Caddis Larvae (Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae) Indicate Delaying Recovery of a Watercourse Polluted by Pulp and Paper Industry.” Ecological Indicators 15(1): 217–226. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. 2016. “Study Finds Toxic Pollutants in Fish across the World’s Oceans.” Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­scripps​.­ucsd​.­edu​/­news​/­study​ -­finds​-­toxic​-­pollutants​-­fish​-­across​-­worlds​-­oceans. Sobrino-Figueroa, A. 2018. “Toxic Effect of Commercial Detergents on Organisms from Different Trophic Levels.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25: 13283–13291. Stuckey, Alex. 2018. “Long-Term Impacts of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill the Focus of UT Marine Science Institute Research.” Houston Chronicle, October 5, 2018. Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­houstonchronicle​.­com​/­news​/­science​ -­e nvironment​ /­a rticle​ / ­L ong​ -­t erm​ -­i mpacts​ -­of​ -­D eepwater​ -­H orizon​ -­o il​ -­s pill​ -­13282768​.­php. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. “Coal-Tar-Sealant Runoff Causes Toxicity and DNA Damage.” Accessed August 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­usgs​.­gov​/­news​/­coal​-­tar​ -­sealant​-­r unoff​-­causes​-­toxicity​-­and​-­dna​-­damage. Warne, M. St. J., and A. D. Schifko. 1999. “Toxicity of Laundry Detergent Components to a Freshwater Cladoceran and Their Contribution to Detergent Toxicity.” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 44: 196–206.

Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes Flame retardants are specially designed chemicals that suppress the chemical reactions in flames and thus help slow down the spread of accidental fires. They exist as either additive flame retardants that are physically mixed with the material, which are very likely to expose people during the use of the material, or reactive flame retardants that are chemically bound to the material. Flame retardants have been added to manufacturing materials, such as plastics, textiles, and surface coatings, and numerous consumer products, including children’s clothes and toys, but they have proven mutagenic and carcinogenic to animals. New flame retardants have been developed and used, but health concerns still exist. Organic compounds with chlorine or bromine atoms in their molecules are among the most commonly used flame retardants (Alaee et al. 2003). Other major types of flame retardants are inorganic, organophosphorus (which can be halogenated as well), and nitrogen-containing compounds (Alaee et al. 2003; Van Esch 1997). The halogen- (chlorine or bromine) and phosphorus-based flame retardants retard fires by releasing radical species to interrupt the chain propagation in combustion processes (Van Esch 1997). In 1953, the Flammable Fabrics Act was passed, which required the addition of flame retardants in children’s sleepwear, mattresses, mattress pads, and carpets, to reduce burn injuries in children. Two flame retardants were primarily used in children’s sleepwear at that time: tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate, known as tris-BP, and tris-(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate, known as tris-CP. In a 1977 study, tris-BP was found in 34 percent of children’s pajamas purchased in the United States, and tris-CP was found in 18 percent (Gold, Blum, and Ames 1978).



Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes 265

Tris-BP was first synthesized in 1950, and its commercial production started in 1959 (Van Esch 1995). The total production volume in 1975 was estimated to be in the range of 4,500–5,400 tonnes (metric tons). There is no adequate information for its applications other than as a flame retardant in children’s sleepwear. About five million children were exposed to tris-BP before it was banned in 1977 (Blum et al. 1978). Tris-BP can be metabolized into a mutagen, 2,3-dibromopropanol, which has been found in the urine of children wearing tris-BP-treated sleepwear (Blum et al. 1978). Tris-BP is absorbed by skin, and repeated washing of the sleepwear does not completely remove the retardant. An evaluation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 1999) concluded that tris-BP is probably carcinogenic to humans. People are usually exposed to tris-BP by wearing treated clothing. Occupational exposure takes place in the textile industry. Children that wear sleepwear treated with tris-BP during sleep may be exposed at 9 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. It has been estimated that a child can absorb 2–77 milligrams of tris-BP per kilogram of bodyweight over six years (Van Esch 1995). Tris-BP may cause human skin sensitization (Van Esch 1995). Sufficient evidence indicates that tris-BP causes benign and malignant tumors in mice and rats. Its metabolites (products of metabolism) also induce various tumors. Additionally, these three chemicals damaged kidneys in rodents. Tris-BP causes mutation in bacteria and damages the genes of mice, cultured mammalian cells, and common fruit flies (IARC 1999). Consequently, the benefits of adding flame retardants to reduce burns may be outweighed by the risks of contracting cancer and other diseases (Blum and Ames 1977). Tris-BP can be released from treated fabric to the environment. It has relatively low volatility and water solubility and thus easily binds to sediment and soil (Van Esch 1995). Under ambient conditions, tris-BP is relatively persistent. It is not easily destroyed by sunlight but may be hydrolyzed once in water or be degraded by microbes in sludge. In the late 1970s, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the use of tris-BP in children’s pajamas. Its use in textiles was also restricted and prohibited in other countries (Van Esch 1995); however, it may be added to polymer for other applications later. Tris-CP was added to children’s sleepwear as an alternate flame retardant. It has a molecular structure similar to that of tris-BP by replacing the bromine with chlorine. In 1975 alone, 2,700–4,500 tonnes of tris-CP were industrially produced. It was used to treat polyester and mixtures of polyester and acetate or triacetate. These polyesters have been used to make children’s pajamas. Tris-CP is mutagenic to bacteria when activated by the liver of a mouse or rat. Its expected metabolites are mutagens without activation (Gold, Blum, and Ames 1978). It produced tumors in the kidneys, testicles, and brains in rats (International Programme on Chemical Safety 1998). After tris-BP was banned, the use of tris-CP was discontinued; however, its use has reemerged in recent decades. It has been added to flexible polyurethane foam for a wide variety of consumer products. Tris-CP is now classified as a high

266

Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes

production volume chemical by the EPA. Tris-CP was found in one-third of baby products in 2011, including nursing pillows, car seats, and highchairs (Stapleton et  al. 2011). Other flame retardants, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and two other chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants, were also identified in some of these baby products. It was suspected that children were exposed to higher-than-acceptable levels of tris-CP than the limit set by CPSC (Stapleton et al. 2011). Tris-CP was also widely detected in indoor dust and air in residential houses in the United States. In 1996, the CPSC allowed the use of sleepwear without flame retardants but recommended that the sleepwear be tight-fitting. This design reduces oxygen between the fabric and a child’s skin, which decreases the risk of clothing catching fire. In other applications, such as furniture and electronic equipment, flame retardants are still widely used. Various new flame retardants have been synthesized and applied to these products, such as the product with the trade name Firemaster 550, which is a mix of several organic flame-retardant chemicals. Their health effects are unknown. Jiehong Guo See also: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Further Reading

Alaee, Mehran, Pedro Arias, Andreas Sjödin, and Ake Bergman. 2003. “An Overview of Commercially Used Brominated Flame Retardants, Their Applications, Their Use Patterns in Different Countries/Regions and Possible Modes of Release.” Environment International 29(6): 683–689. Blum, Arlene, and Bruce N. Ames. 1977. “Flame-Retardant Additives as Possible Cancer Hazards.” Science 195(4273): 17–23. ­http://​­science​.­sciencemag​.­org​/­content​/­195​ /­4273​/­17. Blum, Arlene, Marian Deborah Gold, Bruce N. Ames, Frank R. Jones, Eva A. Hett, Ralph C. Dougherty, Evan C. Horning, Ismet Dzidic, David I. Carroll, Richard N. Stillwell, and Jean-Paul Thenot. 1978. “Children Absorb Tris-BP Flame Retardant from Sleepwear: Urine Contains the Mutagenic Metabolite, 2,3-Dibromopropanol.” Science 201(4360): 1020–1023. Gold, M. D., A. Blum, and B. N. Ames. 1978. “Another Flame Retardant, Tris(1,3-Dichloro-2-Propyl)-Phosphate, and Its Expected Metabolites Are Mutagens.” Science 200(4343): 785–787. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1999. “Tris(2,3-Dibromopropyl) Phosphate (Group 2A).” IARC Summaries & Evaluations 71: 905. Last updated April 13, 1999. Accessed October 8, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­inchem​.­org​/­documents​/­iarc​ /­vol71​/­033​-­t ris23dibrpr​.­html. International Programme on Chemical Safety. 1998. “Flame Retardants: Tris(Chloropropyl) Phosphate and Tris(2-Chloroethyl) Phosphate.” Environmental Health Criteria 209, International Programme on Chemical Safety. Accessed October 8, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­inchem​.­org​/­documents​/­ehc​/­ehc​/­ehc209​.­htm. Stapleton, Heather M., Susan Klosterhaus, Alex Keller, P. Lee Ferguson, Saskia van Bergen, Ellen Cooper, Thomas F. Webster, and Arlene Blum. 2011. “Identification of Flame Retardants in Polyurethane Foam Collected from Baby Products.” Environmental Science & Technology 45(12): 5323–5331.



Flammables and Combustibles 267

Van Esch, G. J. 1995. “Tris(2,3-Dibromopropyl) Phosphate and Bis(2,3-Dibromopropyl) Phosphate.” Environmental Health Criteria 173, International Programme on Chemical Safety. 1995. Accessed October 7, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­inchem​.­org​/­documents​/­ehc​ /­ehc​/­ehc173​.­htm. Van Esch, G. J. 1997. “Flame Retardants: A General Introduction.” Environmental Health Criteria 192, International Programme on Chemical Safety. Accessed September 25, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­inchem​.­org​/­documents​/­ehc​/­ehc​/­ehc192​.­htm.

Flammables and Combustibles Flammable substances are identified as those that catch fire easily. A flammable or combustible substance can be a liquid, solid, or gas. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA 2010), a flammable substance can ignite below one hundred degrees Fahrenheit; this is the substance’s flash point. Some examples of flammable gases include hydrogen, butane, methane, and ethylene. There are many other gases that can become flammable when mixed with air or oxygen, including acetylene, ammonia, ethane, and propane. Some of these gases are used commercially for grills or to heat homes. Some flammable gases can explode when exposed to air. This is a general standard for flammability. The standard for flammable liquids, solids, and gases is sometimes not completely clear because these chemicals come in a variety of forms, which is why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working on developing a standard definition. There are detailed and strictly enforced regulations for working with flammable substances. The production, storage, transport, and use of flammable substances is outlined by several state and local governments. Several federal government agencies, such as the EPA, OSHA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), regulate some aspect of these chemicals. Sometimes the concepts of flammable and combustible are separated in definitions to indicate that combustible substances ignite with a flash point greater than those that define a flammable substance. In addition, materials have flammability requirements for use in industry, especially the manufacturing and the construction sectors. In 2003, a UN program called the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) standardized criteria for classification of chemical hazards, which includes uniform labeling of flammable chemicals. The United States adopted the GHS, which has included the reporting of flammable substances on safety data sheets (SDS). These SDS replaced the former material safety data sheets that were used in the United States. Now, SDS are used internationally for communication about the dangerous properties of chemicals, which includes flammability. SDS are required not only in industrial settings where flammables may be produced or stored but also in such places as hospitals, schools, restaurants, and other places where these substances are used. Flammable liquids have a unique physical property that make them especially dangerous. These chemicals can give off enough fumes of vapor that the vapor will burn when exposed to air. These types of substances produce extremely toxic smoke when burned that visually looks like a dark black cloud. These vapors are

268

Flammables and Combustibles

invisible and often cannot be detected without additional monitors and technology. Therefore, specialized containers for storage and transport are required for all flammable substances, and these must include symbols that are clearly observable that indicate their flammability. Generally, for a fire to start with flammable gases or vapors, they have to be exposed to a source of ignition. As a result, smoking tobacco products near flammable substances is strictly prohibited. According to the National Fire Protection Association (2020), flammable substances are a major contributor to deaths in the United States. The most common cause of household fires is from cooking sources. These can be improper cooking techniques, the use of faulty stoves, or the use of high-temperature cooking devices that are not safely managed. Fires involving flammable gas primarily involve natural or propone gases. Most household fires involve a flammable gas or liquid used for heating or cooking, such as cooking oil. The National Fire Protection Association also reported that smoking tobacco products in the home is the main source of deaths related to home fires. Cigarettes are often left near furniture when the smoker falls asleep or places the cigarette down and forgets to extinguish it. Fires can also start in the trash when cigarettes are not properly extinguished before disposal. Smoking tobacco products in the household, including cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, started an estimated 17,200 household fires in 2014 (National Fire Protection Association 2020). Heating equipment is the second most common cause of home fire fatalities. These events can occur from misusing or having faulty home electric room heaters; their high temperatures can easily catch nearby materials on fire. Candles and other sources of open flames also need careful management to prevent fire accidents. Flame retardants have been widely used for the prevention of fires in the United States for decades. For instance, they have been used in in the manufacture of children’s clothing and household items such as furniture and mattresses and with electrical equipment. There is some controversy about including a flame retardant as an additive to household items and consumer goods. In the late 1940s, rayon was used as a fabric that was easily to clean and spot resistant. However, the material was very flammable. The Flammable Fabrics Act of 1953 protected children’s pajamas and a number of other items, such as mattresses, by requiring that they be made from flame-resistant fabrics. By the mid-1970s, studies showed a link between children’s health and the flame retardant chemicals in fabrics. The widely used polychlorinated biphenyls (commonly known as PCBs) were used as a flame retardants in industry. This chemical was banned in the United States by the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) because of its toxicity. Industries relied on chemicals with halogenated compounds (often containing chlorine or bromine) because of their protective properties from fire. There is significant risk from using flame retardants that contain halogenated chemicals. The issue is that halogenated flame-retardant chemicals that are additives to products generate toxic and corrosive gases during combustion. These are only immediately toxic to humans through ingestion and inhalation, but they also cause toxicity to the environment though both air and aquatic ecosystems. The European Union and states have created restrictions on the use of specific halogenated flame



Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination 269

retardants. Chemical companies have replaced many of the halogenated flame retardants with substitutes. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Global Harmonization System (GHS); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

GreenSpec. 2017. “Halogenated Flame Retardants.” Accessed September 5, 2017. ­http://​ ­w w w​. ­g reenspec​. ­c o​. ­u k ​/ ­b uilding​- ­d esig n ​/ ­h alogenated​- ­f lame​- ­r etardants​ -­environment​-­health. National Fire Protection Association. 2020. “News and Research.” Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­n fpa​.­org​/ ­News​-­a nd​-­Research​/ ­Data​-­research​-­a nd​-­tools​/ ­Hazardous​ -­Materials​/­Fires​-­Starting​-­w ith​-­Flammable​-­Gas​-­or​-­Flammable​-­or​-­Combustible​ -­Liquid​#:˜:text=The%20flammable%20gas%20fires%20resulted,direct%20property%20damage%20per%20year. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2010. “The Definitions of Combustible and Flammable Liquids under 29 CFR 1926 and 29 CFR 1910.” Accessed September 5, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­pls​/­oshaweb​/­owadisp​.­show​_document​ ?­p ​_table​= ​­INTERPRETATIONS​&­p ​_id​= ​­27488. Salaria, Shruti. 2013. “Regulatory Ban on Halogenated Flame Retardants to Create Opportunities for Its Non-Halogenated Counterparts—Market Insights.” Europlat, August 6, 2013. Accessed September 5, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­europlat​.­org​/­regulatory​ -­ban​-­on​-­halogenated​-­flame​-­retardants​-­to​-­create​-­opportunities​-­for​-­its​-­no.

Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination(2016) Flint, Michigan, is in Genesee County and borders the Flint River. Flint was once a manufacturing powerhouse, with General Motors (GM) the largest employer. The very first Buick rolled off the assembly line in Flint in 1904. Today, the massive 235-acre manufacturing complex known as Buick City is a vacant set of concrete slabs, a testimony to the deindustrialization and fickle nature of capitalism. When GM ended its relationship with the city, thousands of good-paying blue-collar jobs were lost. In 1965, Flint’s population was about two hundred thousand. By 2014, the population had declined to about ninety-nine thousand. Most of Flint’s jobs were sent to other suburbs in the region. Flint’s fate exemplifies the situation facing other industrial cities across the Eastern and Midwestern United States; from upstate New York through western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana; over into Michigan and Illinois; and across the entire Great Lakes region. The rusting shells of factories and abandoned industrial plants are common and offer a bleak picture of the country’s Rust Belt. Neighborhoods built by GM for its Flint workers are now abandoned. The houses are crumbling, and their lots are overgrown by weeds. Nearly two thousand blighted houses were demolished between the years 2013 and 2015. Despite the loss of jobs, Flint is home to a significant population of poor and working-class whites. It is one of the United States’ poorest cities, with 41 percent of its

270

Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination

ninety-nine thousand residents living in poverty. Fifty-six percent of the population is African American, and poor whites make up 37.4 percent (Lurie 2016). FLINT’S DECISION TO FIND A NEW WATER SOURCE In 2011, Flint, Michigan, was in a financially precarious place, with the state government empowered to take over management of localities facing bankruptcy. Governor Rick Snyder was legislatively empowered to appoint someone to manage Flint, usurping its democratically elected officials. That appointee, ironically called an emergency manager, had the ability to impose financial recovery plans on Michigan communities in financial jeopardy with little or no input from the local community. Notably, local jurisdictions, including Flint, do not have rights as specified or implied in the U.S. Constitution, and communities have no independent powers beyond what is granted by the state government. From June 2012 to April 2013, the emergency manager, Ed Kurtz, explored ways to save money by switching the city’s water from its long-term water provider, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD). Flint officials determined that building its own pipeline to connect to the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) would save $200 million over twenty-five years. On April 16, 2013, Kurtz informed the Michigan state treasurer that the city was going to join the KWA and terminate the DWSD’s water service to the city in April 2014. Kurtz and his associates recognized Flint would need an interim source of water during the time needed to build the pipeline. With a propensity for tunnel vision, Kurtz turned to the Flint River to provide temporary, inexpensive water to the city until the pipeline was operational. Flint River water started flowing to the city on April 25, 2014. The water quality impacts on Flint’s lead pipes were never assessed, even though GM had earlier abandoned Flint River’s water because of its corrosiveness. The 2013 decision by Kurtz quickly caused serious long-term health impacts for Flint residents, especially children, that represented a failure by local, state, and federal levels of government to ensure the protection of human health and safety. The question remains whether these actions would have occurred in a community with a larger percentage of affluent residents.

LEAD CONTAMINATION OF FLINT’S DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES Before Flint officials decided to switch drinking water sources, they never considered the importance of corrosion-control treatments to maintain the stability of rust layers (containing high levels of lead) inside service pipes linking the city’s water supply to residences and businesses. Shortly after the switch, residents started to report water smell and color changes to local authorities. Rather than take citizen complaints seriously, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) attempted to assure the public that the water was perfectly safe and met all regulatory standards.



Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination 271

For months after multiple complaints from Flint residents, state officials still denied that the water in Flint had quality problems. MDEQ officials regularly went on Michigan radio stations and brazenly proclaimed that Flint citizens should relax because there was no water-quality problem. Internal government e-mails revealed the shared perspective that community groups were the cause of stirring up Flint residents. CITIZEN ACTIVISM During the summer of 2014, LeeAnne Walters, a mother and resident of Flint, observed that every time she bathed her four children, they broke out in tiny red bumps. When her son Gavin, who has a serious immunological disease, soaked in the tub, a rash routinely formed across his chest. In November, when brown water started flowing from her taps, Walters made the expensive decision to stock up on bottled water (Lurie 2016). In February 2015, at Walters’s persistent urging, the city finally sent a technician to test her water. A few days later, Walters received a voicemail from the water department, hysterically warning her not to use or drink the water, as it was contaminated with high levels of lead. Per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the maximum concentration allowed by law is fifteen parts per billion. The Walters’ tap water measured nearly four hundred parts per billion (EPA 2015), over twenty-five times the maximum concentration. Walters did not stop with buying bottled water or pressuring local government. She began in earnest researching the effects of lead exposure on children. She was shocked to learn that the long-term effects include lower IQs, shorter attention spans, and potential increases in antisocial behavior. There were also documented long-term impacts on reproductive and other organs of children exposed to lead. Walters had her children tested, and laboratory results confirmed her fears: all four children had been exposed, and her son Gavin, who already had a compromised immune system, was suffering from lead poisoning, which added to his risk for disease (Lurie 2016). The city’s initial response was lackadaisical. Officials told Walters to hook up a hose to a neighbor’s house to provide lead-free water for her family. Local officials hypothesized, without any hard data, that the problem was probably limited to the Walters’ plumbing (Kaffer 2017). Within a few days after Walters had received her children’s blood test results, Governor Snyder’s office repeated to the press that the state’s view was that the water was safe. Frustrated by the unwillingness of Flint officials and the state government to take the water crisis in Flint seriously, Walters eventually called Miguel Del Toral, a manager at the EPA’s Midwest water division. She explained that Flint was not using corrosion controls, and it was flushing pipes prior to conducting lead tests. By contacting Del Toral, Walters set in motion a chain of inquiries, letters, and investigations. Del Toro (EPA 2015) wrote a letter to MDEQ that found fault with both Flint’s water treatment and the state’s water-testing protocol (Kaffer 2017).

272

Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination

Del Toral also introduced Walters to Marc Edwards, at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia, who was a national expert in lead water contamination. Edwards asked her to collect additional samples from her house without preflushing the pipes. Thirty-two separate samples of the Walters’s water contained lead concentrations above the EPA’s required action level of fifteen micrograms per liter. Four samples registered above five thousand micrograms per liter, the official threshold for hazardous waste. Per Edwards’s assessment of the samples, the results indicated that, in absence of corrosion inhibitors, the Flint River water caused rust layers to break down and release high levels of attached lead to the household water supply (American Chemical Society 2017). Edwards organized a team to conduct further water tests and seek data from the city and the state. Meanwhile, Del Toral relayed his concerns to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which started a battle between the state and EPA over local water quality and who was responsible for what. News that the Virginia Tech team and the EPA were investigating Flint’s water for lead alarmed Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, a local medical professor of pediatrics. The doctor started evaluating the blood lead levels of Flint’s youngest children, those younger than five, before and after the change of water supply, comparing them with children living elsewhere in Genesee County, and found that the lead in their blood had doubled, sometimes tripled, after Flint began using water from the Flint River, a longtime dumping ground for chemicals and metals from GM. When the Flint pediatrician released her findings in September 2015, describing how lead had found its way into the blood of Flint’s children, the state’s response was a concerted attempt to discredit her work. Although the city released a lead advisory the day after the lead blood study results were released, Governor Snyder’s spokespeople claimed the data in the lead blood study was “spliced and diced” (American Chemical Society 2017). BELATED GOVERNMENT RESPONSES By mid-October 2015, politics and negative public perceptions forced Governor Snyder to have a change of heart. He finally intervened in the Flint water controversy. The governor ordered the water supply to be switched back to the Detroit water system. In January 2016, Governor Snyder tried to change public perceptions by having National Guard troops work with Red Cross volunteers to deliver bottled water, water filters, and lead-testing kits to Flint. Ironically, while Flint residents could not drink city water, they were still forced to pay their monthly water bills. On December 29, MDEQ director Dan Wyan and spokesperson Brad Wurfel resigned, a day after the Flint Water Advisory Task Force established by the governor released a draft report that unequivocally established that the primary fault of the lead water crisis in Flint rested with the MDEQ. President Barack Obama declared a state of emergency on January 16, 2016, entitling Flint to federal disaster relief funds (Guarino 2017). Class action suits targeted city and state officials, including former mayor Dayne Walling and Governor Snyder. On July 29, 2016, the Michigan attorney general announced criminal charges against Liane



Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination 273

Shelter-Smith, the former director of the drinking water office with the MDEQ, and five other state officials. The charges included misconduct in office, conspiracy, and willful neglect of duty. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION On December 10, 2016, Congress finally approved legislation to provide more than $120 million to Flint and for other lead-related services. The legislation allocated $20 million to pay off debt incurred for earlier repairs to the Flint water system and $20 million for a national registry to track people exposed to lead. Another $30 million was provided for lead poisoning prevention as well as health and nutrition services for people whose health may have been affected through lead poisoning. The legislation contained $20 million for low-interest infrastructure improvement loans that could be used to replace lead lines with safer pipes. POSSIBLE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES FOR FLINT’S CHILDREN Although lead is toxic to children and adults alike, the growing bodies and brains of unborn babies and young children make them especially susceptible to the absorption and retention of lead. Per the World Health Organization (WHO 2018), young children are particularly vulnerable because they absorb four to five times as much ingested lead as adults from a given source. Once lead enters the body, it quickly moves into bones and organs, such as the brain, kidneys, and liver. The body stores and accumulates lead in the teeth and bones. Lead in bones may reenter the blood during pregnancy, thus exposing the fetus to lead poisoning. Undernourished children are more susceptible to lead because their bodies absorb more if other nutrients, such as calcium, are not present in high enough quantities. At high levels of direct exposure, lead can cause coma, convulsions, and even death. Children who survive severe lead poisoning may be left with mental disabilities and behavioral disorders. At lower levels of exposure, there may be no obvious symptoms until much later in life. While there is no known safe blood lead concentration, there is an association between lead exposure increases and the range and severity of symptoms. Even blood lead concentrations as low as five micrograms per deciliter, which was once thought to be a safe level, has been shown to decrease the intelligence of exposed children and to cause behavioral difficulties and learning disabilities (WHO 2018). LEAD-CONTAMINATED WATER SUPPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES Flint is not the only community in the United States that has lead-contaminated drinking water. In 1991, the EPA set a threshold of 15 parts per billion of lead in

274

Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination

drinking water. This regulation is known as the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR; 40 C.F.R. §§ 141.1), and it requires water systems to monitor drinking water at customers’ taps. If lead concentrations exceed the action level of 15 parts per billion or copper concentrations exceed the action level of 1.3 parts per million in more than 10 percent of customer taps sampled, local water authorities must take actions to control corrosion that leads to lead material leaching into drinking water (EPA 2017). If the action level for lead is exceeded, water authorities must inform the public about steps they should take to protect their health, including the replacement of service lines. EPA data analyzed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reveals that many water systems fail to comply with the LCR. For example, a Utah water system serving over sixteen hundred people had test results of six thousand parts per billion. There are at least eight water systems in seven states with lead levels in their drinking water above one thousand parts per billion. Twenty-systems have lead levels above 220 parts per billion (Olson and Fedinick 2016). It is estimated that eighteen million Americans live in communities where the water systems do not comply with lead rules; more than fifty-three hundred water systems across the country fail to comply with the LCR (EPA 2017; Olson and Fedinick 2016). Violations include failure to properly test water for lead, failure to report contamination to residents, and failure to treat water properly to avoid lead contamination. According the NRDC, states acted in only 817 cases of noncompliance, and the EPA acted in just 88 cases. A lack of funding is often the reason given for a lack of actions against noncompliant water systems. Much of the lead problem occurs in the service lines that bring water to homes; many are made of lead. For well over a century, lead was the preferred material for water pipelines because of its durability. Federal regulations mandate that water systems with lead service pipes have an anticorrosion system in place, typically by treating water with an orthophosphate chemical agent that forms a film barrier to protect water moving through lead pipes. Unfortunately, rather than comply with federal and state regulations, many local water agencies have chosen to manipulate the regulatory system by using inadequate testing methods to avoid detecting high levels of lead that would trigger costly regulatory compliance requirements, such as the application of water corrosion controls (Olson and Fedinick 2016). John Munro See also: Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Groundwater Contamination; Lead (Pb); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974).

Further Reading

American Chemical Society. 2017. “Closer Look at What Caused the Flint Water Crisis.” ScienceDaily, February 1, 2017. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­sciencedaily​ .­com​/­releases​/­2017​/­02​/­170201092656​.­htm. Erb, Robin. 2015. “Flint Doctor Makes State See Light about Lead in Water.” Detroit Free Press. Updated October 12, 2015. ­https://​­www​.­freep​.­com​/­story​/­news​/­local​/­michigan​ /­2015​/­10​/­10​/­hanna​-­attisha​-­profile​/­73600120. Ganim, Sarah. 2016. “5,300 Water Systems in Violation of Lead Rules.” CNN. Last updated June 29, 2016. ­http://​­www​.­cnn​.­com​/­2016​/­06​/­28​/­us​/­epa​-­lead​-­in​-­u​-­s​-­water​ -­systems​/­index​.­html.



Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 275

Guarino, Ben. 2017. “The Pediatrician Who Exposed Lead in Flint, Michigan, Water Will March for Science.” Washington Post, April 2, 2017. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­washingtonpost​.­com​/­news​/­speaking​- ­of​-­science​/­w p​/­2017​/­0 4​/­21​/­t he​ -­pediatrician​-­who​-­exposed​-­lead​-­in​-­flint​-­mich​-­water​-­will​-­march​-­for​-­science. Kaffer, N. 2017. “When Did State Know Kids in Flint Were Lead-Poisoned?” Detroit Free Press, December 15, 2017. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­f reep​.­com​ /­story​/­opinion​/­columnists​/­nancy​-­kaffer​/­2015​/­12​/­17​/­flint​-­water​-­lead​/­77365380. Kennedy, Merrit. 2016. “Lead-Laced Water in Flint: A Step-by-Step Look at the Makings of a Crisis.” NPR, April 20, 2016. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­npr​.­org​/ sect ions/thet wo -way/2016/04/20/465545378/ lead-laced-water-i n-f li nt -a-step-by-step-look-at-the-makings-of-a-crisis. Lurie, Julia. 2016. “Meet the Mom Who Helped Expose Flint’s Toxic Water Nightmare.” Mother Jones, January 21, 2016. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­motherjones​ .­com​/­politics​/­2016​/­01​/­mother​-­exposed​-­flint​-­lead​-­contamination​-­water​-­crisis. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2017. “Report: Nearly One in Four Americans’ Drinking Water Comes from Untested or Contaminated Systems.” Press Release. NRDC, May 2, 2017. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­n rdc​.­org​ /­media​/­2017​/­170502. Olson, Erik, and Kristi Pullen Fedinick. 2016. What’s in Your Water? Flint and Beyond. Natural Resources Defense Council report 16-I6-A. June 2016. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nrdc​.­org​/­sites​/­default​/­files​/­whats​-­in​-­your​-­water​-­flint​-­beyond​-­report​.­pdf. Pieper, Kelsey J., Min Tang, and Marc A. Edwards. 2017. “Flint Water Crisis Caused by Interrupted Corrosion Control: Investigating ‘Ground Zero’ Home.” Environmental Science & Technology 51(4): 2007–2014. Spangler, Todd. 2016. “Congress Approves at Least $120M for Flint Water Fix.” Detroit Free Press, December 10, 2016. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­f reep​.­com​ /­story​/­news​/ ­local​/­m ichigan​/­f lint​-­water​- ­c risis​/­2016​/­12​/­10​/­congress​-­f lint​-­water​ -­f unding​/­95243816. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. “Memorandum: High Lead Levels in Flint, Michigan.” From Miguel A. Del Toral, regulations manager of Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch to Thomas Poy, chief of Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch, case WG-15J. June 24, 2015. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­flintwaterstudy​.­org​/­w p​-­content​/­uploads​/­2015​/­11​/ ­Miguels​-­Memo​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Drinking Water Requirements for States and Public Water Systems: Lead and Copper Rule.” Last updated March 15, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­dwreginfo​/­lead​-­and​-­copper​-­r ule. World Health Organization (WHO). 2018. “Lead Poisoning and Health.” August 23, 2018. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­news​-­room​/­fact​-­sheets​/­detail​/­lead​ -­poisoning​-­and​-­health.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), oversees the regulations for food (except meat and poultry), drugs, medical devices, radioactive-emitting products, vaccines and blood, animal and veterinary products, cosmetics, and tobacco products. The FDA claims that because of the breadth of policies that it oversees its work accounts for twenty cents of every dollar spent by consumers (FDA 2015a). The organization’s

276

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

primary responsibility is to enforce the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Today, the FDA has “approximately 15,000 employees and a budget of roughly $4 billion” (FDA 2015a). One-third of its employees work in regional and field offices. The FDA is most familiar to the public for its role in approving new medicines and clinical treatments. According to the organization, it monitors the manufacture, import, transport, storage, and sale of “about $1 trillion worth of products annually at a cost to taxpayers of about $3 per person” (FDA 2015a). As the FDA is a regulatory agency, its inspectors visit more than sixteen thousand facilities a year, in addition to state regulators who perform many of the inspections. Many people do not realize the important and diverse functions of the FDA, which are based in its policy history over time. In 1906, the Pure Food and Drugs Act established the regulation of interstate commerce for food and drugs. This was an important law for protecting consumers during the growth of the industrial revolution in the United States. This was a major step toward federal policies standardizing food and drug protection laws in the United States. The precursor organization to the FDA was originally located in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Bureau of Chemistry. In 1927, the agency was renamed the Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration and remained under the USDA because of its emphasis on agriculture. The FD&C Act of 1938 was a major piece of New Deal legislation that focused on protecting people from toxic and untested products. The purview of the organization grew tremendously in this period of time. Significant authority was given to the organization for cosmetics and medical devices under this new law. However, the most important part of the policy was that it required all medicines to be labeled with clear directions for safe use and that a pharmaceutical manufacturer had to scientifically show that the product was safe before it was allowed to be sold in the marketplace. The legislation curtailed poor quality and abuses in food packaging and provided limits for certain toxic chemicals in food and consumer products. The agency expanded its authority with additional provisions that allowed on-site inspections and significant enforcement actions on industry for violations. In 1940, the organization was transferred, to the Federal Security Agency as part of the New Deal agencies under President Roosevelt. Then, in 1953, the agency became part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) and continued when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was formed in 1980. The protection of food and drugs in the United States is less of a centralized policy but one that has grown incrementally with the nation. As technology and science have advanced, the FDA, and its predecessor organizations, have had to adapt with new mandates for protection of the public. One of the more controversial amendments to the FD&C Act was the Delaney Clause, which was included by the Food Additives Amendment of 1958. The Delaney Clause requires the FDA to ban food additives that are found to cause or induce cancer in humans or animals as indicated by scientific laboratory testing. The Delaney Clause is one of the more controversial policies because it has what has been termed a zero risk standard for any pesticides or any food additives that



Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 277

have been found to cause cancer. The Delaney Clause was important in food policy because it was the first time there was an acknowledgment that correlated cancer and chemicals used to produce and preserve our food. Since the 1960s, many amendments have been made to the FD&C Act. In 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) lessened the impact of the strict limits of the Delaney Clause for pesticides. Because of the wide-ranging scope of the FDA’s regulatory authority, it is frequently in the news media. Recently, the agency has taken on issues surrounding the pricing of EpiPens for preventing anaphylactic allergy responses and the approval of experimental gene therapy treatments for childhood leukemias. It continues to frequently investigate chemicals used in modern cosmetics as well as the new alternative products to smoking tobacco, e-cigarettes. Over the last several decades, the FDA has been focused on toxic chemicals in foods and food packaging in the household. The agency regulates toxic chemicals such as acrylamide, a chemical from cooking foods at high temperatures, such as frying, roasting, and baking. It also monitors and regulates furan, which is a toxic chemical formed during traditional heat treatment techniques, such as cooking, jarring, and canning. It studies perchlorate in drinking water and in foods. It also studies how to reduce human exposure to toxic chemicals in food, food containers, and cosmetics. One of the challenges for the agency is public education and awareness. To support the transfer of agency information to the public, the FDA produces an online magazine to keep the public informed (FDA 2020b). It is one of the most useful federal government websites for consumers, and it is frequently updated with the current concerns and protection advice for the public. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of; Delaney Clause; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996).

Further Reading

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2020a. “About FDA.” Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­w ww​.­fda​.­gov​/­about​-­fda. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2020b. Food Safety Magazine. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­w ww​.­foodsafetymagazine​.­com ​/­categories​/­regulatory​-­category​/­fda​/.

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)(1996) The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 3, 1996, redefines the regulatory status of pesticides and their residues in foods, institutes protections of infants and children in regard to their exposure to pesticides and their residues, establishes guidelines for comprehensive multifactorial risk assessment, and enhances consumer access to dietary information. Until the early twentieth century, food regulation was nearly nonexistent in the United States. What mattered most was increased productivity and profit. Public

278

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

attention to food regulation, particularly in the meat industry, increased after the publication of Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle. Congress responded to the public’s concern with the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act (PFDA) in 1906, a law that was primarily focused on product labeling and prohibited the interstate transport of unlawful food and drugs. Once the PFDA had established these labeling standards, comparable standards for insecticides and fungicides began to take shape (Davis 2014). Formal federal pesticide legislation largely began in 1910 when Congress enacted the Federal Insecticide Act, which authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to set standards for the manufacture of insecticides and fungicides and to require them to be labeled. The legislation allowed the USDA to inspect and remove products from the market that were deemed ineffective or were not up to the government’s standards. Throughout the nineteenth century, sulfur compounds had been developed as fungicides, and arsenicals were used to control insects attacking fruits and vegetables. In the immediate post–World II era, as farm populations dwindled and farm sizes increased, pesticide use became even more common. Pesticide usage was often viewed as a way to solve major agricultural problems of the day, particularly in terms of dealing with bugs, beetles, worms, and weevils. Among the more popular pesticides was the chlorinated hydrocarbon known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), whose use had become a major factor in Southern cotton production. As with other chlorinated hydrocarbons, DDT and the organic phosphate insecticides (later organophosphates or OPs) were first examined by German chemists as potential nerve gases to be used in combat (Davis 2014). Given that pesticides were seen as a major factor in the U.S. economy, there was not much questioning of their safe use. Congressional members from farm bloc states were largely supported by fellow members as well as a contented public (Finegan 1989). Without doubt, the postwar increase in food production was made possible by the introduction of synthetic crop protection chemicals. Worldwide pesticide production increased at a rate of about 11 percent per year, from 0.2 million tons in the 1950s to more than 5 million tons by 2000 (Carvalho 2017). However, as chemical insecticides became more commonly used in the United States, Congress sought to regulate synthetic pesticides, which were not necessarily covered under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) of 1938. In 1947, Congress passed the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to tighten the regulation of these synthetic pesticides. In the 1950s, as public concern over possible risks of insecticide-tainted food supplies increased, Congress passed two amendments to the FD&C Act: the Miller Amendment, which granted the FDA the authority to set tolerances for each pesticide and crop, and the Delaney Clause, enacted in 1958, which prohibits the addition of any chemical that had caused cancer in humans or animals to the human food supply. FIFRA, which had largely gone unchanged for nearly thirty years, underwent a drastic overhaul with the passage of the amendment known as the Federal



Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 279

Environmental Pesticides Control Act (FEPCA) in 1972. In essence, the 1972 law replaced the 1947 law. The idea behind the new law was to expand registration measures so that there was more product control throughout the manufacturing and sales process. FEPCA also initiate a system of use control, which had not existed under FIFRA. In 1970, with the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would oversee all pesticide regulation, including registration, tolerance setting, and research functions. The new agency soon became the target of a lawsuit brought by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (EDF v. Ruckleshaus [D.C. Circuit 1971]), the ultimate result of which was that, by late 1972, the court banned all uses of DDT and suspended most uses of similar pesticides, such as dieldrin and aldrin. Farmers then turned to organophosphates to control insects. Thus, between 1964 and 1994, pesticide use in the United States doubled from five hundred million pounds to over one billion pounds, more than half of which was on account of the use of organophosphates (Davis 2017). Under FEPCA, pesticide manufacturers were required to prove that their products would not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” The EPA was allowed to refuse registration for products that it deemed unsafe. FEPCA expressly outlawed any use of a pesticide that was not in accordance with the product label—which was considered a legal document. Such unlawful use was subject to civil and criminal penalties. In 1988, Congress requested that the National Academy of Sciences establish a committee within the National Research Council to study scientific and policy issues concerning pesticides in the diets of infants and children. The question for the committee was whether the then current regulatory approaches for controlling pesticide residues in foods adequately protected infants and children. Specifically, the committee was asked to examine the adequacy of the risk assessment policies and methods; to assess information on the dietary intakes of infants and children; to evaluate data on pesticide residues in the food supply; to identify toxicological issues of greatest concern; and to develop relevant research priorities (NCBI 1993). In its 1993 report, published as Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, the committee found that infants and children differ both qualitatively and quantitatively from adults in their exposure to pesticide residues in foods. The committee recommended that the EPA modify its decision-making process for setting tolerances so that it would be based more on health considerations than on agricultural practices (NCBI 1993). Largely as a result of the committee’s report, on August 3, 1996, Congress unanimously passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (Public Law 104170). Foremost, the FQPA significantly amended the two federal laws regulating pesticides: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Among other changes, FQPA established a stringent health-based standard (“a reasonable certainty of no harm”) for pesticide residues in food to ensure protection from unacceptable pesticide exposures.

280

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

Title I of the FQPA specifically directed the EPA, in its regulatory program for setting pesticide tolerances (i.e., the maximum amount of residue allowed), to use an additional tenfold margin of safety in assessing the risks to infants and children to take into account the potential for pre- and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the toxicology and exposure databases (EPA 2002). For many, the new law represented a breakthrough in that it established a more consistent regulatory scheme, particularly in developing a single standard for raw and processed foods. Title I also established a Science Review Board that consisted of sixty members who were to assist the Scientific Advisory Panel. As well, Title I sought to clarify the usages of the term nitrogen stabilizer and set the minimum requirements for the training of maintenance applicators and service technicians. Title II of the FQPA mandated a more coordinated approach for managing minor crop pesticides. The idea was to build upon and coordinate the jobs previously done by both the EPA and the USDA, particularly in terms of reassessing all preexisting pesticide residue tolerances. The law defined the minor use of pesticides as those used on acreage for a particular crop that was less than three hundred thousand acres or those for which the use did not provide sufficient economic incentive to support its registration. The new law allowed the continuance of small-scale pesticide use deemed necessary to protect fruit and vegetable crops from such things as mosquitos, ticks, cockroaches, and rats, but it was not always economically attractive to the pesticide industry, where revenues were low and the costs to obtain and maintain registration were high, which often meant pesticides were voluntarily cancelled by registrants during the registration process. Given that the Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children recommended that the EPA modify its decision-making process for setting tolerances so that it would be based more on health considerations for infants and children, Title III of the FQPA mandated greater coordination efforts among the USDA, the EPA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In particular, the new law called for the development and implementation of survey procedures to ensure adequate data on the food consumption patterns of infants and children. It also called for increased sampling of the foods mostly likely consumed by the same population. Title IV primarily mandated specific amendments to the FD&C Act, especially as applied to pesticide tolerances and exemptions. Basically, the law established a new risk standard (also known as the “nonthreshold effect”) for acceptable levels of pesticide chemical residue (which was the aforementioned tenfold margin of safety in assessing the risks to infants and children). The law also established that tolerance levels were to be limited in such a way that the risk over a lifetime associated with the nonthreshold effect from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues was not greater than twice the lifetime risk allowed under EPA-determined tolerance levels. In establishing, modifying, leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance level or exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, the EPA was directed to consider the following factors: the reliability and validity of the data from pesticide chemical



Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 281

and residue studies; the possible toxic effects noted in those studies; the available information concerning the relationship of the results of such studies to human risk; the dietary consumption patterns of consumers; the available information concerning the cumulative effects of chemicals and residues that have a common mechanism of toxicity; the available information concerning the aggregate exposure levels of consumers to the pesticide chemical residue and to other related substances; the available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers; and other information as the EPA may require related to whether the pesticide chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects. One very important amendment to the FD&C Act was that, under the new law, anyone could file with the EPA to establish, modify, or revoke a regulation as long as the petition met certain standards. The petition had to provide a summary of the data submitted in the petition; a statement that the petitioner agrees that any information it contains may be published as a part of the notice of filing of the petition; the name, chemical identity, and composition of the pesticides in question; data showing the recommended amount, frequency, method, and time of application of the pesticide; and full reports of tests and investigations made with respect to the safety of the pesticide chemical, including the amount of pesticide residue that is likely to remain in or on the food, the methods of detecting chemical residues, and the proposed tolerance levels for the pesticide. Another issue addressed in Title IV was data confidentiality. A concern for pesticide manufacturers was that the EPA reporting requirements could possibly reveal manufacturing trade secrets. The FQPA attempted to finesse the issue by stating that data and information submitted to the EPA would be treated confidentially but that exceptions could be made in instances where the EPA or its contractors needed the data to carry out their official duties. Similarly, the law did not authorize the withholding of data or information from congressional investigations. As for dealing with public health concerns and the consumer’s “right to know,” the new law mandated that the EPA publish and distribute to grocers information that included a “discussion” of the risks and benefits of pesticide chemical residues as well as recommendations to consumers for reducing dietary exposure to pesticide chemical residues. Title V of the FQPA concerned fees, particularly as they pertained to the collection of reregistration fees. The law allowed the EPA to collect up to an additional $2,000,000, with the total fees not to exceed $6,000,000 in the fiscal years 1998– 2000. However, in Title I, the new law stipulated that such fees collected would be available to the EPA without fiscal year limitation for the performance of the EPA’s services or functions Lastly, Title V required that the EPA publish annual statements that included the number of products reregistered, canceled, or amended; the status of reregistration; the number and type of data requests issued to support product reregistration by active ingredient; the progress in reducing the number of unreviewed, required reregistration studies; the aggregate status of tolerances reassessed; and

282

Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

the number of applications for registration submitted that were approved or disapproved. As for the success of the FQPA, the EPA, on the tenth anniversary of the law’s enactment, stated that the agency had, beyond all reasonable expectations, successfully reassessed the safety of thousands of existing tolerances and tolerance exceptions by August 2006. The agency also noted that its reregistration program (though not officially part of the FQPA) completed 9,637, or over 99 percent, of the 9,721 tolerance reassessment decisions required by FQPA; recommended the revocation of 3,200 tolerances; recommended ­modification of 1,200 tolerances; and confirmed the safety of 5,237 tolerances (EPA 2006). Many groups remain critical of the EPA and its enforcement in the FQPA. The Pesticide Action Network (PAN), for example, argues that the FQPA only recommends values, which are simply recommendations, and are not consistently applied in every risk assessment of every chemical. On the other hand, Logomasini (2008), of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that the EPA, in its conduct of risk assessments under the FQPA, grossly exaggerates exposure levels. Or, in other words, when the EPA lacks data on actual exposures or when levels are below the agency’s ability to detect them, the EPA uses default numbers that only assume a certain amount of exposure, which ultimately means a misrepresentation of the real risks to society. Robert L. Perry See also: Delaney Clause; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Pesticide Action Network (PAN); Pesticides.

Further Reading

Carvalho, Fernando, P. 2017. “Pesticides, Environment, and Food Safety.” Food and Energy Security 6(2): 48–60. Davis, Frederick Rowe. 2014. Banned: A History of Pesticides and the Science of Toxicology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Finegan, Pamela A. 1989. “FIFRA Lite: A Regulatory Solution or Part of the Pesticide Problem?” Pace Environmental Law Review 6(2): 615–641. Logomasini, Angela. 2008. “Food Quality Protection Act.” Competitive Enterprise Institute. Accessed June 29, 2019. ­https://​­cei​.­org​/­studies​-­other​-­studies​/­food​-­quality​-­protection​ -­act. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Accessed June 29, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/ ­books​/ ­NBK236271. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. “Report on Minor Use Pesticides.” Accessed June 29, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2014​- ­04​ /­documents​/­m inor​_use​_ rpt​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. “Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety Factor(s) in Tolerance Assessment.” Washington, DC: Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­h t t ps://​­w w w​. ­e pa​. ­g ov​/ ­p esticide​- ­s cience​- ­a nd​- ­a ssessing​- ­p esticide​- ­r isks​ /­determination​-­appropriate​-­fqpa​-­safety​-­factors.



Formaldehyde (CH2O) 283

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. “Accomplishments under the Food Quality Protection Act.” Accessed June 29, 2019. ­https://​­archive​.­epa​.­gov​/­pesticides​ /­regulating​/­laws​/­fqpa​/­web​/ ­html​/­fqpa​_accomplishments​.­html.

Formaldehyde (CH2O) Formaldehyde is a toxic, colorless gas or liquid chemical with a strong, unique scent that is flammable and is considered a volatile organic compound (VOC). It is produced by the oxidation of methanol and naturally in small volumes by living organisms from their metabolic processes. Formaldehyde is found in antiseptic products, medicines, and cosmetics; yet, it is classified as a carcinogen. Formaldehyde is used in many household products and building materials, such as glues and adhesives in particleboard and plywood, in permanent press fabrics, and in insulation products. It is most commonly used in manufacturing resins, such as those found in foam insulation. As an effective preservative, it is used in medical and teaching laboratories and in mortuaries as an embalming agent. In industry, it is a disinfectant, germicide, and fungicide, and in the United States, where it is used as a fumigant in poultry and swine farms, processing plants, citrus packing, and mushroom houses, it is classified as a pesticide. Formaldehyde is usually found at higher concentrations indoors than outdoors. Once outdoors, it dissolves readily in water and evaporates into the air; it is not a chemical that persists or accumulates in the ecosystem. It is discharged as a pollutant from automobile emissions and is a by-product of cigarette smoke. Other potential indoor sources include emissions from gas, wood-burning stoves, and kerosene heaters. As a surface disinfectant, formaldehyde is highly effective in laundry detergents and general-purpose cleaners. In the medical field, it can be used as an antimicrobial agent and is used in the hepatitis B vaccine and as a sterilizer for kidney dialysis membranes. It disinfects hospitals and animal clinics and is used to treat athlete’s foot. The primary routes of exposure are through dermal contact, inhalation, and, rarely, ingestion. People can develop a sensitization or allergy to formaldehyde following exposure. The chemical causes cancer of the nasopharynx and is also linked to leukemia and reproductive and neurological disorders. A study of female workers in the fabric industry has shown links to a variety of conditions, such as menstrual disorders, inflammatory disease of the reproductive tract, sterility, anemia, and low birth weights. Despite its ubiquity, because products containing formaldehyde in the United States are spread out, Americans have generally been exposed to the chemical in nontoxic amounts. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Dermal Toxicity; Neurological Toxicity; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

284

Fox, Josh

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2015. “Formaldehyde.” Toxic Substances Portal, May 12, 2015. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxfaqs​/­tf​.­asp​?­id​= ​­219​&­tid​= ​­39. National Cancer Institute. 2011. “Formaldehyde and Cancer Risk.” June 10, 2011. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­gov​/­about​-­cancer​/­causes​-­prevention​/­risk​ /­substances​/­formaldehyde​/­formaldehyde​-­fact​-­sheet. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Formaldehyde.” Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­formaldehyde. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Facts about Formaldehyde.” Last updated July 18, 2018. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­formaldehyde​/­facts​-­about​-­formaldehyde.

Fox, Josh(1972–) Josh Fox is an environmental activist, policy entrepreneur, and Oscar-nominated filmmaker and producer who is best known for his documentaries Gasland (2010) and Gasland Part II (2013). He was born in 1972 and lived in Milanville, Pennsylvania. In 1995, he graduated from Columbia University as a theater major with a strong interest in film, and in 1996, he founded International WOW Company, a film and theater company in New York. Fox is a well-known opponent to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. In 2008, Fox was approached by a company to use his land in Pennsylvania for natural gas exploration, which prompted him to research the impact of fracking on the environment. He attributes that event as what turned him into a strong opponent to fracking, and he committed to end the practice. He protested against it and used film production to bring the issue of fracking to the policy agenda. Gasland was an award-winning documentary at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. In one powerful scene, a man lights the drinking water from the tap on fire; it burned because of the methane gas coming from within the pipes. In June 2013, Gasland Part II premiered on HBO; it has won numerous honors from the environmental and film communities. A year before, in February 2012, Fox was arrested for taping a congressional subcommittee hearing on fracking in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York banned fracking in the state, partially due to the experience in Pennsylvania, where fracking was increasing. In 2016, he produced the documentary How to Let Go of the World and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. That same year, he traveled across the United States to promote a ban on fracking, and he supported Senator Bernie Sanders during the presidential primaries for the Democratic Party nomination in 2016, actively promoting environmental policies to the party’s platform. Today, Fox is a journalist whose articles appear in Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, and online with NowThis! He has written, directed, or produced five feature films and six short films, including over twenty-five full-length works for the stage, which have premiered in New York, Asia, and Europe. In addition,



FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry 285

International WOW Company has produced numerous films across the globe, in Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan, Germany, and France. Fox has lectured in over 350 cities on environmental issues, and he makes appearances on national television and radio shows as an expert against fracking. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Groundwater Contamination; Natural Gas.

Further Reading

Democracy Now! 2012. “‘Gasland’ Director Josh Fox Arrested at Congressional Hearing on Natural Gas Fracking.” February 12, 2012. Accessed August 28, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­democracynow​.­org​/­2012​/­2​/­2​/­gasland​_director​_ josh​_fox​_arrested​_at. Kaplan, Thomas, 2014. “Citing Health Risks, Cuomo Bans Fracking in New York State.” New York Times, December 17, 2014. Accessed September 1, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­nytimes​.­c om​/­2014​/­12​/­18​/­nyregion​/­cuomo​-­t o​-­ban​-­f racking​-­i n​-­new​-­york​- ­state​ -­citing​-­health​-­risks​.­html. Sottile, Alexis. 2016. “Filmmaker Josh Fox on Being Team Bernie and Fighting Climate Change Despair.” Rolling Stone, April 22, 2016. Accessed August 28, 2017. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­rollingstone​.­com​/­politics​/­news​/­filmmaker​-­josh​-­fox​- ­on​-­being​-­team​-­bernie​ -­and​-­fighting​-­climate​-­change​-­despair​-­20160422.

FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry In 2011, the natural gas industry created a database to provide public access to the comprehensive list of chemicals involved in natural gas extraction through hydraulic fracturing (fracking). This database was titled FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, commonly referred to as FracFocus, and was a joint effort specifically between the Ground Water Protection Council, a nonprofit organization composed of state groundwater regulatory agencies, and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. These organizations continue to manage the registry, which includes over one thousand companies in twenty-eight states reporting chemical data for nearly 110,000 fracking operations nationwide (FracFocus 2016). FracFocus 3.0 was launched in 2018, with improvements made to formats that will reduce errors, make use easier, and provide updated data. The registry has had some struggles over time. Some of the strongest criticism came from a study in 2013 by Katherine Konschnik with Margaret Holden and Alexa Shasteen of Harvard Law School that reported FracFocus failed as a regulatory compliance tool. The report targeted three major criticisms: (1) the variation or nonstandard timing of disclosures, (2) the lack of consistency in the quality of the substance of the disclosure, and (3) the lack of disclosure due to trade secret concern by the industry. Likewise, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Science Advisory Board found problems with disclosure in the registry. The EPA conducted an analysis of hydraulic fracking using, in part, the information available in the FracFocus 1.0 (the first release), which was similar to the Harvard study sample. The agency analyzed two years of registry data. Results showed that “hydraulic fracturing fluids were generally found to contain 88 percent water and

286

FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry

10 percent quartz used as proppant” (used to keep a hydraulic fracture open) as well as additive chemicals. The industry reported using 698 chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid and methanol, and many different types of petroleum distillates in more than 65 percent of all disclosures analyzed. One issue with the registry was that “70 percent of the disclosures analyzed included at least one ingredient that was claimed as confidential business information (CBI), commonly known as trade secrets, and the same for 11 percent of the ingredient records” (EPA 2015). In 2012–2013, the registry provided an update, FracFocus 2.0, to address the concerns about the database. In 2015, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management required disclosures to FracFocus for all fracking operators located on federal and tribal lands. Despite its limitations, FracFocus has become the predominant source of information on chemicals used in fracking across the United States. Dundon, Abkowitz, and Camp (2015) defended the use of the database and pointed out that state regulators, one of the primary users, were never interviewed as part of the Harvard study. As part of a follow-up to the Harvard study on FracFocus 1.0, researchers Konschnik and Dayalu (2016) examined the database again using a comparison with the earlier sample by the EPA (2015) and the registry updates since 2015. They found the rates of withheld chemical information had increased since 2013. States have decreased the submission deadlines to the database, which did not affect data quality or the level of withholding information. The study found a “16.7 percent withholding rate on forms filed between 2013 and April 2015, compared to 11 percent in an EPA analysis between 2011 and 2013” (Konschnik and Dayalu 2016, 508). The authors suggested not having disclosure of individual compounds but the overall product listing. The data revealed that when companies reported chemicals by listing individual compounds without attributing each chemical to a fracking product, withholding rates dropped by more than 75 percent (511). Many of the issues in the database will be addressed in the next version of the database, FracFocus 3.0. The organization announced the upgrades will reduce the number of errors in data entry, expand the ability to search records, allow downloading of a machine-readable format, and provide additional information on chemical use and environmental impacts. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Fox, Josh (1972–); Natural Gas.

Further Reading

Blackmon, David. 2013. “Harvard’s Frack Disclosure Study Earns an ‘F.’” Forbes, April 25, 2013. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­forbes​.­com​/­sites​/­davidblackmon​ /­2013​/­04​/­25​/ ­harvards​-­f racfocus​-­study​-­grades​-­an​-­f​/#­4798891b613a. Dundon, Leah A., Mark Abkowitz, and Janey Camp. 2015. “The Real Value of FracFocus as a Regulatory Tool: A National Survey of State Regulators.” Energy Policy 87(C): 496–504. FracFocus. 2016. “FracFocus Celebrates Its 5th Anniversary.” April 12, 2016. Accessed September 11, 2017. ­https://​­fracfocus​.­org​/­node​/­358. Konschnik, Katherine, and Archana Dayalu. 2016. “Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals Reporting: Analysis of Available Data and Recommendations for Policymakers.” Energy Policy 88(January): 504–514.



Fruits and Vegetables 287

Konschnik, Katherine, Margaret Holden, and Alexa Shasteen. 2013. Legal Fractures in Chemical Disclosure Laws: Why the Voluntary Chemical Disclosure Registry FracFocus Fails as a Regulatory Compliance Tool. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School. Accessed September 11, 2017. ­http://​­blogs​.­harvard​.­edu​/­environmentallawprogram​ /­files​/­2013​/­04​/­4​-­23​-­2013​-­LEGAL​-­FRACTURES​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. “Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Data from the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry 1.0.” Science in Action. Accessed September 11, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​ /­2015​- ­03​/­documents​/­fact​_ sheet​_ analysis​_of​_ hydraulic​_fracturing​_ fluid​_data​_ from​_the​_fracfocu​.­pdf.

Fracking (see Natural Gas) Fruits and Vegetables In recent years, health concerns have increased when it comes to the issue of fruits and vegetables. Several recommendations advocating greater consumption of these foods are commonly released by public health agencies, whose dietary guidelines point out that vegetables and fruits provide protection against various chronic adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and various types of cancer—most of which disproportionally affect low-income populations (Valcke et al. 2017). Although organic vegetables and fruits have become more popular, they still represent only a small fraction of the vegetables and fruits available to consumers. There are several naturally occurring toxins found in several fruits and vegetables. For example, the kernels within the pits of some stone fruits (e.g., apricots, cherries, peaches, pears, plums, and prunes) contain a natural toxin called cyanogenic glycoside. Normally, the presence of cyanogenic glycoside alone is not dangerous. However, when kernels are chewed, cyanogenic glycoside can transform into hydrogen cyanide, which is poisonous to humans. Similarly, cyanogenic glycoside toxin is also found in the cassava root and fresh bamboo shoots, and several different glycoalkaloids are produced naturally by potatoes, the most common being solanine and chaconine (CFIA 2017). However, of greater concern to consumers and public health officials is the use of pesticides. There are approximately one thousand active ingredients found in nearly eighteen thousand products used for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating pests in the United States. In California—one of the few states that collect pesticide data—researchers found that between 1991 and 2000, nearly two billion pounds of chemicals were used in that state (Ettinger 2011). In May 1947, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was signed into law. The law was an attempt to require the registration of all pesticides and other “economic poisons” intended for interstate or international sale. Ostensibly, the act was implemented to protect consumers against fraudulent

288

Fruits and Vegetables

pesticide product claims. FIFRA also gave states the authority to enforce pesticide sale, use, and distribution within their respective boundaries. In the immediate post–World War II (1939–1945) era, as farm populations dwindled and farm sizes increased, pesticide use became more common. Pesticide usage was often viewed as a way to solve major agricultural problems of the day, particularly in terms of dealing with bugs, beetles, worms, and weevils. Among the more popular pesticides was the chlorinated hydrocarbon known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), whose use had become a major factor in Southern cotton production (Finegan 1989). Pesticide products include herbicides, disinfectants, pheromones, insect repellants, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, rodenticides, and growth regulators. These products typically consist of one or more active ingredients that are mixed with inert ingredients, such as common food commodities (e.g., certain edible oils, spices, herbs) and some natural materials (e.g., beeswax, cellulose), that serve as carriers or solvents and help the pesticide destroy the target pest (Cohen 2014). Currently, the United States is the world’s second-largest user of pesticides, after China. The number of pesticides in the United States has not appreciably decreased in the last twenty-five years, and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last ten years (Donley 2019). Farmers often spray synthetic pesticides on crops to kill weeds and insects, but the problem for consumers is that potential toxicity does not stop there. As they grow, plants continue to absorb pesticides, the residues of which linger all the way to the kitchen, even after the plants have been washed (Boyle 2016). According to the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), today’s conventional farmers are often trapped in a “pesticide treadmill.” Once persistent organochlorine pesticides such as DDT were phased out for their health and environmental harms, a new fast-acting generation of organophosphates was phased in. With the further introduction of more genetically engineered crops to the market, the pesticide treadmill will continue (PAN 2019). So, while chemical-free agriculture is gaining support worldwide, pesticide usage remains a common practice, especially in tropical regions. Cheap compounds, such as DDT and lindane, which are environmentally persistent, remain popular in developing countries. Thus, persistent residues of these chemicals contaminate food and disperse in the environment (Parween et al. 2016). There are many common pesticides used in the United States today. Glyphosate, better known as Roundup, is used on genetically modified (GM) soy, corn, canola, and cotton and has been linked to birth defects, neurological disorders, fertility issues, and cancer. The weed killer atrazine has been linked to an increased risk of birth defects, infertility, and possibly cancer. Chlorpyrifos, which is applied to cotton, almonds, oranges, apples, and corn crops, has been linked to respiratory paralysis, increased risk of children born with lower IQs, and the potential for ADHD. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the herbicide metolachlor as cancer causing. The fumigant and pesticide metam sodium is applied to potatoes; its side effects include nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, damage to the thyroid, hormone disruption, and birth defects (Ettinger 2011).



Fruits and Vegetables 289

Each year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publishes its “Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce.” Its “dirty dozen” for 2019 lists (ranked from most toxic to least) strawberries, spinach, kale, nectarines, apples, grapes, peaches, cherries, pears, tomatoes, celery, and potatoes. The EWG points out that although many think that thoroughly washing fruits and vegetables will remove all traces of pesticides, such cleaning reduces some pesticides—but not all of them. Robert L. Perry See also: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996).

Further Reading

Boyle, Megan. 2016. “Five Essential Facts about Pesticides on Fruits and Vegetables.” EWG News and Analysis, May 12, 2016. Accessed November 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­ewg​.­org​/­e nviroblog​/­2016​/­05​/­f ive​- ­e ssential​-­facts​- ­a bout​- ­p esticides​-­f ruits​- ­a nd​ -­vegetables. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 2017. “Natural Toxins in Fresh Fruit and Vegetables.” Accessed November 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­inspection​.­gc​.­ca​/­food​ /­i nformation​-­for​- ­c onsumers​/­fact​- ­sheets​- ­a nd​-­i nfographics​/­p roducts​- ­a nd​-­r isks​ /­f ruits​-­and​-­vegetables​/­natural​-­toxins​/­eng​/­1332276569292​/­1332276685336. Cohen, Stuart Z. 2014. “The Special Case of Pesticides: Science and Regulation.” Environmental Claims Journal 16(1): 55–68. Donley, Nathan. 2019. “The USA Lags behind Other Agricultural Nations in Banning Harmful Pesticides.” Environmental Health 18: 44. Ettinger, Jill. 2011. “Invisible Monsters: 5 of the Most Common Pesticides & Their Impact on Your Health.” Organic Authority. Last updated October 22, 2018. Accessed July 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­organicauthority​.­com​/ ­health​/­invisible​-­monsters​-­5​-­of​ -­the​-­most​-­common​-­pesticides​-­a​-­their​-­impact​-­on​-­your​-­health. Finegan, Pamela A. 1989. “FIFRA Lite: A Regulatory Solution or Part of the Pesticide Problem?” Pace Environmental Law Review 6(2): 615–641. Parween, Talat, Sumira Jan, Sumira Mahmooduzzafar, Tasneem Fatma, and Zahid Hamee Siddiqui. 2016. “Selective Effect of Pesticides on Plant—A Review.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 56(1): 160. Pesticide Action Network (PAN). 2019. “The Pesticide Treadmill” Accessed July 30, 2019 ­http://​­www​.­panna​.­org​/­gmos​-­pesticides​-­profit​/­pesticide​-­t readmill. Valcke, Mathieu, Marie-Hélène Bourgault, Louis Rochette, Louise Normand, Onil Samuel, Denis Belleville, Carole Blanchet, and Denise Phaneuf. 2017. “Human Health Risk Assessment on the Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables Containing Residual Pesticides: A Cancer and Non-Cancer Risk/Benefit Perspective.” Environment International 108: 63–74.

G Gasoline Gasoline is a flammable, toxic, colorless fluid that is the primary fuel source for automobiles, lawn mowers, and some equipment. It is not found in nature but is derived from crude oil, a fossil fuel, during a distillation process after the oil is extracted from the earth. This is possible because crude oil contains a mix of hydrocarbons with different boiling points. A barrel of oil can generate about a quarter barrel of gasoline, which is an important U.S. commodity. Gasoline is composed of hundreds of hydrocarbons, which are long chains of carbon atoms. These include heptane and isooctane. It is the combination of these hydrocarbons that determine the octane levels of different gasolines, isooctane being the key factor. Gasoline is often available to consumers at octane levels 87, 93, and 98, meaning those gasolines contain those percentages of isooctane. Depending on how the gasoline is refined, it also contains a mixture of small amounts of benzene, toluene, xylene, and, in the past, lead. Refineries often put additives in the gasoline to lower the pollution created from burning the hydrocarbons in vehicle engines. The primary pathway for gasoline exposure comes at the gas station during refueling. Because gasoline is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that evaporates when exposed to air, it can irritate the lungs and stomach lining and induce vomiting when ingested. In large amounts, gasoline impacts the nervous system and may cause unconsciousness, seizures, and death. Direct eye contact may cause permanent eye damage. Gasoline is not classified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a carcinogen; however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing it for a cancer classification. People are also at risk for health impacts from exposure to gasoline-fueled automobile emissions. The combustion process inside an automobile’s engine generates air pollution—which is regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA)— including the chemicals carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and hydrocarbons that did not complete the combustion process. Burning gasoline also generates carbon dioxide, a known climate change gas. Like carbon dioxide, the nitrogen oxides contribute to the secondary air pollutant ozone. This pollutant is a combination of volatile organics, nitrogen oxides from automobiles, ultraviolet light, and water vapor in the air. In the summer, on sunny days with high humidity, cities will often have an ozone alert, which means the American Lung Association is warning people with respiratory vulnerabilities to stay inside. These include asthmatics, seniors, and others with lung diseases that make

292

General Electric Company

breathing difficult. Ozone alerts can be issued in advance because they are partially predicted from weather reports indicating sun and high humidity. Gasoline additives are also sources of human health impacts from exposure. Lead used to be added to gasoline but was determined too dangerous as a health hazard to continue using it as an additive; it was completely prohibited in 1996. Another chemical additive, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), was added to reduce emissions and increase octane levels. This colorless, flammable liquid with a strong odor is a toxic organic chemical. As a result, some states started prohibiting its use in gasoline in the late 1990s. By 2007, the oil refining industry voluntarily stopped using MTBE when making reformulated gasoline for sale in the United States, replacing it with ethanol. Gasoline in the United States today contains about 10 percent fuel ethanol by volume. This is added to reduce climate change gases and to comply with different states’ adopted renewable fuel standards. One significant source of environmental contamination comes from leaking underground storage tanks that hold gasoline. These are located at gasoline stations across the United States. The tanks are also used by large car operators, which can include local governments and private companies, to supply vehicle fleets. According to the EPA, until the mid-1980s, most underground storage tanks were made of steel, which would likely corrode over time and allow gasoline to leak into soil and nearby waterways, including groundwater. Poor installation and maintenance also contribute to leaks. Caution is needed when refueling these tanks because gasoline could ignite in transfer. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Automobile Emissions; Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change; Ozone Hole.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Gasoline, Automotive.” Toxic Substances Portal, March 3, 2011. Accessed September 27, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­83. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2017. “Gasoline Explained.” Last updated November 6, 2017. Accessed September 27, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­eia​.­gov​/­energyexplained​ /­index​.­cfm​?­page​= ​­gasoline​_home. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Learn about Gasoline.” Gasoline Standards. Last updated August 16, 2016. Accessed September 27, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­gasoline​-­standards​/­learn​-­about​-­gasoline​#­programs.

General Electric Company The General Electric Company (GE) is a global industrial company with customers in over 180 countries and 313,000 employees worldwide, of which 106,000 are employed in the United States (SEC 2017). Its products include aircraft engineering, power generation, and oil and gas production technology. GE also produces medical imaging. GE’s manufacturing includes 191 plants located in thirty-eight states and Puerto Rico, with an additional 348 plants located in forty-three other



General Electric Company 293

countries (GE 2018). The company’s executive offices are located in Boston, Massachusetts. GE’s seven business segments include lighting, aviation, health care, transportation, oil and gas, power, and renewable energy in addition to its financial services segment. In 2017, GE reported that cash flow did not meet expectations in the business segments of aviation and health care. Its reported revenue was $116.3 billion, which was down 3 percent from the previous year (GE 2018). Today, GE is one of the only twelve companies that remains part of the Dow Jones Index that is still in existence. Thomas Edison founded GE. He was a prolific inventor with over one thousand U.S. patents during his lifetime. GE currently ranks as the thirteenth-largest company in the United States. GE is responsible for many innovative and technological inventions. The first was the light bulb. In 1879, Thomas Edison invented the carbon filament that allows for incandescent lighting. This was a major invention that had historical impacts worldwide. In the late 1880s, Thomas Edison was well on the way to creating several businesses in the field of electrical lighting. There was rapid expansion in the adoption of incandescent light bulbs, which Edison ensured could be machine produced for mass production. In 1889, Edison merged his companies into the Edison General Electric Company. GE was created from a merger in 1892 with the Thomason-Houston Electric Company, which had its headquarters in Schenectady, New York. In 1929, GE installed the first application of electric lighting controls in the Chicago Civic Opera building, and its lighting was used for the first night baseball game in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1935. The company also invent fluorescent and halogen lamps and LED bulbs. By 1920, GE was a major player in the plastics industry. More recently, GE produced technology that allows fiber optics to be used in communications. In addition to lighting, GE is responsible for a variety of inventions, such as electric locomotives and the first jet engine. In 1978, it held fifty thousand patents, making it the first company to achieve this number of inventions. In the 1990s, GE built the Mars Observer for NASA. More recently, GE has created a host of medical technologies that focus on diagnostic information, particularly in imaging. GE has been a potentially responsible party to several environmental remediations over the years at multiple sites, of which many represent significant contamination. It reports that remediation actions collectively had an average annual expenditure of about $300 million in 2015, and from 2016 to 2019, costs continued at $200 million per year (SEC 2017). The company is reported to have over $30.9 million in fines associated with environmental violations since 2000, according to the Good Jobs First Report in 2018, which lists individual violations extracted from the EPA’s national enforcement and compliance data. GE is responsible for one of the largest Superfund sites in the United States, the Hudson River PCB Superfund site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed two hundred miles of the Hudson River, from the Hudson Falls to New York City, on the Superfund list in 1984 after it was found to be contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) during the period from 1944 to 1977.

294

General Electric Company

PCB is a chemical used as an insulator in the manufacture of electronic devices because of the chemical’s ability to not degrade at high temperatures. It is particularly concerning as a toxic chemical because it bioaccumulates in the ecosystem, where it concentrates as it moves up the aquatic food chain. It takes hundreds of years for PCBs to naturally degrade in the environment. Bob Boyle, the founder of a local New York advocacy group called Riverkeeper (2018), reported as early as 1970 the high levels of PCBs in fish from this area. As a result of being declared a probable human carcinogen, PCBs were banned in 1976. The EPA estimated that approximately 1.3 million pounds of PCBs were discharged into the Hudson River from two GE manufacturing plants located in the towns of Fort Edwards and Hudson Falls, New York (EPA 2016). According to local news reports (Wu 2018), it is estimated that GE disposed of 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the river primarily from two factories. Dredging of the river began in 2009 and ended in 2015, with the company reporting it invested $1.7 billion on the remediation of the river. The New York Times reported that, according to the EPA, the company completed its work under the 2005 consent order by removing three million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment. However, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has challenged the remedy because high levels of PCB sediment remain in the Upper Hudson River areas (McKinley 2016). In 2000, at another contaminated location, GE entered a consent decree at the remediation of PCBs at the Housatonic River in Massachusetts. The contamination had migrated over the dam and continued downstream into Connecticut, approximately 140 miles from the original source (EPA 2018a). As part of the final decision by the EPA for the cleanup under this consent decree, GE and other potentially responsible parties appealed the decision by the agency. The case is in litigation, and a cleanup will not be implemented until the litigation is resolved. This contamination occurred from approximately 1932 to 1977. The EPA (2018a) estimates that over one hundred thousand to six hundred thousand pounds of PCBs are in the river sediment and floodplain soils. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

General Electric. 2018. “Thomas Edison and the History of Electricity.” Accessed August 31, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ge​.­com​/­about​-­us​/ ­history​/­thomas​-­edison. Good Jobs First. 2018. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­parent​/­general​-­electric. McKinley, Jesse. 2016. “GE Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?” New York Times, September 8, 2016. Accessed August 31, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​ .­com​/­2016​/­09​/­09​/­nyregion​/­general​-­electric​-­pcbs​-­hudson​-­river​.­html. Riverkeeper. 2018. “Hudson River PCBs.” Accessed September 4, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­r iverkeeper​.­org​/­campaigns​/­stop​-­polluters​/­p cbs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Case Study: GE Agrees to Further Investigate Upper Hudson Floodplain in a Comprehensive Study to Cost about



U.S. U.S. U.S. Wu,

Gibbs, Lois 295 $20.5 Million.” December 13, 2016. Accessed August 31, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​ .­gov​/­e nforcement​/­case​-­s ummary​-­ge​-­agrees​-­f urther​-­i nvestigate​-­upper​-­hudson​ -­river​-­floodplain​-­comprehensive​#­company. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018a. “EPA Cleanups: GE-Pittsfield/ Housatonic River Site.” Updated June 13, 2018. Accessed September 4, 2018. ­https://​­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­ge​-­housatonic. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018b. “Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site.” Updated July 17, 2018. Accessed September 4, 2018. ­https://​­www3​.­epa​.­gov​ /­hudson​/­index​.­html. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “General Electric Company.” December 31, 2017. Accessed August 31, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­sec​.­gov​/­A rchives​ /­edgar​/­data​/­40545​/­000004054518000014​/­ge10​-­k 2017​.­htm. Amy. 2018. “Hudson River at a Crossroads GE, Groups Await EPA Decision on PCBs.” Poughkeepsie Journal, January 12, 2018. Accessed August 31, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­poughkeepsiejournal​.­com​/­story​/­tech​/­science​/­environment​/­2018​/­01​ /­11​/­ge​-­groups​-­await​-­epa​-­pcbs​/­972742001.

Gibbs, Lois(1951–) Lois Gibbs was born Lois Marie Conn to a working-class family on June 25, 1951, and grew up with five siblings in Grand Island, New York. Her father was a bricklayer, and her mother stayed home to raise the family. In 1969, she married Harry Gibbs, a chemical worker, and in 1972, they moved with their two children, Michael and Melissa, to the New York community called Love Canal. Gibbs was staying at home to raise her children when she became curious about the unusual health problems her children were experiencing along with other people in her community. Over a three-year period, Gibbs began to question whether her children’s illnesses, which included epilepsy and urinary tract and respiratory problems, could be linked to the local elementary school. She learned this school had been built on a former landfill that was sold by the Hooker Chemical Company to the school district. Without training in community activism or knowledge about toxic chemicals, Gibbs began to map out the locations of the diseases in the neighborhoods. She found patterns between household locations of the illnesses and proximity to the former landfill. These illnesses included a variety of blood disorders, asthma, urinary tract problems, and liver disorders. As a result, she worked with members in the community to close the elementary school. In August 1978, Gibbs presented a petition that included 161 signatures to the New York State Department of Health. In response, it closed the school and issued a health warning that pregnant women and children should leave the area. Subsequently, on August 7, 1978, President Carter announced that Love Canal was an emergency declaration area and approved $10 million in emergency aid to assist with what ultimately became the relocation of 833 Love Canal households, which focused on the two streets of homes surrounding the school.

296

Global Harmonization System (GHS)

Gibbs’s environmental activism at the local level spurred the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, which is widely known as the Superfund law. This legislation laid the foundation for actions that require both emergency and long-term remediation of contaminations to keep communities across the United States safe from toxins. Gibbs is now referred to as the “Mother of Superfund” (Konrad 2011). After the evacuation of Love Canal, Gibbs continued her work nationally. In 1980, she created the Citizens’ Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste (CCHW), located in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, which serves as a clearinghouse of technical information for communities to access vital information so that they can protect themselves from toxic chemicals and wastes. In 1998, the organization was renamed the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). As executive director, Gibbs continues to provide a grassroots environmental crisis center for communities that need assistance with information, resources, technical assistance, and training. She is considered an early voice for the environmental justice movement in the United States for low-income families who often find themselves located around toxic environmental hazards. In 1982, the Love Canal story was made into a televised movie titled Lois Gibbs: The Love Canal Story. She has authored several books, including Love Canal: My Story (1982); Dying from Dioxin (1997); Love Canal: The Story Continues . . . (1998); Achieving the Impossible: Stories of Courage, Caring & Community (2008); and Love Canal: And the Birth of the Environmental Health Movement (2010). With Phil Brown, she also coauthored Toxic Exposures: Contested Illnesses and the Environmental Health Movement (2007). Gibbs has been recognized with numerous awards. In 1999, she was awarded the Fifth Annual Heinz Award in the Environment, and in 2003, she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Love Canal, New York (1976).

Further Reading

Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ). 2016. “Love Canal.” Accessed September 1, 2017. ­http://​­chej​.­org​/­about​-­us​/­story​/­love​-­canal. Goldman Environmental Prize. 2017. “Lois Gibbs: 1990 Goldman Prize Recipient North America.” Accessed September 1, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­goldmanprize​.­org​/­recipient​/­lois​ -­gibbs. Konrad, Kevin. 2011. “Lois Gibbs: Grassroots Organizer and Environmental Health Advocate.” American Journal of Public Health 101(9): 1558–1559. ­https://​­www​ .­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pmc​/­articles​/ ­PMC3154230.

Global Harmonization System (GHS) A large part of the world’s manufacturing capacity relies on the import and export of chemical substances: bulk materials such as petroleum and its refined constituents, commodity chemicals such as fertilizer and plastic feedstocks, or



Global Harmonization System (GHS) 297

high-value-added products such as flavoring agents, fragrances, consumer products, and pharmaceuticals. As of 2017, international trade in chemicals contributed an estimated $5.7 trillion to the world economy (ICCA 2011, 4). The global nature of the chemical trade coupled with the hazardous nature of many materials means that effective communication of safety data to the recipient or end user is critical. The Global Harmonization System for the Classification and Labeling of Hazardous Substances, or GHS for short, grew out of 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), sometimes referred to as the Earth Summit. The goal was to develop a set of guidelines that could be utilized worldwide and communicate chemical hazard information. The first edition of the GHS was adopted in 2012 and published in 2013, with updates being issued every two years thereafter. Implementation in the United States began in 2012 through the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA oversees administration of the GHS guidelines in the United States. The HCS is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Hazard Communications, 29 C.F.R. § 1900.1200 (2013). As of June 1, 2015, hazardous substances and mixtures in the United States must be labeled using the GHS guidelines. In the United States, GHS-compliant labels and safety data sheets (SDS) are required for most chemical-containing materials, with the exception of certain hazardous consumer products, such as laundry detergents and bleach. These exceptions are not global, and some countries may require compliant labels on these materials as well. The responsibility for preparing GHS materials normally falls to the manufacturer.

THE NEED FOR UNIFORM HAZARD COMMUNICATION In any country, a chemical compound may be subject to numerous regulatory bodies, each with their own labeling requirements and their own classifications of what constitutes a hazard. A term like flammable may have numerous regulatory definitions based on boiling point, flash point, or minimum ignition temperature. Situations like this mean a compound might be classified as flammable by one agency, combustible by another, and nonflammable by a third. Standards related to toxicity see even more variability. The confusion is magnified when the material crosses borders. Effective hazard communication requires that information such as appropriate storage conditions, potential reactivity issues, toxicity, and emergency procedures must be available to all appropriate personnel. In the case of a chemical spill or fire, such information must be accessible as quickly and unambiguously as possible. Addressing this need is the most significant facet of the GHS and results from the standardization of language, definitions, and criteria for describing hazardous situations. For workers, transport personnel, and those who come into contact with hazard chemicals in United States, labeling and SDS constitute a big portion of Right-to-Know aspect of the HCS, and training constitutes the remainder.

298

Gore, Al

THE GHS SYSTEM: LABELS AND SDS The goal of the GHS system is to provide hazard information in a manner that is as quick, concise, and unambiguous as possible. Chemical labels were simplified immensely and have only six required elements. Three of the six—signal words, hazard statements, and pictograms representing significant hazards—have standardized language and appearance. The remaining three elements—product identifier, supplier information, and precautionary and supplemental information—do not have standardized content. Under current GHS guidelines, only two signal words may appear on a label: “warning” and “danger.” They represent the severity of the hazard, with warning being the lesser of the two descriptors. A series of nine pictograms were developed for GHS labels and SDS geared toward providing immediate hazard information to speakers of many languages. A separate set of related pictograms for use in the labeling of chemical transport vehicles and vessels was prepared as well. The second portion of the GHS is the requirement for safety data sheets (SDS), which have replaced the older material safety data sheets (MSDS). The new SDS has sixteen sections representing the information shown in the table. Entries 12–16 are not always present. OSHA requires that SDS be readily available to employees upon request. Eric J. Stoner See Also: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Safety Data Sheets (SDS).

Further Reading

International Council of Chemical Association (ICCA). 2019. “The Global Chemical Industry: Catalyzing Growth and Addressing Our World’s Sustainability Challenges.” Washington, DC: Oxford Economics. Accessed January 8, 2020. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­icca​- ­chem​.­org​/­w p​- ­c ontent​/­uploads​/­2019​/­03​/ ­ICCA​_ EconomicAnalysis​_ Report​_030819​.­pdf. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2005. “A Guide to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).” October. Accessed January 8, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­dsg​/ ­hazcom​/­ghsguideoct05​ .­pdf. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2019. “Hazard Communication: The Standard That Gave Workers the Right to Know, Now Gives Them the Right to Understand.” Accessed on January 2, 2020. ­https://​­w ww​.­osha​.­gov​/­dsg​/ ­hazcom. United Nations Economic Committee for Europe. 2019. “Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).” Accessed on January 2, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­unece​.­org​/­t rans​/­danger​/­publi​/­ghs​/­ghs​_rev08​/­08files​_e​.­html.

Gore, Al(1948–) Albert Arnold Gore Jr., more commonly known as Al Gore, was the forty-fifth vice president under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001. Representing the state of Tennessee, he served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1977 to 1985 and as a U.S. senator from 1985 to 1993. He is a longtime advocate of



Gore, Al 299

preventing climate change. Because of his policy work therein, in 2007, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore was born on March 31, 1948, in Washington, DC, to Albert Gore Sr., who served in the U.S. House of Representatives for eighteen years and in the U.S. Senate, both for the state of Tennessee. His mother was Pauline Gore; she was the first female to graduate from Vanderbilt University Law School. Ironically, the Gore family started as tobacco farmers in Tennessee, and Al Gore’s older sister, Nancy, died of lung cancer in 1984. Gore attended Harvard University, and he enlisted in the army after graduation. In early 1971, he was sent to Vietnam as a journalist. Upon returning from the war, he attended Vanderbilt University Divinity School from 1971 to 1972. While in school, he also worked as a reporter for The Tennessean. In 1974, he entered law school at Vanderbilt University but left to run for the seat vacated by his father, which he won. In 1970, he married Mary Elizabeth Aitcheson, who is commonly known as “Tipper.” They have four children: Karenna Gore, Kristin Carlson Gore, Sarah LaFon Gore, and Albert Arnold Gore III. The couple divorced in 2010. While serving as vice president, Gore led an effort to reinvent government using an assessment tool called the National Performance Review for the evaluation of federal agencies. He also was an early advocate of Internet technology use in government. In one of the most unique electoral events in U.S. history, during the presidential election against George W. Bush in 2000, Gore won the majority of the popular vote but failed to win a majority in the electoral college. Because of the close vote count in Florida, a recount was requested, which was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of George W. Bush in a 5–4 decision. Gore is the cofounder and chairman of Generation Investment Management and a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. He serves on the board of directors for Apple, Inc., and is dedicated to the Climate Reality Project, where he serves as chairman, advocating for public policy dealing with climate change. Gore is the author of several books, including New York Times number one best sellers An Inconvenient Truth (2006), which was made into an Oscar-winning film documentary, and The Assault on Reason (2007) as well as Earth in the Balance (1992), Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis (2009), The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change (2013), and, most recently, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2017). Al Gore is best characterized as not only a politician and former vice president but also as someone who has dedicated his life to environmental causes, particularly in the area of climate change. He resides in Nashville, Tennessee. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change; Ozone Hole.

Further Reading

Gore, Al. n.d. “Al Gore.” Al Gore website. Accessed August 10, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­algore​ .­com​/­about​.­html.

300

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Kakutani, Michiko. 2006. “Al Gore Revisits Global Warming, with Passionate Warnings and Pictures.” Book review. New York Times, May 23, 2006. Accessed August 16, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2006​/­05​/­23​/ ­books​/­23kaku​.­html. Kenigsberg, Ben. 2017. “Review: ‘An Inconvenient Sequel,’ with Al Gore Keeping the Pressure On.” Movie review. New York Times, July 27, 2017. Accessed August 16, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2017​/­07​/­27​/­movies​/­an​-­inconvenient​-­sequel​-­review​ -­al​-­gore​.­html.

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy(1997) In April 1992, Canada and the United States entered into the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, one of the first formal agreements on how to eliminate persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin. This was the culmination of a two-year process of negotiations that resulted in a framework to reduce chemicals that often bioaccumulate in the Great Lakes, such as mercury, DDT, PCBs, toxaphene, dioxins, and many other chemicals. These persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals generally resist degradation under natural conditions, easily accumulate in fatty tissue, biomagnify (increase concentration) through the food chain, and may cause detrimental health effects in humans and animals. The agreement was developed under the implementation of the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Binational Executive Committee that developed this framework included Environment and Climate Change Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and representatives from the Great Lakes states, the Province of Ontario, and several other federal agencies from the United States and Canada. In 2012, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was amended to better identify and manage current environmental issues. It modernized the framework and commitments from the Binational Toxic Strategy of the past. It also expanded the participation of interested parties to form the Chemicals of Mutual Concern Annex Subcommittee, which is formed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the EPA and includes state, provincial, and tribal governments. The Chemicals of Mutual Concern Annex Subcommittee is supported by an Extended Subcommittee with representation from nongovernmental organizations and industry. As part of this effort, Canada and the United States agreed to annex a list of chemicals of mutual concern: • Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) • Long-chain perfluorinated carboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs) • Mercury • Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) • Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) • Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) • Short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs)



Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA) 301

As of May 2018, radionuclides were also added to the chemicals of mutual concern. There are public comments periods and the opportunity for listing other chemicals that can be added to this list. Significant research and policy implementation measures are being undertaken on these chemicals for reduction and elimination where possible in the Great Lakes Basin. For instance, the International Joint Commission (IJC) has recommended comprehensive policy measures to keep PBDE flame retardants out of the basin (IJC 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Confined Disposal Facilities in the Great Lakes; Dioxins; Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) (1972, 1978, 1987, 2012); Mercury (Hg); Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanoic Sulfonate (PFOS); Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Toxaphene (C10H10Cl8).

Further Reading

International Joint Commission (IJC). 2018. “IJC Recommends Comprehensive Action to Keep Toxic Flame Retardants out of the Great Lakes.” July 12, 2018. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ijc​.­org​/­en​/­ijc​-­recommends​-­comprehensive​-­actions​-­keep​ -­toxic​-­flame​-­retardants​-­out​-­great​-­lakes. United States and Canada. 2016. “Chemicals of Mutual Concern Annex: Progress Report of the Parties.” In 2016 Progression of Report of the Parties, 38–32. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ijc​.­org​/­sites​/­default​/­files​/­2018​- ­08​/ ­PROP​%­202016​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.” February 21, 2016. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­archive​.­epa​.­gov​/­greatlakes​ /­p2​/­web​/­html​/­bnsintro​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2016. “Canada and the United States Designate the First Set of Chemical of Mutual Concern.” ­Bionational​.­net, May 31, 2016. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​ ­binational​.­net​/­2016​/­05​/­31​/­cmcdesig​-­pcpmdesig.

Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA)(including Areas of Concern) The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA or Legacy Act) was passed by Congress on November 12, 2002, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 27, 2002. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2018a), the act authorized $270 million in funding over five years, beginning in fiscal year 2004, to specifically assist with the remediation of contaminated sediment in the designated U.S. Areas of Concern (AOCs). GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT (GLWQA) AND AREAS OF CONCERN (AOCS) Congress enacted the GLLA to increase sediment remediation in the Great Lakes Basin. Congress recognized that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource

302

Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA)

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) were not doing enough to address the magnitude of the contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes Basin. For many decades, industrial sources contributed substantial amounts of harmful pollutants to the Great Lakes, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The Great Lakes and their tributaries were historically important centers of trade and industry in the Great Lakes region. As cities and industry grew in the Great Lakes Basin, river and harbor sediments became polluted by chemicals. As a result, important fish and wildlife habitats were lost as well as the ability to fully use and enjoy the rivers and lakes of the Great Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes’ rivers and harbors that have been most severely affected by pollution and habitat loss are labeled Areas of Concern (AOCs). These AOCs are geographic areas where significant impairment of beneficial uses has occurred as a result of human activities at the local level. AOCs were designated in 1987 as part of an international agreement between the United States and Canada known as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The Legacy Act continued the commitment of remediating these AOCs, which had contaminated sediment from industrial sites, brownfields, and other sources of pollution. The GLWQA is a commitment between the United States and Canada to restore and protect the waters of the Great Lakes. The agreement provides a framework for identifying binational priorities and implementing actions that improve water quality. The EPA coordinates U.S. activities under the agreement, which the United States and Canada first signed in 1972. The agreement was subsequently amended in 1983 and 1987. In 2012, the agreement was updated again to enhance water quality programs that ensure the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the Great Lakes. The 2012 agreement facilitates U.S. and Canadian action on threats to the Great Lakes’ water quality and includes strengthened measures to anticipate and prevent ecological harm. New provisions address aquatic invasive species, habitat degradation, and the effects of climate change and support continued work on existing threats to people’s health and the environment in the Great Lakes Basin, such as harmful algae, toxic chemicals, and discharges from vessels. The 2012 agreement reaffirms both countries’ commitments to restoring water quality and ecosystem health in Great Lakes AOCs. At the time of signing the GLWQA in 1987, a total of forty-three AOCs were identified. These included twenty-six in the United States, twelve in Canada, and five shared, or joint binational, sites. Today, there are thirty AOCs being remediated as a priority by the EPA and other partner federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.

BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS (BUIS) Beneficial use impairments (BUIs) are a change in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the



Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA) 303

following: restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption; tainting of fish and wildlife flavor; degraded fish and wildlife populations; fish tumors or other deformities; bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems; degradation of benthos (plants and animals living on or in the bottom sediment); restrictions on dredging activities; eutrophication or undesirable algae; restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odor problems; beach closings; degradation of aesthetics; added costs to agriculture or industry; degradation of plant- and animal-based plankton populations; and loss of fish and wildlife habitat. All AOCs have experienced one or more losses of their beneficial uses. GOALS OF THE GLLA The goals of the GLLA are to accelerate cleanups and to find solutions to the challenge of contaminated sediments. For a project to be eligible under the GLLA, it must be carried out in an AOC located wholly or partially in the United States and must monitor or evaluate contaminated sediment, implement a plan to remediate contaminated sediment, or prevent further or renewed contamination of sediment. The GLLA specifically prioritizes projects that constitute remedial action for contaminated sediment; have been identified in a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and are ready to be implemented; use an innovative approach technology or technique that may provide greater environmental benefits or equivalent environmental benefits at a reduced cost; or include remediation to be commenced not later than one year after the date of receipt of funds for the project. REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS (RAP) Under the act, cleanup plans for identified Great Lakes AOCs require a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). States take many different approaches to developing RAPs, from direct involvement and control to extensive delegation to local agencies or groups within the AOC. The GLWQA requires the RAPs to include a list of the BUIs occurring in the AOC and their causes; the requirements for restoring these beneficial uses, with input from the local communities; identification of the requirements for remediation and parties responsible for their implementation; a summary of the remediation actions completed and the progress of the RAP in bringing back the beneficial use; and monitoring and effectiveness measures for the remediation actions completed. Each RAP contains the “management actions necessary for delisting the AOC.” This identifies what must be done, such as removing the BUIs identified in the RAP, to close out or “delist the AOC.” This does not mean the BUIs will be immediately remediated, but the actions will remove the pollutant and create the conditions needed for the environment to improve itself within that AOC until delisting is possible. Management actions required for delisting of the AOC are identified as “completed” once they have been effectively implemented over the entire life of the project.

304

Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY The GLLA amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to authorize the EPA administrator, through the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), to implement the GLLA requirements. The GLLA allows the EPA administrator, through the GLNPO, the ability to make grants for projects that monitor or evaluate contaminated sediment, remediate contaminated sediment, or prevent further or renewed contamination of sediment; conduct research on innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for the remediation of sediment contamination in AOCs in the Great Lakes; and carry out a public information program through grants. It also requires the EPA administrator to report to Congress regarding oversight of RAPs for the Great Lakes. The GLNPO at the EPA coordinates with Canada under the GLWQA to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, which includes Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario. GLNPO brings together federal, state, tribal, local, and industry partners under the strategic framework to fulfill the aims of the GLWQA. The GLNPO has specific responsibilities. It is responsible for remediation of contaminated sediments under the Great Lakes Legacy Act, and it is also focused on reducing persistent toxic chemicals and identifying emerging contaminants that can become known over time. It supports work on RAPs for AOCs and for Lakewide Action and Management Plans. The GLNPO supports many of these efforts through grants to partners and research organizations associated with the lakes. GREAT LAKES RESTORATIVE INITIATIVE (GLRI) The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) is a federal program that supports efforts to restore the health of the Great Lakes by investing in projects to restore habitat and wetlands, clean up toxic pollution, combat invasive species such as Asian carp, and prevent runoff from farms and cities. The GLRI was first funded by President Obama and Congress in 2010. The GLRI aims to be consistent with the GLWQA. It focuses on the restoration of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The activities under the GLRI are divided into five areas: toxic substances and AOCs; invasive species; nearshore health and nonpoint source pollution; habitat and wildlife protection and restoration; and accountability, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and partnerships. A report by the Congressional Research Service (Sheikh 2013) explains the implementation for the GLRI using two action plans. Action Plan I provided a framework for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem from 2010 through 2014. For each of the five areas under the GLRI, the Action Plan provides a problem statement, a set of goals, interim objectives, progress measures, final targets, and principal activities for restoring the ecosystem. Broad actions are taken rather than specific tasks or project-specific actions. GLRI Action Plan II



Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA) 305

summarizes the actions that federal agencies plan to implement in 2015–2019 using GLRI funding—actions to protect and restore the largest fresh surface water system in the world. Under GLRI Action Plan II, federal agencies and their partners will continue to build on restoration and protection work carried out under GLRI Action Plan I, with a major focus on cleaning up Great Lakes AOCs, preventing and controlling invasive species, reducing nutrient runoff that contributes to harmful/nuisance algal blooms, and restoring habitat to protect native species. RESTORATION PROGRESS UNDER THE GLLA The process for removing BUIs and delisting AOCs starts with a scientific assessment by the state and federal agencies to determine the extent to which beneficial uses are impaired and the types of management actions required to remediate the AOC. After management actions are implemented, a monitoring and verification plan may be implemented by the state agency, the local public advisory council, the EPA, or others to determine whether the BUI-removal criteria have been met. An AOC is eligible to be delisted when all BUIs have been removed. While many restoration projects are underway in the Great Lakes Basin as a result of the GLLA and GLRI, of the forty-three original AOCs, twenty-seven currently remain. However, BUIs at seven sites have been sufficiently remediated and the AOCs delisted: three in Canada and four in the United States. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Collingwood Harbor (Canada, delisted in 1994) Severn Sound (Canada, delisted in 2003) Wheatley Harbor (Canada, delisted in 2010) Oswego River (United States, delisted in 2006) Presque Isle Bay (United States, delisted in February 2013) White Lake (United States, delisted in October 2014) Deer Lake (United States, delisted in October 2014)

According to the EPA (2018), in 2015–2019, federal agencies will coordinate with the appropriate level of government to provide funding to implement critical management actions in the remaining AOCs and complete management actions required to delist the following ten AOCs: Buffalo River, Clinton River, Grand Calumet River, Manistique River, Menominee River, Muskegon Lake, River Raisin, Rochester Embayment, St. Clair River, and St. Mary’s River. FUNDING LEVELS The 2008 Reauthorization of the Act appropriated funds to GLLA projects through fiscal year 2010. At the time of this writing, the GLLA has not been reauthorized, and no specific appropriations for GLLA activities have been announced. Brigette Bush-Gibson

306

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)

See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) (1972, 1978, 1987, 2012); Heavy Metals; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Sheikh, Pervaze. 2013. “The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Background and Issues.” Congressional Research Service, September 30, 2013. R43249. Accessed April 13, 2019. ­https://​­nationalaglawcenter​.­org​/­w p​-­content​/­uploads​/­assets​/­crs​/ ­R43249​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018a. “Great Lakes Legacy Act.” December 18, 2018. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­great​-­lakes​-­legacy​-­act. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018b. “Remedial Action Plans for the Great Lakes AOCs.” September 19, 2018. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​ .­epa​.­gov​/­great​-­lakes​-­aocs​/­remedial​-­action​-­plans​-­great​-­lakes​-­aocs.

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) (1972, 1978, 1987, 2012) In April 1972, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau of Canada and President Richard Nixon of the United States signed the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). This is a significant policy agreement that committed the countries to restore and enhance water quality in the Great Lakes Basin. The focus was on phosphorus in the lakes, among other chemical pollutants. In 1978, the GLWQA was amended to include an ecosystem approach to the elimination of toxics by adopting an elimination or zero emissions discharge policy. The agreement was amended again in 1987, adding Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) to restore the most contaminated areas around the lakes. Lakewide Action and Management Plans were created to address individual lake pollutions by persistent toxic chemicals. It also included policies on nonpoint pollution sources, contaminated sediment, airborne toxics, and contaminated groundwater. It was one of the most comprehensive revisions of the original agreement. By September 2012, Canada and the United States amended the GLWQA. This revision modernized provisions in the areas of algae growth, toxic chemicals, and ship/vessel pollution and incorporated a new commitment to aquatic invasive species and degradation of the shore. Losses of habitat and species as well as climate change were included. It also expanded the role of interested parties and the public in engagement through the creation of ­Binational​.­net, an online presence of information as well as webinars and other social media outlets with increased public participation. The 2012 GLWQA calls for a development of more lake-specific ecosystem indicators to measure the health of the lakes. A Great Lakes Executive Committee (GLEC) was established to replace the former Binational Executive Committee. The GLEC has a significantly expanded membership and now includes senior-level representatives from the United States and Canada, state and provincial governments, tribal governments, First Nations, Métis, municipal governments, watershed management agencies, and other local public agencies.



Green Products and Services 307

The first progress report was issued in 2016, with another expected in late 2019. The 2012 report outlines the significant progress achieved over the first three years of the implementation of the GLQWA 2012 agreement, which includes ten annexes. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Confined Disposal Facilities in the Great Lakes; Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (1997); Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA) (including Areas of Concern); International Joint Commission (IJC).

Further Reading

United States and Canada. 2016. 2016 Progression of Report of the Parties. Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ijc​.­org​/­sites​/­default​/­files​/­2018​- ­08​/ ­PROP​%­202016​.­pdf.

Green Products and Services Many of today’s environmental problems are largely owing to people’s consumerism. As globalization has increased and logistics have improved in the last half century, consumerism has had more and more of a global impact, particularly when it comes to the potential depletion of the world’s natural resources. It has been well noted, for example, that the consumption of material goods and services is positively correlated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Markowitz and Bowerman 2012). As global issues such as climate change, rising sea levels, and air and water pollution have affected more people, these challenges have led many to rethink their consumer habits toward ways that are greener and more sustainable. More and more people want to change from a business as usual society to one that is environmentally sustainable; they want green products and services. In regard to green products and services, this usually means a product, service, or practice that allows for economic development while conserving for future generations. It can also be thought of as a product or service that has less of an environmental impact or is less detrimental to human health than the traditional product equivalent (Speer 2011). With green products and services, there are the proverbial two sides of the coin: the green shoppers who have become more conscious of their buying and consumption habits and desire environmentally friendly products and services and the producers who themselves might be environmentally conscious but must sell their goods or provide the services. For consumers who pay attention to the public consequences of their purchasing habits, they want to buy products that satisfy their needs and also benefit the environment. For them, being green means such things as reading labels, using natural or biodegradable detergents, buying products that use recycled materials, avoiding products from specific companies that harm the environment, and avoiding aerosols (Brochado, Teiga, and Oliveira-Brochado 2017). Typically, environmentally conscious consumers are willing to pay more for products if they are confident that the products are truly environmentally friendly (Gershoff and Frels 2015).

308

Green Products and Services

This brings the question of whether such an approach to consumer decision-making actually has any long-term positive effect on the environment. After all, Americans, at least in their characterization, are noted for their conspicuous consumption and are not necessarily likely to change that. Alfredsson (2004) notes that consumption is still consumption, and even if it is more green, it will not likely significantly contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in terms of overall energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Often consumers, when saving energy and money by adopting one habit, will spend their money on other more energy-intensive products or practices. There are, however, many studies that have noted a small but growing sector of the public that is not only mindful of what they buy but are also downscaling their consumption habits, meaning they are doing such things as living in smaller homes, eliminating air travel, and purchasing secondhand items (Markowitz and Bowerman 2012). As for the producers of green products and services, Chen (2010) notes several reasons as to why companies seek green marketing, including compliance with environmental pressures, obtaining competitive advantage, improving their corporate image, seeking new markets or opportunities, and enhancing their product. Even though the ideas of green production and business practices started in the early 1960s, the approach has gained momentum in the last few decades. This has not only been spurred on by rising consumer consciousness but also by government incentives (especially in the European Union) for businesses to do less harm to the environment (Viswanathan and Varghese 2018). Business are often reluctant to change to greener ways of production because such shifts can come with great costs. It is not always clear what is meant by popular catchphrases such as “profit with purpose” or “lean profit,” nor is it clear how much a company will have to forgo in order to adopt any new method of production (Viswanathan and Varghese 2018). Nevertheless, companies will respond to consumers who demand greener products and services. One way that firms have responded to consumers’ green preferences is by introducing products that include components made with materials that reduce environmental impact. The Ford Motor Company, for example, changed the fabric in its car seats to include at least 25 percent recycled yarns in most cars and 100 percent in its hybrid cars (Gershoff and Frels 2015). As consumer preferences have shifted toward greener products and services, businesses’ spending on advertising has increased several fold over the last two decades, which has led to accusations of “greenwashing” in advertising—that is, employing false claims, omitting important information, or using vague or ambiguous terms to mislead or deceive consumers or stakeholders when it comes to environmental actions of the part of the business in question (Parguela et  al. 2015). More common, though, are advertisements that use nature-evoking images to generate greater perceptions of the featured brand’s ecological image and, in turn, more positive brand attitudes (Parguela et al. 2015). To ensure that consumers are actually getting a green product or service, Speer (2011) recommends that consumers look for certification labels. The Energy Star



Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change 309

label indicates a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy. The Green Seal is a life cycle assessment–based labeling program for building products, green operations and maintenance procedures. The Forest Stewardship Council is a certification program for wood products that come from forests that are managed in an environmentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable way. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is an internationally recognized standard for green building and design. Finally, USDA Organic Product indicates whether an agricultural product was produced in such a way that integrates biological, cultural, and mechanical processes to conserve biodiversity and foster cycling of natural resources. Robert L. Perry See also: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Environmental Movement (1970s); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change.

Further Reading

Alfredsson, E. C. 2004. “‘Green’ Consumption—No Solution for Climate Change.” Energy 29(4): 513–524. Brochado, Ana, Nídia Teiga, and Fernando Oliveira-Brochado. 2017. “The Ecological Conscious Consumer Behaviour: Are the Activists Different?” International Journal of Consumer Studies 41: 138–146. Chen, Yu Shan. 2010. “The Drivers of Green Brand Equity: Green Brand Image, Green Satisfaction, and Green Trust.” Journal of Business Ethics 93: 307–319. Gershoff, Andrew D., and Judy K. Frels. 2015. “What Makes It Green? The Role of Centrality of Green Attributes in Evaluations of the Greenness of Products.” Journal of Marketing 79(1): 97–110. Markowitz, Ezra M., and Tom Bowerman. 2012. “How Much Is Enough? Examining the Public’s Beliefs about Consumption.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 12(1): 167–189. Parguela, Béatrice, Florence Benoit-Moreau, and Cristel Antonia Russell. 2015. “Can Evoking Nature in Advertising Mislead Consumers? The Power of ‘Executional Greenwashing.’” International Journal of Advertising 34(1): 107–134. Speer, Matthew. 2011. “What Is a Green Product?” ­iSustainableEarth​.­com. Accessed July 12, 2009. ­http://​­www​.­isustainableearth​.­com​/­green​-­products​/­what​-­is​-­a​-­green​-­product. Viswanathan, Lakshmi, and George Varghese. 2018. “Greening of Business: A Step towards Sustainability.” Journal of Public Affairs 18: e1705. Accessed July 12, 2019. ­https://​­onlinelibrary​.­wiley​.­com​/­doi​/­f ull​/­10​.­1002​/­pa​.­1705.

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change The greater the amount of sunlight reflected off the earth and back into space, the cooler the surface of the earth and its atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap reflected heat from the surface of the earth. This trapped heat stays within the earth’s biosphere, raising average global temperatures, which will have long-term negative consequences for the earth. The consequences of global climate change are already in evidence. Parts of coastal Florida are regularly flooded by rising sea levels; the intensity of

310

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change

hurricanes is increasing, affecting large swaths of coastal land; droughts are more frequent and enduring; and plants and animals native to tropical areas are steadily moving northward into temperate zones that are slowly warming. The impact of Hurricane Harvey on southeastern Texas, which occurred in late August 2017, appears to have been intensified by global warming, but other meteorological ingredients also contributed to the unusual amounts of rainfall and flooding. GHGs are introduced into the atmosphere through natural and manmade carbon sources and act in concert to reduce the rate at which Earth cools. They trap heat and warm the atmosphere in much the same way that greenhouses in regions with cold winters enable plants, some from the tropics, to be grown throughout the winter months: heat enters the greenhouse via sunlight and is trapped by the glass, thereby creating a higher temperature. Anyone who has opened a closed car on a hot day will have noticed that the temperature inside the car is much higher that the ambient outside temperature. Automobile glass allows heat to enter the vehicle, but the glass is a powerful reflective barrier to the heat exiting the car. Heat is trapped inside the vehicle, raising the internal temperature and presenting a very real threat to animals and children left in the vehicles. These examples are analogous to what happens in Earth’s atmosphere: the sun provides light and heat, but the natural reflectivity of the earth is compromised by GHGs that act much like glass does in an automobile, trapping heat and raising the interior temperature of, in this case, the earth. The earth then warms in a manner that affects climate on a global scale and for an attenuated length of time. The capacity to trap heat differs between greenhouse gases. The volumes of different GHGs entering and staying in the atmosphere differs greatly, as does the potential of each gas to trap heat. Even if the introduction of GHGs into the atmosphere through human carbon-based activities suddenly ends, the effects of global warming will be felt far into the future. Unfortunately, the longer governments wait to enact laws to ban carbon-based fuels, the more dire and enduring climate change will be. Those underdeveloped areas that lack air conditioning and stable sources of food and water supplies will suffer most. However, GHGs from coal-powered plants and gas-fueled automobiles will increase air pollution and global warming as well as the incidence of lung damage and heart disease, especially in industrialized countries. Natural causes of GHGs include forest and grass fires caused by lightning, which releases sequestered carbon. Human causes are the result of electricity generation through the burning of coal or oil, the use of cookstoves in the developing world, and by the widespread use of internal combustion engines that depend on carbon-based fuels such as gasoline and diesel. When GHGs trap reflected heat, they increase the average yearly temperatures on a global scale, thereby altering the climate of the globe and increasing the variability of weather patterns. Some regions become warmer, resulting in frequent and long-lasting droughts, while others experience stronger storms (more snow and rain) and floods. The global average surface temperature increased from 1.1 to 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit between 1906 and 2005, and the rate of temperature



Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change 311

increase doubled in only fifty years. While the increase in average surface temperatures may seem minor, they are producing significant climate changes. GREENHOUSE GASES (CHGS) ENTERING THE ATMOSPHERE The concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere began to increase with the advent of the industrial era in the nineteenth century. The phenomenon of industrialization depended on an abundance of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, which powered the industrial revolution while emitting large amounts of CO2. Scientific measurements of GHGs in ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica demonstrate that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have greatly increased recently when compared to the rate of change over the prior eight hundred thousand years, even after accounting for periodic temperature fluctuations. GHGs have different capacities to increase temperatures and affect the global climate. Each gas has a global warming potential apart from ozone. There are several key GHGs that are particularly important to global warming. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that is produced through the digestive processes of living organisms and the fermentation of plants. It enters the atmosphere through burning carbon-based fuels (primarily coal, natural gas, wood, and oil) for a wide range of personal, manufacturing, and industrial purposes. CO2 is a normal component of human breath exhale. Nevertheless, it can be hazardous when concentrated through the sustained use of carbon-based fuels. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere when absorbed by growing plants. When massive amounts of these plants die over millions of years, they are transformed into carbon-based fuels through various geological processes, including tremendous geologic pressures. If left unmined, coal and other fuels are powerful CO2 sequestering mechanisms. It is when humans mine and burn carbon-rich fuels that the problem begins. The use of fossil fuels is responsible for a significant part of the global warming worldwide caused by CO2. Methane Methane is produced by decomposing organic matter and enters the atmosphere through landfills when they vent, livestock digestive processes, and burning carbon fuels. Although methane does not last as long as CO2 in the atmosphere, its global warming potential is twenty-four times greater than CO2. Methane is also a precursor to ozone, a key atmospheric component (and GHG) that when concentrated in urban areas, especially during the summer, constitutes a serious threat to human health.

312

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change

Nitrous Oxide Nitrous oxide is emitted through agricultural and industrial activities as well as the burning of fossil fuels and the natural breakdown of solid waste. Nitrous oxide has a global warming potential of 265 to 298 times that of CO2 and has a one hundred–year average life span in the atmosphere. Ozone Ozone in the stratosphere (upper atmosphere), ten to thirty miles above Earth, is a natural barrier to the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays that can cause sunburns, skin cancer, and damage to crops such as soybeans. Ozone forms in the troposphere (the lower atmosphere, which has a depth of only eleven miles in the midlatitudes) from chemicals produced by vehicular exhaust, gasoline vapors, and solvents. Sunlight causes reactions between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at near-ground levels, thereby producing harmful concentrations of ozone. Ozone can worsen a variety of lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and emphysema. It also damages a variety of crops. Ozone is a GHG in the sense that it traps reflective heat in the troposphere. Its concentrations have increased from 237 parts per million in the pre-1750 period to 337 parts per million more recently. Ozone only lasts in the atmosphere a few days or weeks. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs) gases are manmade GHGs produced as a substitute for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were long used in a variety of commercial and household products. CFCs were banned by international treaty in 1987. Although HFCs are emitted in small quantities, they have a global warming potential of four thousand to ten thousand times that of CO2. GROWTH IN GHG EMISSIONS GHG emissions resulting from human activities increased 7 percent from 1990 to 2014. CO2 emissions account for most of the increase. The good news is that, per capita, GHG emissions per person have decreased slightly in the last few years. The EPA tracks GHGs through the annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. The report estimates total national greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. GHG emissions in the United States are from several sources: •

Electricity generation: Electricity accounts for 29 percent of GHG emissions in 2015. Approximately 67 percent of U.S. electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas. It is the largest source of greenhouse emission in the United States.



Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change 313

•

Transportation fuels: Transportation accounts for 27 percent of GHGs emitted in 2015. GHG emissions come from burning gasoline and related fuels in cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum-based, which includes both gasoline and diesel. As the United States transitions from gasoline-powered automobiles to electric vehicles (EVs), GHG emissions from transportation activities is expected to decline. • Industry: Industry accounts for 21 percent of GHGs emitted in 2015. GHG emissions are a consequence of using fossil fuels as well as from chemical reactions to produce synthetic products such as plastics. • Commercial and residential: Commercial and residential use accounts for 12 percent of the GHGs emitted in 2015. GHG emissions primarily result from fossil fuels burned for heat and the management and disposal of commercial and residential solid waste. • Agriculture: Agriculture accounts for 9 percent of GHGs emitted in 2015. Agricultural GHG emissions come from cows and food digestion, the tilling of agricultural soils, and rice production. Not all human activities have increased GHGs. Since 1990, U.S. forests and other public lands have absorbed tremendous amounts of CO2 despite forest and grass fires.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FUNCTION OF GLOBAL WARMING Increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs produce global warming and, ultimately, climate change. According to NASA, from 1990 to 2015, the warming effect for CO2 emissions grew by 30 percent. Indeed, May 2018 was the fourthwarmest month of May on record (NASA 2018). Since 1880, Earth has warmed about two degrees Fahrenheit, or more than one degree Celsius. Although warming is greater over land, and greater still in the Arctic and parts of Antarctica, the temperature of the world’s oceans continues to increase. The earth experiences significant temperature swings on a day-to-day basis and from weather and seasonal change. When scientists collect average temperatures globally, the temperature increases are much smaller. The variation in the temperature of the earth from one year to the next is usually in fractions of a degree. Thus, when scientists recently documented a rise of two degrees Fahrenheit from the end of the nineteenth century until present day, the rise in temperature was a clear call for action. This rate of warming explains why the world’s land ice is melting and the oceans are rising. The clear majority of climatologists believe human releases of GHGs play a major role in warming cycles that were once predominantly a natural process. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes over one thousand scientists from across the globe, forecasts a temperature rise of

314

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change

2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Even if temperature increases are at the lower end of this range, the environmental and health effects could be devastating. The likely effects of climate change are multifaceted: the frost-free season will lengthen for many regions; there will be continuing reductions in sea ice at both poles; precipitation patterns will change, with greater rainfall in the tropics than global climate models originally predicted; Artic winter warming events will increase and last for months; serious droughts will become common across the Western United States and globally; hurricanes will become larger and more devastating; decreases in Greenland and Antarctic ice mass will accelerate; the Artic may become ice free; mountain glaciers will disappear into history; global sea levels will rise one to four feet by 2100, flooding coastal population centers; lightning storms that cause boreal forest fires will migrate northward into Canada and Alaska; and ocean acidification will further increase. The effects of GHGs in the atmosphere will remain well into the future. Warming from GHGs is predicted to cause sea levels to rise for hundreds of years (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016). The reason for continuing sea rise is inertia. As the world warms from GHGs, ocean waters warm and expand, causing sea levels to rise. The additional heat caused by GHGs will slowly decline over hundreds of years.

CURBING GREENHOUSE GASES AND SLOWING CLIMATE CHANGE Responding to climate change necessitates a robust strategy with two primary goals: (1) reducing overall GHG emissions and (2) adapting to the effects of climate change that will occur despite mitigation actions to significantly slow or stop GHG emissions. The goal of mitigation is to reduce the human contribution to climate change. Mitigation involves the development of better carbon monitoring systems, such as NASA’s Megacities Carbon Project. This pilot program is exploring innovative ways of monitoring GHG emissions in large urban centers, which is an important first step because they are significant islands of GHG emissions. Promoting the use of renewables and improving overall energy efficiency in developing countries and emerging economies is a critical component of a global GHG mitigation strategy. The United Nations and its partners are supporting the rapid deployment of renewables through a number of projects, including the African Rift Geothermal Development Facility Project. The project involves developing large untapped geothermal resources in East Africa. Using geothermal energy avoids having to build large coal-fired electricity plants. Other mitigation initiatives include market-based solutions such as cap-and-trade programs, which are gradually becoming more popular. These programs establish a regulatory ceiling on total carbon emissions while enabling carbon credits to be bought and sold. Buyers include companies that produce



Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change 315

excess GHG, and sellers have a surplus of credits. Cap-and-trade programs are in place in California, and other states are poised to follow California’s example. Providing incentives for mitigation programs at the local level is also important. Many local governments and academic institutions are committed to lowering GHG emissions. Over one thousand cities signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and are currently implementing strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Under the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), hundreds of higher education institutions pledged to curtail climate emissions through a series of on-campus initiatives. Many industrial and professional associations are complying with rigorous voluntary efficiency standards, including those created by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Long-standing federal voluntary energy efficiency programs, including the EPA’s Energy Star program, which identifies and labels energy efficient products for use in residential homes and commercial buildings and plants, are promoting energy efficiency nationwide via widespread manufacturer participation. Energy efficiency is an important component of any strategy to reduce the production of GHGs. ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE Well-planned adaptation to climate change saves money and lives as climate change accelerates. It requires a concerted effort by individuals and communities to anticipate the expected negative effects of climate change and develop plans and take actions that will help minimize the damage climate change is likely to cause. Adaptation measures include water conservation; strengthening building codes so that houses and other facilities can stand up to extreme weather events, such as high wind speeds and catastrophic rainfalls; strengthening prohibitions on building in coastal areas and flood plains that are highly susceptible to flooding; building more robust dams and waterway levies; improving planning methodologies at the federal, state, and local levels of government that are responsive to changing climate; increasing additional insurance requirements for those buildings in highrisk areas; creating drought-tolerant crops; choosing tree species and forestry and landscaping practices less vulnerable to storms and fires, such as xeriscaping; and setting aside land corridors to help species seasonally migrate from lower to higher elevations. Due to the varying climate conditions and impacts, most adaptation initiatives will be implemented by local officials, and because of the varying financial ability of communities to adapt to climate change impacts, greater involvement and increasing financial support from national governments will be required. In impoverished nations, the international community must step up and provide extensive assistance. John Munro

316 Greenpeace See also: Air Contamination; Asthma; Automobile Emissions; Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants.

Further Reading

Cook, John, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T. Doran, William R. L. Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W. Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew G. Skuce, Sarah A. Green, Dana Nuccitelli, Peter Jacobs, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, and Ken Rice. 2016. “Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming.” Environmental Research Letters 11(4): 048002. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A, Global and Sectoral Aspects: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White. New York: Cambridge University Press. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­ipcc​.­ch​/­pdf​/­assessment​-­report​ /­ar5​/­wg2​/­ar5​_wgII​_spm​_en​.­pdf. Kunkel, Kenneth E., Thomas R. Karl, Harold Brooks, James Kossin, Jay H. Lawrimore, Derek Arndt, Lance Bosart, David Changnon, Susan L. Cutter, Nolan Doesken, Kerry Emanuel, Pavel Ya. Groisman, Richard W. Katz, Thomas Knutson, James O’Brien, Christopher J. Paciorek, Thomas C. Peterson, Kelly Redmond, David Robinson, Jeff Trapp, Russell Vose, Scott Weaver, Michael Wehner, Klaus Wolter, and Donald Wuebbles. 2012. “Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of the Knowledge.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, April 1, 2013. Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia, and A. V. Mishonov. 2009. “Global Ocean Heat Content 1955–2008 in Light of Recently Revealed Instrumentation Problems.” Geophysical Research Letters 36(7). ­https://​­doi​.­org​ /­10​.­1029​/­2008GL037155. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. “Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change.” Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nap​.­edu​/­read​ /­21852​/­chapter​/­1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2018. “May 2018 Was Fourth Warmest May on Record.” Global Climate Change. Accessed October 21, 2018. ­https://​­climate​.­nasa​.­gov​/­news​/­2750​/­may​-­2018​-­was​-­fourth​-­warmest​-­may​-­on​-­record. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2015.” Last updated March 26, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​ .­gov​/­ghgemissions​/­inventory​-­us​-­greenhouse​-­gas​-­emissions​-­and​-­sinks​-­1990​-­2015.

Greenpeace Established in 1971, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Greenpeace (now formally known as Greenpeace International—the group’s coordinating body) is the world’s largest environmental nongovernmental organization (NGO). It is composed of twenty-six independent national and regional organizations in over fifty-five countries across Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, with its

Greenpeace 317

world headquarters in Amsterdam. Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that “uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future” (Greenpeace 2018b). In the United States, Greenpeace operates as a 501(c)(3) entity that promotes the group’s mission through public education and grants to other environmental organizations. Greenpeace has its roots in the late 1960s in Vancouver, Canada, the site of numerous protest movements and a gathering place for several American anti–Vietnam War activists, Quakers, Canadian environmentalists, and others. In 1969, the Don’t Make a Wave Committee formed to protest U.S. nuclear testing on Amchitka Island in the Alaskan Aleutians. This committee would be the precursor to Greenpeace, whose first mission, in September 1971, was to send a boat to Amchitka to disrupt the next test. Although unsuccessful in its efforts to stop the nuclear testing, the worldwide publicity regarding the mission allowed Greenpeace to claim a media victory. The United States soon halted its testing in Amchitka, and with Greenpeace’s subsequent successful protests against France’s aboveground testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, Greenpeace could claim actual victories. A new generation of members changed the focus of Greenpeace toward animal rights advocacy, particularly toward stopping whale hunts. However, the group’s tactics to stop baby seal hunting in Newfoundland, Canada, brought public backlash. Internal discord among Greenpeace’s leaders also hampered the group’s efforts. In 1977, British members of Greenpeace purchased and outfitted the Rainbow Warrior ship to disrupt Icelandic whalers and to expose the illegal dumping of nuclear waste products in European waters. As the organization regained its popularity, and with more Greenpeace groups forming around the world, there was a great need to create a more centralized structure. In 1979, Greenpeace International was instituted, and the world headquarters was established in Amsterdam, Netherlands. As the popularity of Greenpeace increased throughout the 1980s, the number of detractors also grew. They saw Greenpeace’s activities as harmful to several groups’ livelihoods. Animas against Greenpeace was so strong in France that the French minister of defense ordered the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. Press reports of France’s actions stoked public ire, leading to a vast increase in Greenpeace’s membership and in the public’s financial support. As membership grew, Greenpeace reassessed its mission and refocused toward advocating for environmentally sustainable actions that promote social justice. Today, membership in Greenpeace is over 250,000 in the United States and about 2.8 million, worldwide (Greenpeace 2018b). In the United States, Greenpeace currently pursues seven campaigns: (1) saving the arctic, mainly through efforts to stop fossil fuel development in that region; (2) forest protection; (3) fighting global warming by campaigning to keep coal, oil, and gas in the ground and to pursue 100 percent renewable energy; (4) ocean protection, including trying to reduce the world’s plastic footprint; (5) toxicity reduction, which includes pushing for safer chemical facilities as well as challenging

318

Groundwater Contamination

some of the world’s most popular clothing brands to work with their suppliers to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals into waterways; (6) increasing sustainable food production by advocating a global food movement based on ecological farming; and (7) defending democracy by working toward keeping corporate money out of politics (Greenpeace 2018a). Robert L. Perry See also: Environmental Movement (1970s); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change.

Further Reading

Greenpeace. 2018a. “About.” Accessed June 13, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­greenpeace​.­org​/­usa​ /­what​-­we​-­do. Greenpeace. 2018b. “What We’re Doing.” Accessed June 13, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­greenpeace​.­org​/­usa​/­about. Greenpeace: From Hippies to Lobbyists. 2014 [2011]. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2011). Distributed by Films Media Group (2014). Available on Films on Demand. Zelko, Frank. 2017. “Scaling Greenpeace: From Local Activism to Global Governance.” Historical Social Research (Historische Sozialforschung) 42(2): 318–342.

Groundwater Contamination Groundwater is a critical source of water throughout the United States and the world. It provides half the drinking water used in the United States and is a critical source for agriculture. Groundwater withdrawals for irrigation in the United States in 2015 totaled 57,200 million gallons per day, up 16 percent from 2010, as compared to surface water irrigation withdrawals at 60,900 million gallons per day, down 8 percent from 2010 (Dieter et al. 2018, 28). With the invention of efficient pumps and rural electrification, global groundwater pumping increased from the 1960s to 2000. Approximately 70 percent of groundwater use on a global level is for agriculture (USGS 2018a). According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2018b), since 1950, global irrigation has represented about 64 percent of total withdrawals, excluding withdrawals for thermoelectric power. Use of water for irrigation increased by more than 68 percent from 1950 to 1980 (from 89,000 to 150,000 million gallons per day). Withdrawals have decreased since 1980 and stabilized at between 135,000 and 139,000 million gallons per day between 1985 and 2000 and 115,000 in 2010 (USGS 2018b). Groundwater is also used by industry, which was 19 percent of the groundwater pumped in 2010. About 50 percent of the water used in mining in 2010 came from groundwater. Groundwater is also crucial for those people who use wells to supply their domestic water. Over 98 percent of self-supplied domestic water withdrawals came from groundwater (Dieter et al. 2018; USGS 2018b). About 22 percent of the potable water used in the United States in 2010 came from groundwater sources. The other 78 percent came from surface water. Groundwater is a critical natural resource, especially in those parts of the Western



Groundwater Contamination 319

United States where many areas lack surface water supplies. It takes more work and costs more to access groundwater as opposed to surface water, mainly due to the energy costs associated with pumping water to the surface (Dieter et al. 2018; USGS 2018b). Management of water resources have traditionally focused on surface water or groundwater as if they are separate entities. As development of land and water resources increase, it is apparent that development of either affects the quantity and quality of the other. Nearly all surface water features, such as streams, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and estuaries, interact with groundwater. Consequently, for the past four decades, there has been a push for the conjunctive management of both water supplies. Interactions between surface water and groundwater systems take many forms. Bodies of surface water gain water from groundwater systems, and groundwaters are recharged from bodies of surface water. As a result, the withdrawal of water from streams can deplete groundwater; conversely, pumping out groundwater can deplete water in streams, lakes, and wetlands. Likewise, the pollution of surface water can cause degradation of groundwater quality, and groundwater pollution can degrade surface water. Thus, effective land and water management requires an integrated and comprehensive approach to the management of both water sources. Human consumption of contaminated groundwater can have serious health effects. Diseases such as hepatitis and dysentery may be caused by drinking water from wells that have become contaminated by septic tank waste, and poisoning may come from toxins that have naturally leached into well water supplies. Wildlife can also be harmed by contaminated groundwater. Long-term health effects, such as certain types of cancer, have been associated with exposure to polluted water. SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION Storage Tanks Leaks Many storage tanks once contained gasoline, oil, chemicals, or other types of liquids, and they can be aboveground or below ground. There are millions of storage tanks buried in the United States, and over time, the tanks corrode, crack, and develop leaks. If the contaminants leak out and get into the groundwater system, serious contamination can occur. These tanks were used for the storage of gasoline and heating fuel, particularly by industry, schools, retail, homes, and on farms. Septic Systems According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2018), septic systems are on-site wastewater disposal systems used by more than twenty-one million households, offices, and other buildings not connected to a sewer system. Nearly one-fifth of U.S. households’ septic systems are typically located in rural

320

Groundwater Contamination

areas, especially in New England and the Southern United States. In Vermont, 55 percent of homes rely on septic systems, and they are still being constructed nationwide. In 2013, 51 percent of new homes used septic systems, and 36 percent of the new homes built in the East, South, and Central United States have septic systems. In the West and Northwest (i.e., California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington), 8 percent of new homes included a septic system. In the Central West (i.e., Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming), only 6 percent of new homes included a septic system. Septic systems are designed to drain away human waste underground at a slow, harmless rate; however, an improperly designed, located, constructed, or maintained septic system can leak bacteria, viruses, household chemicals, and other contaminants into soils and groundwater aquifers, causing serious contamination. Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste and Landfills In the United States today, there are over twenty thousand known abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, and the number grows every year. These and older landfills can leak chemicals into groundwater supplies if there are old barrels or other containers lying around leaking hazardous materials or if the landfills lack liners. If there is a leak, these contaminants can make their way down through the soil and into groundwater. Pesticides and Fertilizer Use Millions of tons of fertilizers and pesticides (e.g., herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, avicides) are used annually for crop production. Homeowners, businesses (e.g., golf courses), utilities, and municipalities also use these chemicals. A number of these pesticides and fertilizers, some highly toxic, are entering and contaminating groundwater. Some fertilizers and pesticides remain in aquifers for decades.

Animal Wastes Groundwater contamination can come from animal wastes that percolate into the ground from cattle feedlots or direct animal contact with streams and creeks that run through farmlands used for grazing.

Chemicals and Road Salts Chemicals are widely used on lawns, road salts are applied during winter to minimize ice, and chemicals are applied to lawns and farm fields to kill weeds and insects and fertilize plants. Still others are used around homes and businesses. When it rains, salts wash off treated roads into surface water and eventually, along with the other chemicals, seep into surface water and groundwater supplies.



Groundwater Contamination 321

Products and Toxic Components Affecting Groundwater A variety of chemicals have significant impact to groundwater quality. Contamination comes from a large diversity of chemicals and sources. For instance, common antifreeze used widely in cars in colder climates contains ethylene glycol, which is a toxic chemical that can leach into the groundwater. Petroleum, battery acids, degreasers for engines and pavement, hydraulic fluids, motor oils, gasoline, and jet fuels are all toxic chemicals that have been found in groundwater contamination. Other common household and widely used industrial chemicals found in paints, rustproofing substances, pesticides, asphalt chemicals, varnishes, laundry stain removers, household cleaners, drain cleaners, lye, jewelry cleaners, disinfectants, pesticides, and swimming pool chlorine can all be found in groundwater as contaminants.

Atmospheric Contaminants Because groundwater is part of the hydrologic cycle, contaminants in other parts of the cycle, such as the atmosphere or bodies of surface water, can eventually end up in our groundwater supplies. Chemicals entering the atmosphere through utilities burning coal can travel great distances, through the atmosphere above the United States, from the Midwest to the Northeast, and mix together to create acid rain. Acid rain has a pH value of around 5.6 on a scale of 1–14—the lower the value, the higher the pH (a measure of acidity). Acid rain is deposited throughout the Northeast by rain and snow, killing flora and fauna and contaminating surface water supplies. Once on the ground, some of the acidic precipitation percolates into the groundwater, contaminating aquifers and reducing groundwater quality. Acidic groundwater is a threat to human health. Even mildly acidic groundwater can dissolve the lead and copper in drinking water plumbing in older houses, thereby threatening the developmental progress of children.

Excessive Groundwater Pumping As droughts become more frequent and longer lasting under conditions of climate change and variability, there is a tendency for agriculture to rely heavily on groundwater pumping. Inevitably, groundwater wells must be drilled deeper and deeper the longer droughts persist. Excessive pumping in coastal areas can enable saltwater to move inland, causing permanent and irreversible damage to groundwater supplies and contributing to heart disease and higher fetal death rates because of the high saline content. Excessive pumping also contributes to the collapse of geologic structures that have underground reservoirs, destroying these precious structures as well as reducing the overall quality of groundwater. Moreover, the depletion of aquifers produces a range of long-term effects, such as the collapse of the geologic structure that holds the water.

322

Groundwater Contamination

Saltwater Intrusion: The Special Case of Florida Saltwater encroachment on fresh groundwater supplies is an especially critical problem in Florida. Several factors have contributed: • Loss of hydrostatic head through increased demands from municipalities • Excessive drainage, especially in the Everglades and under the Atlantic Coastal Ridge • Lack of protective infrastructure against tidewaters in bayous, canals, and rivers • Improper location of wells • Highly variable annual rainfall with insufficient surface storage • Uncapped (artesian) wells and leakage • Rising sea levels from climate change • High pressure in groundwater aquifers that precipitously drops during pumping, allowing seawater to rush in • Rapid population growth The combination of Florida’s natural conditions and historical water-use practices present a long-term threat to groundwater supplies that will only intensify as climate variability continues. Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products and Microbeads Pharmaceuticals and personal care products are a growing source of groundwater and surface water contamination. They are a diverse group of chemicals that include • All human and veterinary drugs, including antidepressants, blood pressure medicines, antibiotics, and hormones • Dietary supplements • Topical agents such as cosmetics and sunscreens • Laundry and cleaning products • Fragrances and all the inert ingredients used in these products As the field of medicine increasingly relies on pharmaceuticals, growing levels of drugs pass through human and animal digestive systems into water supplies. An evolving threat is the use of microbeads in soaps and other personal care products. They can slip through water treatment plants and end up in surface waters and groundwater. These plastic beads are highly capable of absorbing and concentrating contaminates and transferring them to aquatic organisms and humans. Illinois was the first state to ban the use of microbeads in personal products. According to the Groundwater Foundation (2018a), drugs and personal care products, which are mostly unregulated, enter surface water and groundwater supplies through



• • • • • • • • • •

Groundwater Contamination 323

Intentional disposal (e.g., flushing) of unneeded personal care products Bathing and swimming with sunscreens Discharge from municipal sewage systems and private septic systems Leaching from landfills Excretion by humans and domestic animals Runoff from confined animal feeding operations Discharge of raw sewage from storm overflow events, cruise ships, and some rural homes directly into surface water or groundwater Accidental discharges of toxics and pollutants to a groundwater recharge area Loss from aquaculture Spray drift from antibiotics used on food crops

GROUNDWATER IS A GLOBAL ISSUE Stores of groundwater represent over 90 percent of the readily available freshwater on earth. There are countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, and Austria, where over 90 percent of the total potable water comes from aquifers; however, groundwater comprises only 20 percent of the world’s water use on average. Despite this percentage, increased global use and associated contamination is threatening the sustainability of this resource through declines in groundwater quality (Margat and ver der Gun 2013). Reports of contamination on a global scale caused by human activities are abundant. Nitrate leaches from agricultural lands to shallow groundwater in many regions around the world from nitrogen fertilizers and manure, oxidation of organically bound nitrogen in soils, cattle feed lots, poorly managed septic tanks, and illicit sewage discharge. The severity of the contamination is modified by other factors, such as lithology, dissolved oxygen levels, and unsustainable and antiquated land-use practices. Rice fields on fine-grained alluvium soils generally have low dissolved oxygen and minimal nitrate concentrations in groundwater because of denitrification. In contrast, areas with vegetable crops coupled with coarse grain lithology and high hydraulic conductivity have higher concentrations of nitrate in shallow groundwater. Discharge of nitrate-enriched groundwater can increase nitrogen concentrations in streams and lakes and increase the level of eutrophication (concentrated dissolved nutrients in shallow, low-oxygenated waters) and algal blooms. LIMITATIONS OF GROUNDWATER REGULATION At the federal level, overseen by the EPA, groundwater quality is managed through the Groundwater Rule (GWR), which is designed to improve groundwater quality and provide protection against disease-causing microorganisms. The GWR applies to public systems that use groundwater as a source of drinking water.

324

Groundwater Contamination

Through the Underground Injection Control Regulations promulgated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the EPA has established regulations that control the injection of hazardous substances. The EPA also provides information on source water assessments to water utilities, local governments, and others involved in protecting drinking water. The 1996 amendments to the SDWA outlines six key steps for conducting source water assessments for public water systems. In addition to federal requirements, U.S. states and localities have passed laws and ordinances to protect groundwater; however, in many states, groundwater protections remain inadequate. At the global level, water protection regimes vary from country to country. Some nations have very effective groundwater systems, such as France, that have a national groundwater policy system implemented at the local level. Almost 90 percent of their groundwater aquifers are in good shape. There are no permanent water rights, and use is authorized on a yearly basis and can be revoked. France also establishes upper limits on the amount of water that can be withdrawn from a basin. Other countries in Asia and Central America have essentially no system for the regulation of groundwater quality, and, accordingly, the quality of their groundwater supplies continues to deteriorate. John Munro See also: Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination (2016); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974); Underground Injection; Underground Storage Tanks (USTs).

Further Reading

Dieter, C. A., M. A. Maupin, R. R. Caldwell, M. A. Harris, T. I. Ivahnenko, J. K. Lovelace, N. L. Barber, and K. S. Linsey. 2018. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1441. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Groundwater Foundation. 2018a. “Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products in Drinking Water Supplies.” Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­groundwater​.­org​/­get​ -­informed​/­groundwater​/­products​.­html. Groundwater Foundation. 2018b. “What Is Ground Water?” Accessed June 17, 2020. ­http://​­w ww​.­groundwater​.­org​/­get​-­informed​/ ­basics​/­groundwater​.­html. Margat, Jean, and Jac van der Gun. 2013. Groundwater around the World. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­un​-­igrac​.­org​/­sites​/­default​ /­files​/­resources​/­files​/­Groundwater​_around​_world​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Septic Systems Overview.” Updated September 18, 2018. Accessed October 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­septic​ /­septic​-­systems​-­overview. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. “Getting Up to Speed: Ground Water Contamination.” Accessed October 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​ /­files​/­2015​- ­08​/­documents​/­mgwc​-­gwc1​.­pdf. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018a. “Groundwater Use in the United States.” Last updated June 26, 2018. ­https://​­water​.­usgs​.­gov​/­edu​/­w ugw​.­html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018b. “Irrigation Water Use.” Last updated June 26, 2018. ­https://​­water​.­usgs​.­gov​/­edu​/­w uir​.­html.

H Halogens There is a general class of elements called halogens that are named such because of their ability to readily form salts or crystals in chemical reactions (hal in Greek means “salt,” and gen means “produce”). Halogens are nonmetals that can be solids, liquids, or gases, and they are grouped together because of their similar chemical and physical properties. These elements are very reactive, even with what are considered inert substances. When heated, they release toxic, corrosive gases that are fatal to humans and most biotic life. Halogens are effective and often strong disinfectants. The six elements in this chemical class are fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, tennessine, and the least known, astatine. Not much is scientifically known about astatine except that it is a radioactive element that occurs as a rare element in the earth’s crust; it is not used. There are some differences among the halogens. Although all halogens can be found as solids, liquids, or gas compounds, they are more frequently used in certain states. For instance, fluorine is the lightest weight element in the class, and along with chlorine, both are usually found as gases; however, bromine tends to be a liquid, and iodine and astatine are usually solids. Fluorine is a toxic, colorless gas that is considered one of the most reactive elements; it can even react with inert types of chemicals, such as glass. As a result, fluorine is difficult to store. When exposed to metals, it can cause them to burst into flame upon contact. It is used in Teflon, which is been widely found in household cooking items and used for industrial purposes. Fluorine has been used to make the Freon in refrigerators, and in the form of fluoride, it is used to help prevent tooth decay. Chlorine is a yellowish toxic gas with a strong, distinct smell. It is used as a disinfectant and bleach as well as in manufacturing polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs), carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and trichloroethylene (TCE). Cable wiring with PVCs can cause deadly fumes in a fire. In the United States, Asia, and Europe, the use of cable wiring containing halogens has been completely prohibited or is strictly regulated. Several chlorinated halogens are known ozone-depleting chemicals and have been banned from use. Bromine is a dark orange liquid with a unique odor. It is used in flame retardants, insecticides, and refrigerants (often as a substitute for chlorine). Iodine is a solid that forms an indigo-colored gas when heated. Like chlorine, it is a strong disinfectant that has also been used in medicines to protect against goiter, an iodine deficiency disease.

326

Hamilton, Alice

Halogens are also used in certain types of lamps. A halogen lightbulb usually contains a small amount of iodine or bromine. These types of lightbulbs are considered inefficient. In the United States, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, with support from the lighting industry, phased out the use of these bulbs. The European Union has also begun a phaseout. The new standards are due to go into effect in 2020. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4); Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Montreal Protocol; Ozone Hole; Trichloroethylene (TCE) (C2HCl3).

Further Reading

Lee, Jolie. 2013. “Why People Still Use Inefficient Incandescent Lightbulbs.” USA Today, December 27, 2013. Accessed September 11, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­usatoday​.­com​ /­s tory​/ ­n ews​/ ­n ation​- ­n ow​/ ­2 013​/­12​/ ­27​/­i ncandescent​-­l ight​- ­b ulbs​- ­p haseout​-­leds​ /­4217009. Lighting Insight. 2017. “The 2018 EU Halogen Ban: Here’s What You Need to Know.” Accessed September 11, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­lightinginsight​.­com​/­the​-­2018​-­eu​-­halogen​ -­ban​-­heres​-­what​-­you​-­need​-­to​-­k now (web page discontinued). Natural Resources Defense Council. 2017. “New Light Bulb Energy Efficiency Standards Will Save Consumers Billions, Reduce Harmful Pollution, and Create Jobs.” ­January 2017. Accessed September 11, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­nrdc​.­org​/­sites​/­default​/­files​ /­lighting​-­standards​-­2016​-­FS​.­pdf.

Hamilton, Alice(1869–1970) Dr. Alice Hamilton is considered the early founder and pioneer of the field of occupational health and toxicology and was a major leader of the social reforms of the early twentieth century (CDC 1999). She was born in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on February 27, 1869, to a wealthy family that supported her education and groundbreaking work in the field of worker safety. Because of the widespread use of toxic chemicals and metals in the workplace during the industrial revolution, she was specifically interested in their impacts on workers’ health. Her work is credited for launching the field of toxicology. Hamilton graduated from medical school at the University of Michigan in 1893 and then studied bacteriology and pathology at universities in Munich and Leipzig from 1895 to 1897. She continued her postgraduate studies at the Johns Hopkins University Medical School. In 1897, she moved to Chicago, where she became a professor of pathology at the Woman’s Medical School of Northwestern University. After arriving in Chicago, Hamilton moved into social reformer Jane Addams’s Hull House, a settlement home. There she lived alongside the poor for twenty-two years and opened a well-baby clinic for poor and immigrant families. According to journalist Howard Markel (2015), writing on the commemoration of the forty-fifth anniversary of her death in 2015, Hamilton credits the Hull House as the experience that aroused her interest in industrial diseases. Hamilton had close relationships with Jane Addams and other female activists leading the social reforms of this period of the progressive era. She worked



Hazardous Waste 327

on typhoid fever, tuberculosis, and cocaine abuse in Chicago. In 1908, she published her first article about occupational diseases in the United States. Starting in 1910, through her publications and research, she pioneered the fields of occupational epidemiology and industrial hygiene in the United States. Her findings were so profound that they caused massive government reforms to protect and improve the health of employees. She worked with the Occupational Diseases Commission of Illinois, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Consumers League (NCL), and the League of Nations Health Committee on various public health issues. The research that she is best known for includes mercury poisoning in hat manufacture, lead poisoning in industrial workplaces, and an ailment then known as dead-fingers syndrome from the use of jackhammers in construction. In 1919, Hamilton became the first woman on the faculty at Harvard University, where she worked in the area of industrial medicine; however, she was excluded from the social activities and graduation ceremonies because she was female. Hamilton died in 1970 at 101 years old. In her autobiography, Exploring the Dangerous Trades (1943), she describes her work on worker contamination from industrial pollutants. She outlines how she questioned the workers’ safety by secretly going into factories to observe and document their exposure to dangerous chemicals. “She scientifically demonstrated the grave health risks of lead, carbon monoxide, phosphorus, benzene, picric acid and many other toxic substances that permeated many workplaces of her era” (Markel 2015). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); National Toxicology Program (NTP); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC).

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. “Alice Hamilton, M.D.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48(22). Accessed August 23, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­cdc​.­gov​/­m mwr​/­preview​/­m mwrhtml​/ ­MM4822bx​.­HTM. Markel, Howard. 2015. “Celebrating the Life of Alice Hamilton, Founding Mother of Occupational Medicine.” PBS NewsHour, September 22, 2015. Accessed August 23, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­pbs​.­org​/­newshour​/­updates​/­celebrating​-­life​-­alice​-­hamilton​ -­founding​-­mother​-­occupational​-­medicine. National Library of Medicine (NLM). n.d. “Dr. Alice Hamilton.” Accessed August 23, 2017. ­https://​­cfmedicine​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­physicians​/ ­biography​_137​.­html.

Hazardous Waste Hazardous waste is a subset of the solid waste generated in the United States and globally. Around the world, solid waste is generated at about 3.5 million tons per day. In addition to hazardous waste, solid waste includes household waste, industrial waste, radioactive waste, medical waste (which may or may not be hazardous), construction waste, and mixed wastes. A waste that has a hazardous component and a radioactive component is called a mixed waste and is regulated

328

Hazardous Waste

under both the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Atomic Energy Act. Disposing of solid waste is expensive; it is usually the third-largest component of local government budgets. In 2010, managing solid waste cost Americans $52.4 billion, not to mention the large tracts of land allocated to landfills (Daniels 2014). Hazardous waste has the following characteristics that distinguish it from other types of solid waste: • Hazardous waste does not quickly or easily break down in the environment. • Hazardous wastes pose serious health threats, such as cancer, birth defects, respiratory and neurological damage, miscarriages, and death. • Hazardous waste is difficult to recycle, and the waste must be disposed of in special facilities that are monitored. • Hazardous waste cannot be disposed of in municipal landfills because of potential leaks into groundwater. • Hazardous waste is more expensive to dispose of than nonhazardous solid waste. Some hazardous wastes occur naturally, such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. Others are from chemicals originally created for specific industrial uses. These include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, solvents, fungicides, pesticides, degreasers, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE During the second half of the twentieth century, solid and hazardous waste management rose to become a priority of public concern because of increasing solid waste generation, shrinking disposal capacity, rising disposal costs, and growing opposition to the siting of new disposal facilities. The result was passage of the Resource and Recovery Act (RCRA), which was enacted in 1976 and is the primary statute governing the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes are defined under RCRA, where they are divided into two major categories: listed wastes and characteristic wastes. Listed wastes are wastes from common manufacturing and industrial processes. They include • • • • • • •

Spent solvent wastes Electroplate and other metal finishing wastes Dioxin-bearing wastes Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons production Wood preservation wastes Petroleum refinery wastewater treatment sludges Multisource leachate



Health-Care Wastes 329

Characteristic wastes are those that exhibit any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Under the authority granted by RCRA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a comprehensive regulatory program so that hazardous waste is managed safely from cradle to grave, which means from the time the hazardous waste is created; during the period it is transported, treated, and stored; to the time it is disposed of in an EPA-permitted facility. The EPA has emphasized the recycling of hazardous waste to reduce the amount of hazardous materials that ultimately must be treated and disposed of in permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). These facilities are stringently regulated because of the large amounts of hazardous waste that must be stored and treated. Under RCRA authorities, the responsibility of implementing RCRA is delegated to the states. Currently, fifty states and territories have been delegated the authority and responsibility of implementing the base program. State RCRA programs must be at least as stringent as the federal requirements; however, states also have the discretion to implement more stringent programs than the federal requirements dictate. John Munro See also: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Dioxins; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Industrial Solvents; Pesticides; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Daniels, Tom. 2014. “Planning for Solid Waste and Recycling.” In The Environmental Planning Handbook, chapter 7. Chicago: American Planning Association Press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Learn the Basics of Hazardous Waste.” Last updated August 16, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­hw​/­learn​-­basics​-­hazardous​-­waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Hazardous Waste.” Last updated September 10, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­hw. The World Counts. 2018. “Tons of Hazardous Waste Thrown Out.” Accessed October 21, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­theworldcounts​.­com​/­counters​/­waste​_ pollution​_facts​/ ­hazardous​ _waste​_statistics.

Health-Care Wastes One of the generators of a variety of wastes that is rarely thought about is the health-care industry. Hospitals, clinics and offices, and other health-care providers generate significant amounts of waste that are regulated similar to other industries. These include dental clinics, mortuaries, blood banks or collection facilities, veterinary clinics, and nursing homes. In particular, larger hospitals that are associated with research functions and have large pharmacies have a diversity of significant types of waste that pose a threat to human health and the environment. According to the World Health Organization (WHO 2019), of the total amount of waste generated by health-care activities, about 85 percent is

330

Health-Care Wastes

general nonhazardous waste. The remaining 15 percent is considered hazardous material that may be infectious, toxic, or radioactive. Some of the most diversified waste streams come from health care. Hospitals may also contribute to air pollution because the larger facilities often have incinerators on-site to dispose of wastes. If not disposed of properly, these wastes can be extremely dangerous. For instance, every year, an estimated 16 billion injections are administered worldwide, but not all of the needles and syringes are properly disposed of afterward (WHO 2019). Some of the different types of wastes include infectious waste and biological waste, such as human tissues, organs, or fluids; body parts; and contaminated animal carcasses. Another type of waste includes equipment such as syringes, needles, disposable scalpels, and blades. Health-care wastes includes hazardous waste from solvents used in testing or cleaning. Medicines are also included in health-care wastes. These are pharmaceuticals from expired, unused, and contaminated drugs and vaccines. Related to pharmaceutical wastes, cytotoxic wastes can have genotoxic properties—mutagenic, teratogenic, or ­carcinogenic—such as cytotoxic drugs used in cancer treatments and their metabolites. Radioactive waste is a unique type of health-care waste that can include radioactive isotopes from treatments, medical tests, and by-products of equipment. WHO (2019) reports that there is a lack of awareness about the hazards related to health-care waste; inadequate training in proper waste management, absence of waste management and disposal systems, insufficient financial and human resources, and the low priority given to the topic are the most common problems connected with health-care wastes. Many countries either do not have appropriate regulations or do not enforce them. One estimate is that every hospital in the United States generates 5.9 million tons of medical waste, which is approximately thirty-three pounds of medical waste per day per occupied bed (Biomedical Waste Solutions 2019). In the United States, waste from health-care facilities is regulated under a variety of agencies and laws based on the type of materials involved. For instance, hazardous wastes and chemical substances are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) similar to other industries. The Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 (MWTA) defines medical waste as “any solid waste that is generated in the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings or animals, in research pertaining thereto, or in the production or testing of biologicals.” Medical waste is primarily regulated by state environmental and health departments. The EPA has not had the authority, specifically for medical waste, since the MWTA expired in 1991. Other federal agencies have regulations regarding medical waste. These agencies include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and potentially others. Environmental and health agencies in the state and local governments are involved with disposing of medical wastes. Kelly A. Tzoumis



Healthy Legacy 331

See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

Biomedical Waste Solutions. 2019. “Medical Waste Disposal—The Definitive Guide.” Accessed January 21, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­biomedicalwastesolutions​.­com​/­medical​ -­waste​-­disposal. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Medical Waste.” November 7, 2017. Accessed on January 21, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­rcra​/­medical​-­waste​#­who​ %­20regulates​%­20medical​%­20waste. Waste360. 2019. “Health Care Waste Conference, May 18–19, 2019.” Las Vegas, National Waste and Recycling Association. Accessed January 21, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­healthcarewasteconf​.­com ​/­en ​/ ­home​.­html. World Health Organization (WHO). 2019. “Health-Care Wastes.” Accessed January 22, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­news​-­room​/­fact​-­sheets​/­detail​/ ­health​-­care​-­waste.

Healthy Legacy Healthy Legacy is a nonprofit advocacy organization that is focused on the impact of toxic chemicals on human health in the state of Minnesota. It was founded by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Clean Water Action organization. Healthy Legacy has thirty-eight coalition members that it works with on a variety of policy campaigns. They advocate for state and federal laws that protect exposure to toxic chemicals that are mainly associated with household items, such as children’s toys, consumer products, cosmetics, cleaning agents, and other everyday products. Healthy Legacy is a major advocate of the Toxic Free Kid Act in Minnesota that was passed into law in 2009. It provides a list of chemicals, titled “Chemicals of High Concern,” that pose a human health risk for the general public. It also requires the Minnesota Department of Health to review the list every three years to provide updates. The second update of the “Chemicals of High Concern” was published in 2016. It has a nominating process for new chemicals under the Contaminants of Emerging Concern program. This program was supported by Health Legacy for identifying exposures from toxic chemicals to the public as well as vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly. Chemical identification is compiled from state, federal, and international agencies’ databases. One Health Legacy campaign involved banning bisphenol A (BPA), an endocrine disputer, from baby bottles and sippy cups in Minnesota. Minnesota was the first state to ban this chemical. The organization also advocated for the banning of formaldehyde-releasing chemicals in children’s shampoo and body products. Since 2007, the organization has worked effectively with national and state legislators to prevent or ban products that contain toxic chemicals such as mercury in cosmetics and several flame retardants in furniture and children’s products.

332

Heavy Metals

A recent focus has included a mortarium on using discarded vehicle tires as playground mulch and on athletic fields. The organization estimates that over forty-five hundred playgrounds nationwide use tire mulch for playgrounds (Healthy Legacy 2019). Tire mulch contains toxic chemical such as phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Healthy Legacy provides a report card that rates top retailers in the United States on their success at eliminating toxic chemicals under its Mind the Store Campaign. Of thirty major U.S. retailers, about two-thirds are lagging in protecting the public from exposure to toxic chemicals. According to the report (Healthy Legacy 2019), Apple, Walmart, CVS Health, Ikea, Whole Foods Market, and Target received the highest grades, scoring a B+ or above. These companies are setting the pace for the entire retail sector by making meaningful progress toward safer chemicals in products. Meanwhile, the report reveals that some retailers, such as Amazon, Walgreens, and Staples, are developing chemical policies. Staples has a chemical policy as of 2019, and Walgreens as of 2018. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2); Endocrine Disruptors; Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Phthalates; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Further Reading

Healthy Legacy. 2017. “Mission.” Last updated 2017. Accessed August 24, 2018. ­http://​ ­healthy​-­legacy​.­squarespace​.­com​/­our​-­coalition. Health Legacy. 2019. “Who Is Minding the Store?” Last updated 2017. Accessed August 14, 2019. https://retailerreportcard.com/2019-report-card/.

Heavy Metals According to Tchounwou et al. (2012), “Heavy metals are naturally occurring elements that have a high atomic weight and a density at least five times greater than that of water.” The term heavy metals comes from their unique weights and densities. They are inorganic chemicals that look metallic at room temperature and can be toxic, even at low concentrations. Some heavy metals are widely used in industry for manufacturing, agricultural pesticides, electronics, smelting, and many other areas; these include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and lead. Heavy metals pose a significant threat to human life, particularly because they can remain in the environment for long periods of time and accumulate through the ecosystem. Heavy metals naturally occur in rare to trace amounts. When one or more occur in a high concentration, it is usually from an accident or release into the environment. Because of their toxicity, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury are classified as some of the most dangerous chemicals to humans and the environment. Heavy metals are often classified as known or probable human carcinogens by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational



Heavy Metals 333

Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Heavy metals are known to cause many illnesses that are often lethal: kidney, liver, and respiratory failure; neurological toxicity; and immunotoxicity. Fetal exposure often adversely affects development or causes death. Small children have more health risks than adults when exposed because their neurological and organ systems are still developing and the chemical-to-weight ratio is greater in their smaller bodies. Living organisms require trace amounts of some heavy metals, such as cobalt, copper, chromium, and zinc, but excessive levels can be detrimental. There are no  identified beneficial uses of other heavy metals, such as mercury, lead, and cadmium, in plants and animals. Similarly, gold, silver, nickel, tin, platinum, titanium, and other heavy metals are not part of living organisms’ processes. Natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions are also a contributor to heavy metal pollution, but most sources of contamination come from industries, such as metal processing refineries; coal-fired power plants; paper processing plants; the manufacturing and development of plastics, textiles, and microelectronics; petroleum combustion; and wood preservation. A variety of hexavalent chromium compounds are known carcinogens used in industry. Chronic exposure to heavy metals can also be a significant problem in the workplace. For instance, beryllium can generate sensitivity in exposed workers that over time causes lung and skin diseases. Cadmium exposure is frequently found where it is processed or smelted, putting welders at a high exposure risk. Mercury exposure primarily occurs through mining and processing, which can result in kidney and nervous system damage. In 1956, there was a special case of mercury release in a fishing village in Minamata, Japan, from by Chisso Corporation that caused thousands of fatalities and exposure illnesses for additional people. This highly toxic chemical bioaccumulated in shellfish and fish in Minamata Bay and the Shiranui Sea, which, when eaten by local residents, resulted in mercury poisoning. This type of exposure-caused reaction became known as Minamata disease, named after the village; it is a neurological condition that causes a range of chronic disorders of varying severity, including anxiety; loss of appetite; damage to hearing, speech, and vision; loss of muscle coordination; and paralysis, coma, and death. Lead is one heavy metal that poses a toxicity risk that can be especially harmful to fetuses and children. It is not only in workplaces such as smelters but also in contaminated drinking water and old paint used for homes, playgrounds, and schools. Leaded gasoline also contributed to widespread environmental contamination prior to its ban in 1996. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Arsenic (As); Beryllium (Be); Cadmium (Cd); Chromium (Cr); Immunotoxicity; Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg); Neurological Toxicity; Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals.

334 Herbicides

Further Reading

Blum, Deborah. 2013. “Looney Gas and Lead Poisoning: A Short, Sad History.” Wired, January 5, 2013. Accessed September 27, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­wired​.­com​/­2013​/­01​ /­looney​-­gas​-­and​-­lead​-­poisoning​-­a​-­short​-­sad​-­history. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Toxic Metals.” Accessed September 26, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­metalsheavy. Tchounwou, Paul B., Clement G. Yedjou, Anita K. Patlolla, and Dwayne J. Sutton. 2012. “Heavy Metal Toxicity and the Environment.” Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology: Experientia Supplementum, Vol. 101, edited by A. Luch, 133– 164. n.p.: Springer Basel. University of Plymouth. 2016. “Playgrounds Need to Be Better Monitored for Toxic Paint.” January 25, 2016. Accessed June 20, 2020. ­https://​­medicalxpress​.­com​/­news​ /­2016​- ­01​-­playground​-­potential​-­danger​-­health​.­html.

Herbicides Herbicides are a type of pesticide used to control unwanted plants, usually weeds. Herbicides must be absorbed into plants to be effective, and absorption can occur through leaves, roots, or both. Many chemical herbicides have been synthesized and industrially produced in large quantities. Different ones act with different mechanisms. For example, glyphosate inhibits plants’ amino acid production; 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) affects the growth of plants; atrazine interrupts photosynthesis; and alachlor prevents the seedling shoot. Although herbicides increase the production of crops, their wide use has caused environmental concerns and put humans and animals at risk. Herbicides account for the largest portion of total pesticide sales in the world at 47.6 percent, as compared to sales of insecticides at 29.4 percent, fungicides at 17.5 percent, and others at 5.5 percent (Vats 2015). In the United States, herbicides account for over 60 percent of pesticide sales. Farmers spent $5.63 billion on herbicides in 1998. Herbicides provide more economical and efficient weed control than the mechanical means of cultivation, hoeing, and hand pulling. They are used more widely in developed countries and have greatly increased the production of cotton, sugar beets, grains, potatoes, and corn in these countries. Herbicides are not only used for agriculture but also industrial sites, roadsides, ditch banks, irrigation canals, fence lines, recreational areas, lawns, railroad embankments, power line rights-of-way, forestry, pasture systems, and wildlife habitats (Ware and Whitacre 2004). CLASSIFICATIONS Herbicides can be divided into different classifications. Selective herbicides kill specific weeds and keep crops unharmed. Nonselective herbicides kill all the plants they are applied to and are used to clear waste grounds, construction sites, and railroads. Herbicides can be classified based on persistence (the time length that herbicides remain efficient), mode of action (the ways they work to control weeds),

Herbicides 335

and means of uptake (how the they are absorbed by plants). Herbicides with low persistence are efficient within weeks or months and then are washed out by rainfall or begin to degrade in soil or plants. Highly persistent herbicides remain in the soil for long periods of time and can even make the ground permanently barren. Herbicides can also be divided into contact and systemic types. Contact herbicides kill the parts of the weeds that they come in direct contact with. Systemic herbicides circulate in different parts of the plant and are effective on most types of weeds. Herbicides are also classified based on timing of application, such as preplanting (applied before planting the crops), preemergence (applied before the growth of weeds), and postemergence (applied after the weeds emerge) (Ware and Whitacre 2004). INORGANIC AND ORGANIC Based on chemical types, herbicides are divided into inorganic and organic herbicides. Before 1945, inorganic herbicides, such as sodium arsenite and sodium chlorate, were widely used. Because of their high persistence in soil and toxicity to humans, some inorganic herbicides were gradually replaced by synthetic organic herbicides. The chemical 2,4-D is considered the first modern synthetic organic herbicide; it became commercially available in the mid-1940s. Based on the classifications of the Weed Science Society of America, there are thirty-one classes of organic herbicides (Ware and Whitacre 2004). In addition to synthetic herbicides, there are bioherbicides, such as some bacteria, viruses, fungi, and insects, that can infect weeds and kill them. To increase the tolerance of crops to herbicides, some crops have been genetically modified. Corn, cotton, and soybeans have been designed to tolerate the nonselective herbicides (Ware and Whitacre 2004).

IMPACTS Once entering the environment, herbicides may be taken up by plants, washed off to soil by precipitation, undergo photo degradation on plant surfaces, or volatilize (turn to vapor). In soil, herbicides may degrade biologically, through chemical or photochemical transformation, or through leaching down into the soil, running off across the soil surface, or vaporizing (Smith 1995). Many herbicides are toxic to humans and animals. Herbicides induce acute toxicity by accidental exposure. Herbicide poisoning symptoms include, but are not limited to, irritation, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, irregular heartbeat, and chest tightness. Paraquat and diquat can affect the lungs, liver, and kidneys. Dinitrophenols can cause nausea, gastric upset, rapid breathing, rapid heartbeat, cyanosis, coma, and even death to humans within twenty-four hours. Agent Orange was a herbicide used during the Vietnam War; it contains chemicals that are extremely toxic and can cause ventricular fibrillation in mammals.

336

High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW)

Nonselective herbicides can kill various types of plants and change the vegetation of the treated sites, which would change the habitats of mammals and birds and thus change the biodiversity of the areas, especially for the persistent herbicides. The aerial application of glyphosate (Roundup), a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide, has killed many types of vegetation and resulted in the decrease of Canada’s bird population (MacKinnon and Freedman 1993). There is a debate about its carcinogenicity. Glyphosate was listed as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015 based on the exposure and animal data; however, the European Chemicals Agency (2017) concluded there was no available scientific evidence to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen based on risk assessment. Jiehong Guo See also: Dioxins; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Insecticides; Pesticides.

Further Reading

European Chemicals Agency. 2017. “Glyphosate Not Classified as a Carcinogen by ECHA.” ECHA/PR/17/06. March 15, 2017. Accessed November 20, 2017. https:// echa.europa.eu/-/glyphosate-not-classified-as-a-carcinogen-by-echa. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2015. “IARC Monographs Volume 112: Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides.” March 20, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2017. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/ pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf. MacKinnon, D. S., and B. Freedman. 1993. “Effects of Silvicultural Use of the Herbicide Glyphosate on Breeding Birds of Regenerating Clearcuts in Nova Scotia, Canada.” Journal of Applied Ecology 30(3): 395–406. Smith, Albert E. 1995. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. Soils, Plants, and the Environment series. New York: CRC Press. Vats, Sharad. 2015. “Herbicides: History, Classification, and Genetic Manipulation of Plants for Herbicide Resistance.” In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, Vol. 15, edited by Eric Lichtfouse, 153–192. n.p.: Springer. Ware, George W., and David M. Whitacre. 2004. The Pesticide Book. Willoughby, OH: Meister Media Worldwide.

High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW) High-level nuclear waste (HLW) is radioactive matter produced as a by-product of nuclear fission reactions that primarily happen during energy production in nuclear-powered reactors. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 2017), HLW can be either “spent” (used) nuclear fuel from reactors or waste that remains after the spent fuel has been reprocessed, and it can be a solid or liquid. In addition to commercially used nuclear fuel, HLW includes by-products from the production of the nation’s nuclear weapons and fuel from the U.S. Navy’s nuclear ships. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO 2011), significant quantities of weapons-capable plutonium and highly enriched uranium have become surplus to our national security needs. HLW is managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is primarily responsible for its disposal, with the coordination of the NRC and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).



High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW) 337

High-level nuclear wastes can remain radioactive for hundreds to thousands of years. Some plutonium-based nuclear fuels can last tens of thousands of years (GAO 2017). Therefore, this material transcends a potential human impact that transcends other toxic or hazardous waste. This requires waste disposal facilities and policies that can securely contain the waste in a time frame often not considered. Today, the United States does not have a disposal storage facility for HLW. The DOE has failed in attempts over the years to find a site. HLW disposal has been a controversial policy that continues to be dilemma for the handling of this waste long term. In the meantime, HLW is temporarily stored at DOE sites in Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington. In 2019, a shipment of this waste was transported from the DOE site in the state of South Carolina to a new location in Nevada, called the Nevada Nuclear Security Site, just north of Las Vegas (Gardner 2019). This caused significant controversy because it was shipped without the approval of the state of Nevada, and the governor of that state was not aware of the shipment until after it was in transit. This one shipment may be the only one made; however, it is something that has not occurred in the past without the consent of the state receiving the waste. Because the DOE has not secured an HLW disposal location, the spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors is stored in thirty-three states, where it was generated. This waste is usually stored in pools of water that are highly monitored and under security operations. Some waste is also stored on land in stainless steel canisters that have multiple layers of protective barriers for protection from radiation exposure to human health or the environment. According to the GAO (2014), over the past several decades, the inventory of commercial spent nuclear fuel in the United States has grown to over seventy-two thousand metric tons. Other countries that work with HLW spent fuel materials often reprocess the materials for recycled fuel. However, in the United States, President Carter banned the reprocessing of this material. The reasoning was the protection of national security because of the fear that this spent fuel could be captured and enriched into fuel for weapons. However, while this was a national security consideration, the undesired outcome has been what is termed a “once-through” process for commercial power reactors. This policy, which remains today in the United States, creates large volumes of HLW that has no disposal site. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), the DOE was directed by Congress to construct and manage a disposal site for HLW. The DOE spent decades going through a siting process of selecting different locations after assessments and studies of each location. In 2002, the final HLW disposal site was selected by the DOE and approved by President George W. Bush. The site was called Yucca Mountain, which is located about one hundred miles from Las Vegas, Nevada. Although Yucca Mountain was approved by Congress and signed into law by the president, the people of Nevada were still strongly opposed to the nation’s HLW being placed in their state, particularly because the state has no nuclear power reactors. This became a major policy issue in the Democratic campaign for president in 2008, where both primary candidates, Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, committed to not opening the HLW disposal site at Yucca Mountain. In keeping with his campaign promise, President Obama announced soon after taking office that Yucca Mountain would not open. As a result, on March 3, 2010, the DOE withdrew its authorization application from the NRC to construct the

338

High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW)

repository, even though the legislation selecting Yucca Mountain has not yet been revised. To assist with this policy reversal, in 2010, President Obama established the Blue Ribbon Commission to evaluate alternative approaches for managing HLW from commercial and defense activities. The Blue Ribbon Commission issued a report that recommended starting a new siting process with an independent organization separate from the DOE. It also suggested a “consent-based siting approach,” in which communities would be given a meaningful role for participation in the process. In addition to outlining a siting process for HLW, the NWPA also required that utilities pay fees into the Nuclear Waste Fund to assist with funding the final disposal facility. Since 1998, utilities have sued the DOE, primarily in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, for failing to meet its obligations under the NWPA. Following a November 2013 court ruling, the collection of these fees was suspended. According to the GAO (2014), the federal government had reimbursed owners and generators for the costs of not having a HLW facility for disposal. The U.S. Department of Justice reported that, as of March 2014, ninety lawsuits had been filed, and by 2015, court-awarded damage settlements to compensate energy companies for storing the used fuel on-site reached approximately $5 billion. The Nuclear Energy Institute (2017), an advocacy group for nuclear energy, estimates that costs could reach more than $29 billion by 2022 and $500 million annually after 2022, as more nuclear power plants are set for decommissioning. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW); Transuranic (TRU) Waste; Uranium.

Further Reading

Gardner, Timothy. 2019. “US Secretly Ship Cold War-Era Plutonium to Nevada.” Reuters, January 30, 2019. Accessed April 14, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­reuters​.­com​/­article​/­us​-­usa​ -­plu t o n iu m ​ /­u s​ -­s e c r e t ly​ -­s h ip s​ -­c old​ -­w a r​ -­e r a​ -­plu t o n iu m​ -­t o​ -­n e va d a​ -­idUSKCN1PP0AP. Nuclear Energy Institute. n.d. “Disposal: Yucca Mountain Repository.” Accessed February 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­nei​.­org​/­Issues​-­Policy​/ ­Used​-­Nuclear​-­Fuel​-­Management​ /­Disposal​-­Yucca​-­Mountain​-­Repository. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2011. Commercial Nuclear Waste: Effects of a Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Lessons Learned. Publication number GAO-11-229. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2014. Spent Nuclear Fuel Management: Outreach Needed to Help Gain Public Acceptance for Federal Activities That Address Liability. Publication number GAO-15-141. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2017. Commercial Nuclear Waste: Resuming Licensing of the Yucca Mountain Repository Would Require Rebuilding Capacity at DOE and NRC, among Other Key Steps. Publication number GAO-17340. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Radioactive Waste: Production, Storage, and Disposal. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2017. “High-Level Waste.” Last updated August 3, 2017. Accessed January 16, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­nrc​.­gov​/­waste​/­high​-­level​-­waste​.­html.



Honeywell International Inc. 339

Honeywell International Inc. Honeywell International Inc. (known as Honeywell) develops and manufactures technologies in a diverse array of industries. It is most well known for its variety of products in the areas of energy and safety and security products for homes and industry. Its headquarters is located in New Jersey, and it has operations at thirteen hundred sites in seventy countries and approximately 131,000 employees internationally, of which 46,000 are located in the United States (Honeywell 2018). Honeywell is one of the largest companies in the United States. It reported $40.5 billion in sales for 2017 (Honeywell 2018). As a company, Honeywell is divided into four areas: aerospace, home and building technologies, performance materials and technologies, and safety and productivity solutions. It reports that it is a major contractor to the government, with about $3,203 million in sales in 2017, which was primarily generated by its aerospace and defense products, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2017). International operations, including exports from the United States, represent more than half of Honeywell’s sales. In 1906, Mark Honeywell founded the Honeywell Heating Specialty Company, which focused on hot water heat generators. The company grew very quickly into selling its products worldwide in the area of industrial controls and technology. During World War II, the company expanded into the production of instruments for electronic autopiloting and added aeronautical equipment to its manufacturing. In 1963, the company officially changed its name to Honeywell. It continues manufacturing instrumentation today, which includes technology used in space exploration. Through its wide range of companies, Honeywell is a potentially responsible party to a variety of environmental remediation and corrective action activities. This has occurred through both its operations and the operations of predecessor companies that it owned that have liability from Superfund cleanup actions. According to a ranking of the top one hundred toxic air polluting companies in the United States, Honeywell ranks number thirty-one (Infoplease 2018). Honeywell is reported to have over $109.7 million in fines associated with environmental violations since 2000 based on the Good Jobs First Report in 2018, which lists individual violations extracted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) national enforcement and compliance data. ASBESTOS Honeywell is involved in personal injury actions related to asbestos exposure because it causes mesothelioma. This is based on two of its predecessor companies: the North American Refractories Company (NARCO) and Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix). NARCO produced bricks and cement. Exposure is suspected from refractory products that benefit from the asbestos material not breaking down at high temperatures. According to the Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance (Molinari 2018), before 2002, nearly three hundred thousand asbestos liability claims were submitted against NARCO. In an effort to emerge free from the existing pending claims as well as future asbestos

340

Honeywell International Inc.

liability, NARCO filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in January 2002. As part of this reorganization plan, NARCO requested that all future claims be directed to a federally supervised asbestos trust. In 2007, the reorganization plan was approved by the bankruptcy court. According to the SEC report (SEC 2017), Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the NARCO trust that qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), which are subject to annual caps of $140 million in 2018 and $145 million for each year thereafter. Bendix produced automotive brake and parts that contained asbestos. It was the first company to design antilock brakes. Asbestos was used as a supporting friction material. Its properties have the ability to withstand high temperatures and were very useful in brake parts. Exposure pathways include the manufacturing of these parts as well as the repair and replacement of brake parts. By 1995, all new cars were banned from using asbestos in brake parts. SOME CONTAMINATED SITES Honeywell is a potentially responsible party to many actions under Superfund and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). One site at Onondaga Lake, in Syracuse, New York, required dredging and capping due to soil contamination. This action was completed in 2016 after a 2007 consent decree. Because of mercury contamination and other toxic chemicals, the company was required to dredge about 2.2 million cubic yards of soil from the bottom of the lake (Coin 2018). Because long-term monitoring will continue at this site, Honeywell is litigating over other potentially responsible parties to the contamination of the lake. Another site in Hoosick Falls, New York, is in litigation over perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that leached into groundwater, which is the town’s drinking water supply, from a site formerly owned by Honeywell International Inc. and currently owned by Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. PFOA is a chemical used in fabrics and carpeting to repel stains. Recently, the EPA ordered Honeywell to complete more than $21 million in remediation work at the Hollywood Burbank Airport in California (Gazzar 2018). According to the local press, the location is part of a Superfund site along with other polluters, such as Lockheed Martin. The remedies have resulted in the removal of more than six thousand pounds of harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as well as the treatment of over ten billion gallons of groundwater. Honeywell must build four wells to extract contaminated groundwater on the western end of the North Hollywood site and build a treatment system for harmful VOCs to prevent further groundwater contamination (Gazzar 2018). That project was scheduled for completion in 2019 with institutional controls and limitations and is estimated to cost $10 million, according the Los Angeles Daily News (Gazzar 2018). The project remains ongoing according to EPA. Another site in Morristown, New Jersey, owned by Allied-Signal, Inc., a predecessor of Honeywell, disposed of chemicals such as carbon tetrachloride and chloroform prior to the 1980s in constructed surface ponds. This resulted in contaminated groundwater under the site that requires remediation under the



Honeywell International Inc. 341

RCRA as a corrective action. A pump-and-treat system was installed to clean the groundwater and prevent further contamination. The groundwater is not permitted to be used as drinking water, and the treatment is expected to continue along with monitoring. The sediments were contaminated with chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and other VOCs. Another site in Pennsylvania near the Delaware River, the Delaware Valley South Plant, is part of an RCRA corrective action that includes arsenic, lead, and DDT in the soil. The facility is a chemical manufacturing plant located in Claymont, Delaware, and Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. According to the EPA (2018), a variety of chemicals and pesticides have been manufactured at the plant since it opened in the 1890s. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Asbestos; Chromium (Cr); Copper (Cu); Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg); Nickel (Ni); Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOs); Pesticides; Pump and Treat; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Bloomberg Bureau of National Affairs. 2017. “Honeywell Water Pollution Class Claims Proceed.” February 7, 2017. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­news​.­bloomberglaw​ .­com​/­environment​-­and​-­energy​/­honeywell​-­water​-­pollution​-­class​-­claims​-­proceed. Coin, Glen. 2018. “Honeywell Sues Exxon Mobil over Onondaga Lake Pollution, Cleanup Costs.” ­Syracuse​.­com, June 25, 2018. Accessed August 29, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­s yracuse​.­c om​/­news​/­i ndex​.­s sf​/­2018​/­0 6​/ ­honeywell​_ sues​_ exxon​_ mobil​_ over​_ onondaga​_lake​_ pollution​_cleanup​_costs​.­html. Gazzar, Brenda, 2018. “EPA Orders Lockheed Martin, Honeywell to Clean Contaminated Valley Water.” Los Angeles Daily News, June 20, 2018. Accessed August 29, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­d ailynews​.­com​/­2018​/­06​/­20​/­epa​- ­orders​-­lockheed​-­martin​-­honeywell​ -­to​-­clean​-­contaminated​-­valley​-­water. Good Jobs First. 2018. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­prog​.­php​?­parent​= ​­honeywell​ -­international. Honeywell. 2018. “About Us.” Accessed August 29, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­honeywell​.­com​ /­who​-­we​-­are​/­overview. Infoplease. 2018. “The Toxic 100: Top Corporate Air Polluters in the United States.” Sandbox Network Inc. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­infoplease​.­com​/­math​ -­s cience​/­e arth​-­e nvironment​/­t he​-­t oxic​-­100​-­t op​-­c orporate​-­a ir​-­p olluters​-­i n​-­t he​ -­united​-­states. Molinari, Linda. 2018. “NARCO/Honeywell.” Mesothelioma Cancer Alliance. Accessed August 29, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­mesothelioma​.­com​/­asbestos​-­exposure​/­companies​ /­narco​-­honeywell​.­htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Honeywell International Incorporated in Morristown, New Jersey.” Last updated September 14, 2017. Accessed August 29, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­hwcorrectiveactionsites​ /­hazardous​-­waste​-­cleanup​-­honeywell​-­international​-­incorporated​-­morristown​-­new. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Honeywell International Incorporated in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania.” Last updated June 22, 2018. Accessed August 29, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­hwcorrectiveactionsites​ /­hazardous​-­waste​-­cleanup​-­honeywell​-­international​-­incorporated​-­marcus​-­hook.

342

Household Cleaners

U.S. Security and Exchanges Commission (SEC). 2017. “Honeywell International Inc.” December 31, 2017. Form 10-K. Accessed August 29, 2018. ­https://​­investor​ .­honeywell​.­com​/­SEC​-­Filings.

Household Cleaners Exposure to toxic chemicals often occurs in homes because people spend much of their time at home. The chemicals found in our homes, particularly in household cleaning products—such as soaps, detergents, bleaching agents, polishes, and bathroom glass, and drain cleaners—are an all too common problem. They are typically the most toxic products found in the home (OCA n.d.). Cleaning agents, whether they are inhaled, touched, or ingested, vary in the type of hazard they pose: some cause immediate hazards, and others are associated with long-term effects. Regulatory oversight of household chemicals is primarily administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) but may also include, depending on the chemicals in question, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Controlled chemical substances are governed by multiple regulations that identify individual hazardous substances or the products into which their ingredients are placed. These agencies typically control these chemicals by requiring labeling or testing before they enter the marketplace. In terms of toxic effects on humans, people with asthma are exceptionally sensitive to the air contaminants often found in household cleaners. Several studies suggest that cleaning products can even cause asthma in healthy people, particularly when people use spray products such as air fresheners, glass cleaners, and furniture cleaners (EWG n.d.). Many of the ingredients that are common in cleaning supplies are classified as asthmagens (i.e., any substance that is causally related to the development of asthma), including formaldehyde, methyl methacrylate, quaternary ammonium compounds (often added as germ killers), ethanol amines (used to control acidity but can also act as a detergent), sulfuric acid, and styrene (EWG n.d.). In addition, the fragrances often added to cleaners (particularly laundry detergents and fabric softeners) may cause acute effects, such as respiratory irritation, headache, sneezing, and watery eyes, in sensitive individuals or allergy and asthma sufferers (OCA n.d.). The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) found that nearly one-third of the substances used in the fragrance industry are toxic; however, because the chemical formulas of fragrances are considered trade secrets, companies are not required to list their ingredients but merely label them as containing “fragrance” (OCA n.d.). The toxic dangers from household cleaning products are often exacerbated by improper use or mixing. Many of the ingredients in cleaning products evaporate quickly, and when mixed with other produces, they can release new volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can produce ozone, a very powerful lung irritant. These VOCs, along with ozone-reactive terpenes from the pine and citrus



Household Cleaners 343

oils often added to cleaning solutions, can act together to increase formaldehyde air pollution (EWG n.d.). An increasing concern related to household cleaners is their possible contribution to cancer and hormone disruption. For example, formaldehyde has been designated by the EPA and the World Health Organization (WHO) as a probable human carcinogen. Another chemical, 1,4-dioxane, has also been classified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen. It has been detected in a number of brand-name liquid laundry detergents (EWG n.d.). As for hormone disrupters, many cleaning products contain chemicals that are known or suspected reproductive or developmental toxicants, including borax, boric acid, and diethylene glycol monomethyl ether (also known as DEGME or methoxydiglycol). Exposure to borax and boric acid has been known to decrease sperm count and libido in men; in women, it has been linked to reduced ovulation and fertility at higher doses (EWG n.d.). Similarly, with the solvent DEGME, occupational studies have shown that men exposed to glycol ethers on the job are more likely to have reduced sperm counts and that pregnant women exposed on the job are more likely to give birth to children with birth defects (EWG n.d.). One of the most dangerous aspects of household cleaning products is that they can be extremely acidic or alkaline. The corrosive chemicals found in such things as drain cleaners, oven cleaners, and some toilet bowl cleaners can cause severe burns on the eyes and skin; others, if ingested, can poison the throat and esophagus. Bleach, one of the most common causes of poisoning or injury, is even more dangerous when mixed with other reactive cleaning products (e.g., ammonia); this creates the highly toxic chloramine gas (EWG n.d.). In some instances, if the ammonia is present in excess in the chloramine mix, it can potentially be explosive, or at least boil, which can then spray toxic liquid (Helmenstine 2018). Beyond the more immediate dangers of cleaners used in the home, household cleaning agents may pose dangers for the environment at large. Most chemical cleaners will break down into harmless substances during water treatment, but others can threaten water quality or fish and wildlife. For example, alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) are commonly used in detergents, disinfectants, laundry stain removers, and citrus degreasers. When some APEs are discharged into municipal wastewater, they do not degrade in the water or soil. In addition, APEs can mimic estrogen, which may harm the reproduction and survival of salmon and other fish (OCA n.d.). Another common pollutant found in household cleaners is phosphates, which, when entering waterways, can act as a fertilizer, leading to an overgrowth of algae that then depletes the water’s oxygen levels, killing many aquatic life forms (OCA n.d.). Many states have banned phosphates from laundry detergents, but phosphates are still often found in automatic dishwasher detergents (OCA n.d.). Lastly, some of the plastic bottles used to package cleaning supplies are often made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC, #3), which is made from vinyl chloride, a known cancer-causing chemical, and forms as a by-product a potent carcinogen, dioxin, during production and incineration (OCA n.d.). Robert L. Perry

344

Household Exposure

See also: Dioxins; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Environmental Working Group (EWG). n.d. “Cleaning Supplies and Your Health.” Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ewg​.­org​/­g uides​/­cleaners​/­content​/­cleaners​_ and​_health. Helmenstine, Anne Marie. 2018. “Why You Shouldn’t Mix Bleach with Ammonia” ThoughtCo. Accessed July 10, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­t houghtco​.­com​/ ­bleach​-­a nd​ -­a mmonia​- ­chemical​-­reaction​- ­609280. Organic Consumers Association (OCA). n.d. “How Toxic Are Your Household Cleaning Supplies?” Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­organicconsumers​.­org​/­news​ /­how​-­toxic​-­are​-­your​-­household​-­cleaning​-­supplies.

Household Exposure One of the most underestimated exposure pathways of humans to toxic substances is from the household. Many people do not think about their dwelling as being a significant threat to their health. In fact, humans spend a majority of their lifetime in their household. Exposure to toxic substances for adults because of this magnitude of exposure, and more importantly to developing children, has emerged as a potential contributor to diseases and poor health. There are several elements in the household that can contribute to the exposure of humans to toxic substances, from chemicals in household items to the dwelling structure itself. It has only been in recent years that people in the United States have begun to study their homes. For instance, it is now common practice to have radon detection levels and testing of lead in the paint and water of older homes performed as part of the purchase of homes by potential buyers. In fact, as part of the requirements for mortgage loans offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for first-time home buyers and the Veteran’s Administration, these types of tests are required before the loan is approved. The Silent Spring Institute, a nonprofit in Newton, Massachusetts, took indoor air and dust samples from 120 homes on Cape Cod. The researchers tested the concentrations of eighty-nine chemicals identified as endocrine-disrupting compounds that were in common use in pesticides, detergents, plastics, furniture, and cosmetics. Many of the chemicals detected were banned many years ago, suggesting that these chemicals do not break down indoors. The known carcinogen DDT was found in household dust in 65 percent of the homes, even though it was banned thirty years ago. Because so many banned toxic chemicals were still in homes, the study concluded that more substantial testing is needed before products are put on the market (Silent Spring Institute 2019). Some toxic chemicals found in homes include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in solvents for cleaning, paint removal, and products used in renovations. Household cleaners are also considered some of the more dangerous chemicals that humans use regularly. The insulator known as asbestos, while not a chemical but a fiber that was mined from the ground, can be widely found in homes and was banned for causing forms of lung cancer. Asbestos remains in the insulation in older homes around the pipes and in flooring. A review of several studies by Zoti



Household Hazardous Waste, Disposal of 345

et al. (2017) have shown that furniture, electronics, personal care, cleaning products, floor coverings and other consumer products contain chemicals that can end up in the indoor air and settled dust. Consumer product chemicals such as phthalates, phenols, and flame retardants are widely detected in the general population in the United States, including vulnerable populations, and are associated with adverse health effects such as reproductive and endocrine toxicity. Some phthalates—used in fragrances and personal care products, flame retardants, and phenols—were consistently found in at least 90 percent of dust samples across multiple studies, indicating ubiquitous presence in indoor environments. Dust is a predominant exposure pathway for some chemicals, such as flame retardants, particularly for children. Specific building materials are known contributors to indoor exposures. For example, homes constructed with polyvinyl chloride flooring and wall covering materials have higher indoor levels of phthalates in dust. Particular consumer products brought into the home are also likely to affect indoor environmental quality. Products containing polyurethane foam, such as baby products and older couches, along with electronics and household appliances are associated with higher flame-retardant concentrations in dust. Stain repellent treatments for carpets may contribute to perfluoroalkyl substances (commonly known as PFAs, which can include perfluorooctanic acid [PFOA] and perfluorooctane sulfonate [PFOS] chemicals) levels in house dust, and scented cleaning products likely contribute to synthetic fragrance exposures indoors (Zoti et al. 2017). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of; Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Household Cleaners; Household Paints; Lead (Pb); Pesticides; Perfluorooctanic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS); Phthalates; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Silent Spring Institute. 2019. “Household Exposure Study: Cape Cod, Massachusetts.” Accessed January 22, 2019. ­https://​­silentspring​.­org​/­research​-­area​/ ­household​ -­exposure​-­study​-­cape​-­cod​-­massachusetts. Skwarecki, Beth. 2016. “Chemicals Linked to Health Hazards Are Common in Household Dust.” Scientific American, September 14, 2016. Accessed January 22, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­scientificamerican​.­com​/­a rticle​/­chemicals​-­linked​-­to​-­health​-­hazards​ -­are​-­common​-­in​-­household​-­dust. Zoti, A., V. Singla, G. Adamkiewicz, S. Mitro, and R. Dodson. 2017. “Reducing Chemical Exposures at Home: Opportunities for Action.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 71(9): 937–940. Accessed January 22, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​ .­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pmc​/­articles​/ ­PMC5561392.

Household Hazardous Waste, Disposal of Most households in the United States have access to some form of communal waste collection and disposal, and depending on the size of the municipality, waste collection may also include collection and separation of recyclables.

346

Household Hazardous Waste, Disposal of

Collection and appropriate disposal of hazardous household wastes is not as common but can be found in larger cities. A typical American household will likely have a significant number of materials categorized by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as hazardous household waste (HHW): materials that for reasons of toxicity, corrosively, flammability, or reactivity should not be disposed of by traditional methods such as burning or placement in a landfill or as part of wastewater treatment. Examples of HHW include paints (including stains, wood preservatives, and solvents); automotive chemicals (batteries, gasoline, motor oil, and antifreeze); cleaning products (bleach, ammonia, detergents, and drain cleaners); prescription medications; home and yard maintenance (compressed gas cylinders, fertilizers, pool chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides); needles; and electronic devices. What most people are not aware of is that municipal wastewater treatment centers are not able to treat these HHWs, and as a result, they can contaminate the drinking water and discharge areas of the plants located in the community. These materials are safe to use as recommended, but their disposal must be handled differently. In particular, it is strongly recommended that they not be poured down the drain, into storm sewers, or onto the ground because of their potential for groundwater contamination (EPA 2019). A single quart of motor oil, for example, can render hundreds of thousands of gallons of water undrinkable. In recent years, significant concerns have been raised over the effects of even trace levels of prescription medications in drinking water. In the past, most residents thought proper disposal of pharmaceuticals and birth control pills was to flush them down the toilets or drains in the household. Major educational campaigns have been launched over the decades by wastewater treatment centers and drinking water plants to inform people of the proper disposal of these medicines. In heavily populated areas, the consumption and metabolism of common pharmaceuticals have led to a baseline level of these biologically active compounds in the environment in rivers, lakes, and the aquatic ecosystems of animals (WHO 2020). Local governments—cities, counties, and regional agencies—often offer the free collection of these chemicals for communities to avoid improper disposal. These collections are posted on websites and in newspapers to encourage residents to bring their HHW to a collection location. Residents may also find collection bins for pharmaceuticals or household consumer batteries in grocery stores or located inside the lobby of local government buildings, such as police, fire, or administrative offices. If hazardous waste disposal is not offered locally, alternatives are often available. For example, automotive-related products such as used motor oil and car batteries are frequently collected by oil change facilities. Unused prescription medications are often collected by local law enforcement, hospitals, and pharmacies. Eric J. Stoner See also: Electronics Recycling (E-Waste); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).



Household Paints 347

Further Reading

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Household Hazardous Waste.” Accessed January 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­hw​/ ­household​-­hazardous​-­waste​ -­h hw. World Health Organization (WHO). 2020. “Water Sanitation Hygiene: Information Sheet Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water.” Accessed January 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​ .­who​.­i nt​/­water​_ sanitation​_ health​/­d iseases​-­r isks​/­r isks​/­i nfo​_ sheet​_ pharmaceuticals​/­en.

Household Paints Modern-day consumption habits have led to an increase in the use of toxic products, which may include such things as household cleaners, home maintenance materials, gardening products, medicines, automobile products, biocides, batteries, certain detergents, personal care products, wood preservatives, solvents, electric and electronic wastes, aerosols of various types, and paint (Ojeda-Benitez et al. 2013). Paint is a generic term for several products; its potential toxicity depends of the types of pigments, resins, and solvents used in its manufacture. There are two major groups of paints: latex and oil-based. Latex paints contain acrylic-, vinyl-, or styrene-based resins. Oil-based paints usually use petroleum-based solvents, which are also often used in the home in the form of paint thinners and spot removers (Scélo et al. 2009). One toxic aspect of household paints is their volatile organic compounds (VOCs) content. At room temperature, VOCs are emitted as gases from certain solids and liquids. VOCs consist of aromatics, esters, ketones, alkenes, and alkanes that are constantly emitted during painting (Wang et  al. 2017). VOCs may include a variety of toxic chemicals, including formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and perchloroethylene. VOCs can be irritative or damaging to viscera, the reproductive system, the central nervous system, asthma, and other respiratory effects (Wang et al. 2017). Formaldehyde, for example, which acts as an irritant to the conjunctiva and upper and lower respiratory tracts, has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable human carcinogen. It is not as common in paint as it is in other products, such as household cleaners. It is, however, often found in resins that are components of several types of finishes. In recent years, there has been much attention on the use of melamine. Typically thought of as a component of unbreakable dishware, it is also an important part of household paints, owing to its long-lasting qualities. Melamine is a flame-retardant, heterocyclic, aromatic amine, and nitrogen-enriched environmental toxicant. Its potential hazards were made known to the public in 2008 when over three hundred thousand babies became ill and six babies died from melamine-contaminated formula. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved melamine for human or animal consumption, but it has approved its industrial usage (Labdoor 2014). Researchers have detected melamine in cow’s

348

Household Paints

milk and ex vivo melamine perfusion in term human placenta, suggesting similar melamine maternal and placental transfer profiles among mammals such as humans, cows, and rodents (Chu et al. 2017). One of the more problematic elements that has been used in paint is lead. Lead can be found in several household products, such as painted toys, furniture, toy jewelry, cosmetics, and food and liquid containers, and in drinking water and pipes. Lead can also be brought into homes as dust from soil in yards and playgrounds (contaminated by industrial sites or the past use of leaded gasoline). However, lead from paint is one of the most common causes of lead poisoning (EPA 2019). Lead is usually absorbed through the lungs or the GI tract, and after absorption, 99 percent of the lead in blood is bound to the erythrocyte (a red blood cell); 1 percent remains in the plasma and circulates to the soft tissue. Eventually, the lead will deposit in both cortical and trabecular bone, where it can have a half-life of decades (Kieu 2015). Children are especially vulnerable to lead poisoning, and their nervous systems are most at risk. Symptoms for children include ataxia, coma, seizures, and hyperirritability; persistent effects include IQ changes, ADHD, and hearing impairment. For adults, symptoms can include decreased libido, mood changes, headache, decreased cognitive performance, irritability, and paresthesia (Kieu 2015). According to the U.S. government, there is no level of exposure to lead below which adverse health effects do not occur (Gould 2009) Lead paint is still present in millions of homes, particularly if the home was built before 1940. The use of leaded paint was still fairly common up until 1978, when the U.S. government banned the manufacture of lead-based house paint. Exposure often occurs when homes that were built before 1978 are renovated. It can build up as dust on lead-painted surfaces where the paint is often scraped, such as on doors and windowsills. Lead-contaminated dust is the major source of lead exposure to children in the United States (Kieu 2015). Owing to the fact that poor urban minorities disproportionately reside in housing units containing lead-based paint hazards, there is often significant inequity in health and neurologic outcomes by ethnicity and socioeconomic status (Gould 2009). In 1996, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) jointly issued a regulation, under Title X, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, Section 1018, that mandates the provision of information on lead paint risks but does not impose any responsibility on sellers or landlords to inspect or remove the risk. Title X provides two pieces of information: (1) information that the house may contain lead-based paint and (2) basic procedural knowledge for properly handling lead paint risks. In a study by Bae (2012), the author found that Title X increased the probability of home buyers testing for lead paint and that the policy led to less occupancy of households with young children in older homes. This suggested, among other things, that Title X was successful at conveying a general warning to the population to induce better risk management behavior. Robert L. Perry



Hudson River Superfund Site 349

See also: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Bae, Hyunhoe. 2012. “Reducing Environmental Risks by Information Disclosure: Evidence in Residential Lead Paint Disclosure Rule.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31(2): 404–431. Chu, Ching Yan, Ling Ying Tang, Lu Li, Alisa Sau Wun Shum, Kwok Pui Fung, and Chi Chiu Wang. 2017. “Adverse Reproductive Effects of Maternal Low-Dose Melamine Exposure during Pregnancy in Rats.” Environmental Toxicology 32(1): 131–138. Gould, Elise. 2009. “Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117(7): 1162–1167. Kieu, Anh. 2015. “Lead Toxicity.” Proceedings of UCLA Healthcare 19. Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­proceedings​.­med​.­ucla​.­edu​/­w p​- ­content​/­uploads​/­2015​/­12​ /­A150826AK​-­W H​- ­edited1​.­pdf. Labdoor. 2014. “Melamine: An In-Depth Look at the Toxic Chemical in Our Kitchen” Labdoor Magazine, November 12, 2014. Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­labdoor​ .­com​/­article​/­melamine​-­an​-­in​-­depth​-­look​-­at​-­the​-­toxic​-­chemical​-­in​-­our​-­kitchen. Ojeda-Benítez, Sara, Quetzalli Aguilar-Virgen, Paul Taboada-González, and Samantha E. Cruz-Sotelo. 2013. “Household Hazardous Wastes As a Potential Source of Pollution: A Generation Study.” Waste Management & Research 31(12): 1279–1284. Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­researchgate​.­net​/­publication​/­259110945​_Household​_hazardous​_wastes​_as​_a​_ potential​_source​_of​_ pollution​_A​_ generation​_study. Scélo, Ghialaine, Catherine Metayer, Luoping Zhang, Joseph L. Wiemels, Melinda C. Aldrich, Steve Selvin, Stacy Month, Martyn T. Smith, and Patricia A. Buffler. 2009. “Household Exposure to Paint and Petroleum Solvents, Chromosomal Translocations, and the Risk of Childhood Leukemia.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117(1):133–139. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1289​/­ehp​.­11927. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Protect Your Family from Exposures to Lead.” Updated March 26, 2019. Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​ .­gov​/­lead​/­protect​-­your​-­family​-­exposures​-­lead​#­sources. Wang, Di. Lei Nie, Xia Shao, and Hongbing Yu. 2017. “Exposure Profile of Volatile Organic Compounds Receptor Associated with Paints Consumption.” Science of the Total Environment 603–604: 57–65.

Hudson River Superfund Site(1984) The 1984 Hudson River Superfund site refers to a two hundred–mile section of the Hudson River that had been contaminated in the second half of the twentieth century. Cleanup by local organizations and the state of New York began as early as 1977, but it found its way onto the National Priorities List (NPL) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1984. Almost immediately, it was designated by the EPA as a Superfund site, and federal cleanup began in 1984. BACKGROUND The Hudson River is a 315-mile river that runs along the border between New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts and empties into the Atlantic

350

Hudson River Superfund Site

Ocean via the Lower New York Bay. In the eighteenth century, the Hudson River served an important industrial and economic purpose and contributed to the rise and economic development of the American West. It served as a portion of the Erie Canal, which linked the midwestern portion of the United States to the East Coast. As a result of its importance to the industry and economic development, the Hudson River also became a hub for various industries that benefited from locating their businesses close to a pathway that could reach millions of consumers. Among the companies that decided to locate in the area were two of the largest and most successful enterprises in American history: General Motors (GM) and General Electric (GE). Although the establishment of plants in that area brought jobs and significant economic development, it also resulted in pollution. Of course, the GM plant brought additional pollution to the area, as by-products of the development of the cars were either allowed to run off into the river or purposely dumped in it. In addition, GE dumped quite a bit of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the river as well. The river had been inundated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which pose a serious threat to the habitat and ecosystem of the river, including fish and wildlife, and a considerable threat to public health. The EPA contends that PCBs constitute a carcinogen risk with adverse health effects that include brain abnormalities, low birth weight, and other serious public health consequences. The majority of the PCBs that found their way into the Hudson River came from multiple plants operated by General Electric (GE). Although GE hesitated to fund the cleanup costs associated with the contamination at the beginning, after negotiating a consent agreement with the EPA in 2006, the company cooperated and funded a large amount of the cleanup to the Hudson River Superfund site. THE CLEANUP OF THE HUDSON RIVER The most serious issue with Hudson River contamination was that the PCBs had settled into the sediment of the riverbed, causing massive removal problems. After trying basic remedial procedures for the removal of the contaminated sediment without much success, the EPA made the decision to dredge and cap large portions of the two hundred–mile contaminated section of the Hudson River. Following a pilot dredging solution in 2009 and a more extensive dredging process in 2010, the Hudson River has showed signs of recovering from the contamination. Wildlife that previously stayed away from the contaminated stretch has begun to reemerge; the Hudson River has even seen whales in it for the first time in generations. However, more recent reports indicate that the river may not be as free from PCBs as previously thought. Ongoing investigations will yield better diagnostics regarding the contamination of the Hudson River. As a result, the EPA decided to undergo a different and more strenuous activity to help cleanup the area. It decided that it needed to dredge the material from the sediment, decontaminate the sediment, and then return it to the riverbed.



Hudson River Superfund Site 351

Dredging refers to the government or remediation authorities excavating the contaminated sediment in the body of water. After removal, the sediment was sent to a GE site where the sediment was decontaminated. This process was not easy. The first part of the plan was mostly a pilot to ensure that the desired outcome was achieved. As a result, even though the cleanup plan called to excavate more that 3.5 million cubic yards of sediment from the riverbed, the first phase only involved the removal of roughly 280,000 cubic yards of sediment. After the pilot dredging in 2009, the EPA convened a panel of outside scientists and experts to assess the success or failure of the pilot dredging. One of the more important parts of the cleanup assessment focused on the standard of clean water in the Hudson River. RESULTS OF THE REMEDIATION The EPA (2009) came to a host of conclusions regarding the cleanup of the affected areas, but it found in an analysis that the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act standard of five hundred parts per trillion was reached in all but three specific locations. Comfortable with the results, the EPA began the second phase of the dredging. In the second phase, the dredging removed 2.5 million cubic yards of sediment. One of the biggest reasons for the success of the second phase of the dredging came from GE. In most cases, funding agreements and PRP litigation is quite contentious because the industry is unwilling to help without coercion or a court order. However, the opposite was true for GE. The company agreed to a large portion of the funding of the first phase in 2006 and then agreed to fund the entirety of cleanup process prior to second phase. In addition, one of the plants that likely contributed to the PCBs being released into the Hudson River was taken apart and rebuilt by the EPA to ensure that the same contamination from the plant could not happen again. After the successful dredging, the EPA, along with GE, also decided that to ensure the use of the Hudson River and eliminate both the aquatic and public health dangers, they would also cap the riverbed. Capping is the technique of putting a large amount of decontaminated sediment on top of the dredged material to ensure that it does not rise into the riverbed. Since 2010, the EPA ,with the continued cooperation of GE, has also engaged in monitoring and oversight to ensure that the contaminated sediment does not present anymore public health and wildlife dangers. The EPA (2019) also engages in habitat monitoring: “Some dredge areas were repopulated with aquatic plants in the growing season following the year in which the area was dredged. The habitat replacement program was designed to limit impacts and restore the function of river habitats from the dredging project and includes reconstruction, replacement, and/or stabilization of river bottom, submerged aquatic vegetation, wetlands, and shoreline areas.” In addition to the review of the actual Hudson riverbed, the EPA has also issued several warnings regarding the upper Hudson River floodplain. As a result, in

352

Hudson River Superfund Site

2014, GE agreed to contract a remedial investigation/feasibility study to help assess the contamination possibility of the Hudson River floodplain as well. If the Hudson River flowed onto the floodplain at any time while the PCB-contaminated sediment was at the bottom of the river, it is possible that the floodplain is also contaminated and could affect the sediment currently on the ground as opposed to just in the riverbed. The assessment will also involve detailing the potential costs associated with cleaning up the floodplain as well. The process of cleaning up the river and the surrounding areas has been relatively costly and time consuming. And although the benefits of the cleanup are still unknown, as it is under constant investigation by state and local authorities, there are some good signs. In 2016, the New York Times reported that river goers have seen whales, and more specifically humpback whales, finding their way into the river: “[Per] Jen Goebel, a spokeswoman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whales have been spotted near New York. And the Coast Guard said in a state on Monday that it had fielded reports of a whale sighting in northern New Jersey waters, swimming from Sandy Hook to Raritan Bay” (Rodgers 2016). As whales normally do not swim into contaminated areas, this is a positive sign. RECENT ISSUES WITH THE CLEANUP In 2018, the positive effects of the cleanup have been called into doubt. According to Amy Wu (2018), when state and federal regulators started the testing of the two hundred–mile contaminated zone, the level of PCBs found in samples had not decreased enough compared with standards for water quality. The Hudson Rivers Natural Resources Trustees issued a report that claimed that the levels are not at acceptable levels, even though the effects seem to be felt through the habitat. As a result, GE has asked the EPA to deliver a certificate of completion at the site to remove their responsibility for the cleanup. However, the EPA contends that a thorough review will be completed in the customary five-year review of the area and that it would be premature to conclude that the Hudson River is successfully cleaned up with contradictory samples from the river. As a result, the contaminated stretch of the Hudson River has not been removed from the Superfund site list nor the NPL and will not likely be removed from years to come. Even if the levels of PCBs from the Hudson River come down to meet  all of the federal and state standards, it is unlikely that fish consumption restrictions from the Hudson River will be removed for roughly seventy years. However, if the PCB levels continue to trend downward over the next five to ten years, certain types of fish found regularly in the Hudson River may be safe to eat in relatively small portions. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

Mayo Clinic. 2019. “I’ve Hear That Salmon Is High in Dangerous PCBs. So What Are PCBs and What Risk Do They Pose?” Accessed November 12, 2019. ­https://​­www​



Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International 353

.­mayoclinic​.­org​/­healthy​-­l ifestyle​/­nutrition​-­a nd​-­healthy​-­e ating​/­expert​-­a nswers​ /­fish​-­and​-­pbcs​/­faq​-­20348595. Rodgers, Katie. 2016. “A Whale Takes Up Residence in the Hudson River.” New York Times, November 22, 2016. Accessed December 5, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​ .­com​/­2016​/­11​/­22​/­nyregion​/ ­humpback​-­whale​-­hudson​-­river​-­manhattan​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. “Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site: Phase 1 Dredging Factsheet.” Accessed December 5, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­riverkeeper​ .­org​/­wp​-­content​/­uploads​/­2009​/­11​/­EndofPhase1​_fact​_sheet​_1109​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Hudson River Cleanup.” Accessed on December 5, 2019. ­https://​­www3​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­hudson​/­cleanup​.­html. Wu, Amy. 2018. “Hudson River Remains Contaminated New Report Says.” Poughkeepsie Journal, February 1, 2018. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­poughkeepsiejournal​ .­c om​/­s tory​/ ­t ech​/­s cience​/­e nvironment​/ ­2 018​/ ­0 2​/ ­01​/ ­h udson​- ­r iver​- ­r emains​ -­contaminated​-­pcbs​-­new​-­report​/­1086830001.

Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC (referred to as Huntsman) produce a variety of organic chemicals to both industry and consumers. The companies file reports with the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) jointly under their respective titles. The Huntsman companies were founded by Jon Huntsman. The companies manufacture chemicals used in aerospace, automotive, construction, personal care and hygiene, adhesives, electronics, medical, packaging, power generation, refining, and textiles. Collectively, the Huntsman companies have ten thousand employees worldwide, with three thousand of those in the United States. The headquarters is in The Woodlands, Texas. It has four business segments: polyurethanes, performance products, advanced materials, and textile effects. According to the Huntsman Corporation Annual Report for 2017 (2018), the company had $8.36 billion in sales, and the polyurethanes segment was the majority of the business at 53 percent. Polyurethanes are chemicals that produce rigid and flexible foams and coatings, adhesives, and sealants. According to the SEC (2017) report, Huntsman companies operate six manufacturing polyurethane facilities in the United States, Europe, and China. Polyurethane is commonly used as flexible foam in carpet padding, furniture, and bedding. More rigid foams are used in construction, insulation, and packaging. Huntsman also produces methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), an additive in gasolines that allows lower emissions in carbon monoxide and other emissions from automobiles. MTBE was eliminated in the United States; however, it is still used in China by chemical manufacturers. This market segment has thirty-five hundred customers in over ninety countries (SEC 2017). In the performance products business segment, Huntsman manufactures chemicals associated with a variety of amines that are used in oil exploration and production, agrochemicals, and in fuel additives. Huntsman reports that it is the largest producer of these amines chemicals worldwide. Under the advanced materials segment, it produces epoxy acrylics and polyurethane polymers products.

354

Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International

The company reports it has over seventeen hundred customers in the areas of aerospace, automotive, circuit boards, electronics, consumer appliances, wind power generation, medical appliances, and recreational sport equipment (SEC 2017). The textile effects business segment involves the production of textiles, which includes coloration, printing, and finishing. Dyes and digital inks are included as well as functional aspects, such as wrinkle resistance and water/stain repellent. The production of the chemicals in this business segment are primarily located outside of the United States. Jon Huntsman began his career in an egg producing company called Olson Brothers, Inc., where he worked on the development of the first plastic egg carton in 1961. He became president of the Dolco Packaging Corp., which was a joint venture between Olson Brothers and the Dow Chemical Co., in 1967. He started his own company in 1970, called the Huntsman Container Corp, and served in the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) under President Nixon. By 1974, Huntsman was focused on his container business and created the container for McDonald’s Big Mac hamburger. He also invented popular products for the fast-food industry, such as plastics plates, bowls, and containers. In 1970, Jon Huntsman created the predecessor to Huntsman. The company manufactured polystyrene plastics for packaging. Since that time, it has expanded into a global company. The business is operated through Huntsman International, which is a wholly owned subsidiary. He built the first international facility in 1976. With the expansion of the company, Jon Huntsman created the Huntsman Chemical Corporation in 1982 and acquired a number of companies in the area of chemical production. In 1994 and 1995, the company purchased the Texaco Chemical Company and Eastman Chemical Company segments in polypropylene. In 1996, Huntsman Corporation was formed to consolidate the variety of companies, which were managed by Jon Huntsman under his son Peter Huntsman. Huntsman International was formed in 1999. In 2006, the company sold or closed all Australian styrene operations and the North American polymer and base chemical operations. The Huntsman organizations have remained under the managerial control of the Huntsman family, and this continues today after the passing of Jon Huntsman in February 2018. Huntsman is involved as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in the remediation of facilities that include predecessor companies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). Huntsman reports that there are six former facilities in the United States that have potential cleanup remediation liabilities. Also, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), several of the manufacturing sites have soil, groundwater, or surface water contamination from past operations. Both in Texas and Louisiana, Huntsman has facilities being remediated under RCRA. As recently as 2016, the Port Neches facility has been associated with a consent order and penalties related to the release of ethylene under the Clean Air Act (CAA). One Huntsman site requiring hazardous waste cleanup under RCRA was an iron oxide manufacturing facility in 1876. In 2001, this facility released oil into the Bush Creek in Pennsylvania and included soil contaminated with hazardous chemicals. In another former site, chromium was a concern in the groundwater at Rockwood Pigments, a pigment manufacturing site near Beltsville, Maryland. At



Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) 355

the North Maybe Canyon Mine site, near Soda Springs, Idaho, the company is involved with a Superfund remediation from a predecessor company. Internationally, the base chemicals and polymers facility in West Footscray in Australia was issued a remediation notice by the Environmental Protection Authority Victoria, Australia. The company reports that as of 2017, the liability of cleanup at this site was estimated at $14 million for contaminated soil and groundwater. Huntsman is reported to have over $1.6 million in fines associated with environmental violations since 2000 based on the Good Jobs First Report in 2018, which lists individual violations extracted from the EPA’s national enforcement and compliance data. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Good Jobs First. 2018. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary: Huntsman.” Corporate Research Project. Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​ .­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­parent​/ ­huntsman. Huntsman Corporation. 2018. Annual Report 2017. The Woodlands, TX: Huntsman Corporation. Accessed September 12, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­annualreports​.­com​/­HostedData​ /­AnnualReportArchive​/­h ​/ ­NYSE​_HUN​_2017​.­pdf. Huntsman International. 2018. “About Us.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­huntsman​.­com​/­corporate​/­a ​/­About​%­20us. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Huntsman Pigments Americas LLC (Formerly: Rockwood Pigments) in Easton, Pennsylvania.” November 17, 2017. Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­hwcorrectiveactionsites​/­hazardous​-­waste​-­cleanup​-­huntsman​-­pigments​-­americas​ -­llc​-­formerly​-­rockwood. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Huntsman P-A Americas LLC (Formerly: Rockwood Pigments NA), Incorporated in Beltsville, Maryland.” July 30, 2018. Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­e pa​.­gov​/ ­hwcorrectiveaction​/ ­hazardous​-­waste​- ­cleanup​-­rockwood​-­pigments​-­na​ -­inc​-­beltsville​-­md. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “Huntsman Cooperation: Form 10-Q.” Filed October 2017. h­ ttps://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersform10q​htm​ .html.

Hydraulic Fracturing (see Natural Gas) Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is a colorless gas or liquid with a strong, irritating scent. It is highly corrosive and toxic but is considered a weak acid. Hydrogen fluoride mixes easily with water to form HF; thus, HF is usually an aqueous (water-based) solution. It is considered one of the most dangerous acids because of its lethal impact on human health, but it is not considered a carcinogen.

356

Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN)

HF is used in etching or frosting because of its effective ability to dissolve glass, and it is used in industry for the production of aluminum and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). HF is widely used to process metals, rocks, bricks, and oil and to manufacture silicon semiconductor chips. It can also be used to eliminate or prevent rust formation and is found in commercial cleaners for automobiles and rust inhibitors for ceramics and textiles. Human exposure to HF primarily comes from occupational accidents and spills. It has been released into the environment from manufacturing and welding industries as well as from volcanoes and sea salt aerosol. HF is considered a serious danger to human health because of its unique ability to permeate deep into dermal tissues over a delayed time and cause significant injury. Although it easily absorbs through skin, symptoms may not be immediately visible. In addition, its scent is not sufficiently strong for humans to perceive a warning. The liquid form of HF can produce gases that blister and cause burns. Exposure to HF gases through inhalation results in respiratory damage and pulmonary edema. When the eyes are exposed, HF can irritate and burn. Ingestion may cause convulsions, cardiac arrhythmias, or death from cardiac or respiratory failure. HF is such a serious poison that five thousand residents in eastern Pennsylvania were evacuated in 2009 when a tractor trailer carrying thirty-three thousand pounds of pressured HF gas overturned while trying to avoid a deer (“Acid Spill Evacuation Ends” 2009). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Corrosives.

Further Reading

“Acid Spill Evacuation Ends for 5,000 Pennsylvania Residents.” 2009. CNN, March 21, 2009. Accessed January 16, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­cnn​.­com​/­2009​/ ­US​/­03​/­21​ /­pennsylvania​.­spill. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Hydrofluoric Acid, CID=14917.” PubChem Database. Accessed January 16, 2018. ­https://​­pubchem​ .­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­compound​/ ­Hydrofluoric​-­acid.

Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is a strong, colorless to pale blue gas or liquid that is flammable, dissolves easily in water, and, though not a carcinogen, is highly toxic in all forms. As a gas, it mixes with air, where it can easily form explosive compounds, and its bitter almond scent may go undetected by some individuals. When used as a liquid, it has a bitter, burning taste. In the past, it was referred to as prussic acid. HCN is found in cigarette smoke and in low concentrations in automobile emissions. It is developed by oxidizing ammonia and can be a by-product of burning nitrogen-containing substances, such as plastics, that contain nitrogen compounds. It is a by-product of burning wool and silk and from coke ovens and blast furnaces.



Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) 357

HCN derivatives are used in electroplating, metal cleaning, and in mining to remove gold from its ore. It is used in the development of many products, such as synthetic fibers, plastics, paper, and dyes, and is present in the chemicals used to develop photographs. HCN is one of the most toxic of insecticides; it was developed in the late 1880s for treating citrus trees. Cyanide gas is used to exterminate pests and vermin in ships and buildings, and in agriculture, it is effective as a pesticide. Its deadly toxic nature has led to HCN’s use as a chemical warfare agent and an intentional food and water poisoning (CDC 2015). The CN component of HCN is cyanide. It can be found in very low concentrations in nature and then converted into HCN through natural means. It is released from cassava, lima beans, and almonds. Some pits and seeds of fruits, such as plums, apricots, cherries, apples, pears, and peaches, have natural chemicals that are metabolized into HCN in the human body. These fruit seeds contain cyanide; the CN component of HCN attached to the seeds’ sugar molecules. When the seed is metabolized by humans, the cyanide (CN) is released from the sugar and can produce the poisonous gas hydrogen cyanide; these levels do not pose a health risk. HCN is considered an asphyxiant, meaning it suffocates the body’s use of oxygen. It is readily absorbed through the skin, airway, and eyes, even through contact with HCN vapors, which lends to systemic poisoning. Inhalation produces rapid poisoning, impacting the nervous, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems and depriving the thyroid, lungs, brain, and heart of their oxygen needed to function. Ingestion is quickly fatal after exposure. Hydrogen cyanide is such a strong poison there is risk of secondary exposure from contamination on another person’s skin or clothing. Exposure to HCN has occurred from industrial accidental releases. During World War II, HCN was the primary component of the chemical weapon called Zyklon B that was used by the Germans. It is also suspected to have been used during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Ammonia (NH3); Secondhand Smoke; Tobacco Smoke.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2014. “Cyanide.” Toxic Substances Portal, October 21, 2014. Accessed October 4, 2017. h­ ttps://​­www​.­atsdr​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­m mg​/­m mg​.­asp​?­id​= ​­1073​&­tid​= ​­19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2015. “Facts about Cyanide.” Emergency Preparedness and Response. November 18, 2015. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­emergency​.­cdc​.­gov​/­agent​/­cyanide​/ ­basics​/­facts​.­asp. “Cyanide in Fruit Seeds: How Dangerous Is an Apple?” 2015. The Guardian, October 11, 2015. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­theguardian​.­com​/­technology​/­2015​ /­oct​/­11​/­cyanide​-­in​-­f ruit​-­seeds​-­how​-­dangerous​-­is​-­an​-­apple. Martin, Terry. 2017. “Facts about Hydrogen Cyanide in Cigarette Smoke.” Verywell website. Updated December 25, 2017. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­verywell​ .­com​/ ­hydrogen​-­cyanide​-­in​-­cigarette​-­smoke​-­2824423. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Hydrogen Cyanide, CID=768.” PubChem Database. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​ .­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­compound​/ ­Hydrogen​-­cyanide.

358

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)

NIOSH Emergency Response Safety and Health Database. 2011. “Hydrogen Cyanide (AC): Systemic Agent.” CAS #: 74-90-8. Last updated November 9, 2017. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­niosh​/­ershdb​/­emergencyresponsecard​ _29750038​.­html.

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is commonly known as hydrosulfuric acid, sewer gas, and “stink damp.” It is a toxic chemical that occurs as a flammable, colorless gas. H2S is a critical chemical in the sulfur cycle for life on earth. Certain bacteria use it in photosynthesis, thereby producing elemental sulfur. It is uniquely identified because at low concentrations it smells like rotting eggs. Although it has a very detectable odor at first, it quickly deadens the sense of smell, so continued exposure may not be detected, causing it to be extremely dangerous. H2S can occur naturally from sources such as crude petroleum, natural gas, swamps and wetlands, volcanic gases, and geothermal hot springs. In these areas, H2S is usually very easily detected in the air. It is naturally produced in human and animal wastes and found in the mouth and gastrointestinal tract of people. These areas in the body produce hydrogen sulfide from decomposition of food by bacteria. It is specifically produced in the large intestine in mammals. H2S is not found in surface waters—lakes, streams, or rivers—because it quickly evaporates. However, it can be found in higher concentrations in well water and can be formed in a hot water heater in the home. Because it is heavier than air, it tends to collect in low-lying and enclosed places, such as basements, manholes, sewer lines and underground telephone and electrical vaults. For this same reason, it can be detected in wetland or swampy areas in the environment, where there is high decomposition from bacteria taking place. Occupational exposure to H2S primarily comes from industrial processes such as food processing, coke ovens, paper mills, tanneries, and petroleum refineries. Just a few breaths of air containing a high concentration of H2S can be lethal. At chronic or lower concentrations, exposure to H2S results in eye irritation, headache, memory loss, and fatigue. Acute exposures to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide may cause loss of consciousness and can have permanent health impacts, such as headaches and poor attention span, memory, and motor function. As an industrial use, H2S is primarily used in the production of sulfur and sulfuric acid. It can also be used to make other chemicals, such as sodium sulfide and sodium hydrosulfide, which are used to make a variety of products, including dyes, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. It is used in the industrial process of purifying nickel and manganese and hydrochloric and sulfuric acids. It is commonly used in metallurgy, the nuclear industry, and in laboratory experiments. In agricultural, is it used as a disinfectant. Living near wastewater treatment plants, gas and oil drilling plants, farms with manure storage or livestock confinement facilities, or landfills can lead to exposure.



Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 359

Health impacts include toxicity to both the respiratory tract and nervous system. The most dangerous exposure to humans is through air because H2S is primarily absorbed through the lungs, although it is also readily absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract and skin. Depending on the weather conditions, it can remain in the air from one to forty-two days. Exposure via water and soil are less common because the chemical quickly evaporates. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Flammables and Combustibles; Respiratory Toxicity.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2017. “Hydrogen Sulfide Carbonyl Sulfide.” Toxic Substances Portal. Accessed October 19, 2018. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­67. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Hydrogen Sulfide, CID=402.” PubChem Database. Accessed February 19, 2018. ­https://​­pubchem​ .­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­compound​/ ­Hydrogen​-­sulfide. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). 2018. “Hydrogen Sulfide.” Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/ ­hydrogensulfide​/­index​.­html.

Toxic Chemicals in America

Toxic Chemicals in America Controversies in Human and Environmental Health

VOLUME 1I: I–Z

Kelly A. Tzoumis, Editor

Copyright © 2021 by ABC-CLIO, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Tzoumis, Kelly A., author. Title: Toxic chemicals in America : controversies in human and environmental health / Kelly A. Tzoumis, editor. Description: Santa Barbara, California : ABC-CLIO, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020015799 (print) | LCCN 2020015800 (ebook) | ISBN 9781440857546 (v. 1 ; hardcover) | ISBN 9781440857553 (v. 2 ; hardcover) | ISBN 9781440857522 (set ; hardcover) | ISBN 9781440857539 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Toxicological chemistry—United States. | Environmental toxicology—United States. Classification: LCC RA1219.3 .T68 2021 (print) | LCC RA1219.3 (ebook) | DDC 613/.10973—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020015799 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020015800 ISBN: 978-1-4408-5752-2 (set) 978-1-4408-5754-6 (vol. 1) 978-1-4408-5755-3 (vol. 2) 978-1-4408-5753-9 (ebook) 25  24  23  22  21   1  2  3  4  5 This book is also available as an eBook. ABC-CLIO An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC ABC-CLIO, LLC 147 Castilian Drive Santa Barbara, California 93117 ­w ww​.­abc​-­clio​.­com This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents

Alphabetical List of Entries  vii Preface xiii Acknowledgments  xv Introduction xvii A–Z Entries  1 About the Editor and Contributors  681 Index  683

Alphabetical List of Entries

VOLUME ONE Abbott Laboratories Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) Acute Toxicity versus Chronic Toxicity Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Air Contamination Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Airplane Emissions American Chemistry Council (ACC) Ammonia (NH3) Antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol) Arsenic (As) Asbestos Asthma Automobile Emissions Automotive Manufacturing Basel Action Network (BAN) Benzene (C6H6) Beryllium (Be) Beyond Pesticides Bhopal Disaster (1984) Bioavailability Biomarkers Bioremediation

Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2) Bleach (NaOCl) Blood Alcohol Toxicity BlueGreen Alliance Breast Cancer Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP) Brockovich, Erin (1960–) Brody, Charlotte (1948–) Bullard, Robert (1946–) Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound Cadmium (Cd) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Cancer Alley (Louisiana) Car and Household Batteries Carbon Disulfide (CS2) Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4) Carson, Rachel (1907–1964) Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Centers of Excellence on Environmental Health Disparities Research (EHD) Chemical Abstracts Service Registry (CAS)

viii

Alphabetical List of Entries

Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR) Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) Chemical Manufacturing Chemical Remediation Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016) Chernobyl Disaster (1986) Chevron Phillips Chemical Company and Chevron Corporation Child Impacts Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers Children’s Toys and Playgrounds Chlorine Gas (Cl2) Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Chloroform (CHCl3) Chromium (Cr) Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970) Clean Air Mercury Rule Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972) Clean Water Action (CWA) Coal and Coal Dust Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980) Confidential Business Information (CBI) and Trade Secrets (TS) Confined Disposal Facilities in the Great Lakes Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (1972) Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Cookstoves (Wood) Copper (Cu) Corrosives

Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of Council of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Sound Management of Chemicals Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico (1995) Cresol (C7H8O) Cumulative Impacts Cuyahoga River Fires (Cleveland, Ohio) Davis, Devra (1946–) De Minimis Limitations Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ) Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010) Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Delaney Clause Dermal Exposure Dermal Toxicity Developmental Neurotoxicity Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) Dioxins Dow Chemical Company DowDuPont, Inc. Drain Cleaners DuPont Chemical Company (E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company) Eastman Chemical Company Ecolab Inc. Electronics Recycling (E-Waste) Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986) Encapsulation Endocrine Disruptors Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)



Alphabetical List of Entries ix

Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism Environmental Movement (1970s) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Executive Order 12898 (1994) Executive Order 13148 (2000) Executive Order 13423 (2007) Executive Order 13650 (2013) Executive Order 13693 (2015) Exxon Mobil Corporation Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972) Fertility Impacts Fertilizers Fetal Impacts (In Utero Toxicity) Fish Contamination Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes Flammables and Combustibles Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination (2016) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996) Formaldehyde (CH2O) Fox, Josh (1972–) FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry Fruits and Vegetables Gasoline General Electric Company

Gibbs, Lois (1951–) Global Harmonization System (GHS) Gore, Al (1948–) Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (1997) Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA) (including Areas of Concern) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) (1972, 1978, 1987, 2012) Green Products and Services Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change Greenpeace Groundwater Contamination Halogens Hamilton, Alice (1869–1970) Hazardous Waste Health-Care Wastes Healthy Legacy Heavy Metals Herbicides High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW) Honeywell International Inc. Household Cleaners Household Exposure Household Hazardous Waste, Disposal of Household Paints Hudson River Superfund Site (1984) Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)

VOLUME TWO Immunotoxicity In Situ Vitrification

Industrial Solvents Insecticides

x

Alphabetical List of Entries

Institutional Monitoring and Controls International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) International Joint Commission (IJC) Johnson & Johnson JustGreen Partnership (JGP) Killer Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania (1948) Known to Be a Human Carcinogen Landfill Disposal Laundry Detergents Lead (Pb) Lead Prohibited in Automobile Gasoline Additive (1986) Learning Disabilities Lethal Dose 50% (LD50) Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) Love Canal, New York (1976) Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAEL) Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW) LyondellBasell Industries Maathai, Wangari (1940–2011) Meat and Fish Consumption Meat and Fish Toxicity Mercury (Hg) Metal Mining Methyl Alcohol or Methanol (CH4O or CH3OH) Milk Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) Mining Wastes Monsanto Company Montreal Protocol Mosaic Company Mothballs Nader, Ralph (1934–)

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network National Environmental Sacrifice Zones National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Laboratories National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Toxicology Program (NTP) Native American Impacts Natural Gas Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Nerve Agents Neurological Toxicity Nickel (Ni) No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) Nonstick Teflon Cooking Pan Coatings Nuclear Weapons Facilities Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Oil Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990) Oven Cleaners Overburdened Community Ozone Hole Paper Industry Parabens Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)



Alphabetical List of Entries xi

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Pesticides Petroleum Industry Phthalates Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) Phytoremediation Plutonium (Pu) Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (1990) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) PPG Industries, Inc. Praxair, Inc. Precocious Puberty Pregnancy, Toxic Chemicals during Prescription Drugs, Disposal of Project Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks (TENDR) Pulmonary and Cardiovascular Toxicity Pump and Treat Reasonably Anticipated to Be a Human Carcinogen Renal Toxic Chemicals (Nephrotoxicity) RESOLVE Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976) Respiratory Toxicity Risk Assessment Rodenticides Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974) Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Safer States Safety Data Sheets (SDS)

Secondhand Smoke Sediment Contamination Seniors, Environmental and Health Impacts on Sensitizers Sierra Club Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Soil Contamination SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP) State Emergency Responders State Public Health Agencies Steingraber, Sandra (1959–) Tar Tetrachloroethylene (Perc) Three Mile Island Accident (1979) Threshold Certification and Alternate Thresholds Threshold Limit Values (TLV) Times Beach, Missouri (1982) Tin and Tin Compounds (Tributyltin) Tobacco Smoke Toner Cartridges Toxaphene (C10H10Cl8) Toxic and Hazardous Substances Toxic Chemicals, Incineration of Toxic Release or Accident Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976) Toxic Waste and Race in the United States (1987 and 1990) Toxic-Free Legacy (TFL) Coalition Toxicity Labels Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Transuranic (TRU) Waste Trichloroethylene (TCE) (C2HCl3) Tuberculosis (TB)

xii

Alphabetical List of Entries

Underground Injection Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit 1992) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Uranium U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) Vaccination Controversy Vapor Vacuum Extraction of VOCs Vinyl Chloride (CHCl=H2C)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Vulnerable Population Impacts Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests (1983) Wasserman-Nieto, Kimberly (1977–) Water Contamination (Surface) WE ACT for Environmental Justice Women for a Healthy Environment (WHE) Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) Workplace and Occupational Exposure Workplace Lead Poisoning in Bayway, New Jersey (1924)

I Immunotoxicity Immunotoxicity refers to the adverse effects on the human immune system caused by exposure to toxic chemical substances. The immune system is a diffuse system throughout the human body that serves to protect it from external challenges to the body’s functioning. It is not associated with an individual organ but affects every organ in the body. It can react in numerous ways when exposed to a toxic chemical that it recognizes as foreign. Overall, the immune system reacts in appropriate manner from its normal functioning in an immunotoxicity event. It generally does this by either over- or underreacting to the toxic chemical. Immunotoxicity does not necessarily lead to cancer directly, but it can result in a dysfunction of the body’s defenses to even simple daily challenges, such as those associated with colds and viruses. The human immune system is particularly vulnerable to chemical exposure during fetal and childhood development, and its functioning naturally declines with age. The development of the human immune system begins late in the fetus’s growth. By birth, the immune system is operational and functioning but still maturing. The immune system reaches maturity at puberty Thus, both children and older people have more risk of developing negative, and often fatal, results from immunotoxicity. Also, once exposed to certain toxic chemicals, the immune system may become sensitized, causing an extreme reaction on the next exposure to the same chemical. There are several forms of immunotoxicity; these include immunosuppression, immunostimulation, hypersensitivity, and autoimmunity. Immunosuppression occurs when the ability of the body to defend itself from diseases fails. This usually happens over time from chronic exposure. In this case, toxic chemicals react directly on the immune system to lower resistance to infections and tumors. Immunotoxicity can also trigger the immune system to respond in ways that result in tissue and organ damage from inflammation, which is what happens in reactions of autoimmunity, hypersensitivity, immunostimulation, or chronic inflammation. Recently, researchers have found that autoimmunity is an important area of immunotoxicology. There appears to be a link between exposure to chemical substances and autoimmunity. This is a particularly important finding in the research because autoimmune diseases occur frequently in the human population (Descotes 2004). The health results from an autoimmune response by the body can include reduced resistance to infection, neoplasia (the abnormal growth of tissues and cells), or allergies, which can lead to asthma and

362 Immunotoxicity

respiratory problems. Often overlooked in the research on immunotoxicity is the link to problems of homeostasis from toxic chemical exposure. The health consequences can be an exaggerated or overreactive immune response, which may trigger an allergic or autoimmune reaction by the body. Both allergies and autoimmune reactions have increased over time so research is ongoing to the role of toxic chemicals in these areas of immunotoxicity. Some common diseases that are autoimmune related include rheumatoid arthritis and some types of diabetes. There are concerns in the scientific community about the role of pesticides; preservatives such as formaldehydes; and metals such as nickel, cobalt, beryllium, mercury, cadmium, and chromium being sensitizers to the immune system. Depending on the type of reaction and exposure time and dose, symptoms may be immediate or delayed, mild or severe, and involve different organs and tissues. Allergic reactions to toxic chemicals can cause considerable discomfort in the workplace, and in extreme hypersensitivity, reactions may become anaphylactic, which can be life-threatening without immediate treatment. Some industrial chemicals, such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and vinyl chloride, are associated with autoimmune diseases and responses. A number of studies have reported increased or unusual level of autoantibodies in association with exposure to some metals in the workplace, suggesting potential autoimmune toxicity. For instance, iodine and lithium have been linked to autoimmune diseases associated with the thyroid, and gold and chromium have been associated with lupus. Paints and epoxy coatings often have chemicals that cause an immune response when inhaled. After the initial exposure, hypersensitivity can lead to respiratory problems with asthma-like symptoms or lung disease from chronic exposure. Since the 1970s, the field of immunotoxicity has grown in its understanding of how toxic chemicals impact the body. The research on immunotoxicity is complicated by the complexity of the human immune system and the age of subject. Additional factors that make this science difficult is the role of genetics and behavioral factors, such as smoking. Both genetic inheritance and smoking tobacco products may make some people more susceptible to the immunotoxicity of chemical substances than others. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Dermal Exposure; Household Exposure; Tobacco Smoke; Workplace and Occupational Exposure.

Further Reading

Descotes, J. 2004. “Definition, History, and Scope of Immunotoxicology.” In Immunotoxicology of Drugs and Chemicals: An Experimental and Clinical Approach. Vol. 1, Principles and Methods of Immunotoxicology, 1–18. Boston: Elsevier. Salazar, Keith D., and Rosana Schafer. 2012. “Introduction to Immunotoxicity.” In Immunotoxicity, Immune Dysfunction, and Chronic Disease, edited by Rodney W. Dietert and Robert R. Luebke, 3–30. New York: Humana Press. World Health Organization (WHO). 2012. Guidance for Immunotoxicity Risk Assessment for Chemicals. Accessed September 6, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­inchem​.­org​/­documents​ /­harmproj​/ ­harmproj​/ ­harmproj10​.­pdf.



In Situ Vitrification 363

In Situ Vitrification When contaminants have the potential of migrating off-site, or to other areas of the ecosystem, the process of in situ (meaning “in place”) vitrification (converting a substance into glass) has been selectively used as a remediation process. This is usually performed at high temperatures greater than two thousand degrees Fahrenheit using electrodes placed into the soil to transform the contaminants into glass. This technique is generally used with contaminants in soil, where the migration of the contaminant is likely and it would be less of a public health risk to immobilize the areas as glass. Soil contains silica content that allows the transformation into glass at extremely high temperatures. Because of the high temperature, this remediation approach destroys volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and many inorganic pollutants. The remediation option has been used with radionuclides, metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), VOCs, and dioxins. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2019) reports that about 97 percent of VOCs in the soil can be removed and any remaining chemicals captured in an off-gas system. The chemicals are vaporized and thermally decomposed, which requires significant off-gas capture systems to prevent air pollutions. This technique has been used to treat contaminated soils and sludges. After the vitrification process is completed, the area is generally covered with soil. The area has to be monitored and restricted as the temperatures cool from the process. Heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and chromium are captured inside the molten soil. More recent approaches in in situ vitrification use plasma arc technology in lieu of the high-voltage electrodes. This is where vitrification includes a plasma torch encased in the area, which causes a melting process from the bottom up to the surface. This torch method can exceed temperatures of seven thousand degrees Fahrenheit (Fox et al. 2001). In situ vitrification was originally a remediation technology developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to isolate radioactive waste that was buried in the soils on their sites. Some of the DOE sites that have utilized this approach include Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and the Hanford National Laboratory in the Washington State. The immobilization of radioactive waste at the DOE sites, many of them former weapons facilities, was critical for the protection of human health and the environment. A similar technique of vitrification has been used to manage liquid wastes from underground storage tanks at the Hanford site, a former production facility for nuclear weapons fuel. This facility had fifty-six million gallons of waste in 177 underground storage tanks from the production of defense plutonium during World War II and the years afterward (DOE 2007). In this process, silica is mixed with hazardous wastes from the tanks and then heated to about twenty-one hundred degrees Fahrenheit, which transforms the waste into molten glass that can then be poured into stainless steel canisters to cool. The waste becomes a solid that can be disposed of permanently and safely. This is performed in what is called

364

Industrial Solvents

a vitrification plant. This process turns liquid radioactive and chemical wastes into a solid glass material, which is safer to handle than fluids. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Heavy Metals; Plutonium (Pu); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Fox, Catherine A., Louis J. Circeo, and Robert C. Martin. 2001. “In-Situ Plasma Remediation of Contaminated Soils.” Remediation: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies and Techniques 11(4): 3–13. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1002​ /­rem​.­1011. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2007. “What Is Vitrification?” Hanford Vit Plant. Accessed April 16, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­hanfordvitplant​.­com​/­vitrification​-­101. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. “In Situ Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Soil.” Engineering Forum Issue Paper. November. EPA 542/F-06/013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids—Thermal Processes: In Situ.” Last Updated February 5, 2019. Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­clu​-­in​.­org​/­contaminantfocus​/­default​.­focus​/­sec​/ ­Dense​ _­Nonaqueous​_Phase​_Liquids​_(­DNAPLs)/cat/Treatment_Technologies/p/12/n/4.

Industrial Solvents Industrial solvents refer to chemicals used to dilute, dissolve, or remove other substances or materials, such as paint or adhesives. Many are used as chemical intermediates and fuels and as components in a variety of products, including plastics, inks, paints, and pesticides. Industries that are heavily dependent on solvents include engineering, construction, chemicals, dry cleaning, printing, pharmaceuticals, textiles, and footwear. Industrial solvents are usually in the form of organic liquids. They often have toxic or hazardous characteristics that make them extremely dangerous for humans and the environment. Human exposure occurs through breathing in vapors, skin or eye contact, or ingestion through contaminated hands, food, drink, or cigarettes. A common industrial solvent is acetone, which is often used to clean machine parts and tools or as a degreaser. Acetone has a low flash point and a high vapor pressure; consequently, it is extremely flammable. It is classified as a dangerous good with special transport, usage, storage, and disposal requirements. Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), known as butanone, is also a common industrial solvent. Its flammability properties are like acetone. An irritant, it must be kept away from contact with the skin or eyes. Its vapor irritates the lungs. To use this industrial solvent, workers are required to wear splash goggles, full protective suits, boots, gloves, and respirators. In areas where ventilation is insufficient, a self-contained breathing apparatus is necessary. Toluene is a third common industrial solvent with toxic properties. Irritation occurs with direct contact to the eyes and skin. Breathing toluene vapors causes dizziness, confusion, headaches, and fatigue. Inhaling high levels of vapors may cause depression, brain damage, and even death.



Industrial Solvents 365

Other common industrial solvents include petroleum spirits, dichloromethane, 1.1.1-trichloroethane, hexane, xylene, perchloroethylene, and white spirit. All have toxic or hazardous characteristics. In addition to the immediate health effects from exposure to industrial solvents, there are effects associated with long-term exposure, including dermatitis and damage to the central nervous system, kidneys, liver, and blood. Solvents such as benzene have been linked to cancer.

MINIMIZING HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS Several key strategies are used to limit human health and environmental risks: 1. Responsible industries always consider whether the solvent is indispensable. Substitutes are often available that are much safer and just as effective. Preventing exposure through avoidance or substitution is the first line of defense against the deleterious consequences of industrial solvents. 2. If solvent-based products must be used, exposures should be limited by (a) ensuring the work area is well ventilated or by using brushes rather than spraying equipment; (b) storing solvents in properly labeled, suitable containers; (c) properly disposing of solvent-contaminated materials; and (d) ongoing training for workers. Workers should be informed through safety data sheets (SDS) that provide information on the physical properties of the solvent, health effects, ways to minimize exposures, proper first aid, and safe disposal methods. 3. Personal protective equipment (PPE) must always be available and worn by workers using solvents, including respiratory equipment, gloves, and uniforms. 4. Good personal hygiene must be consistently enforced. Facilities for washing and changing should be made available, and workers should be required to wash their hands before eating and drinking and after going to the toilet or smoking. Contaminated clothing should be removed immediately and ventilated in a safe place. Clothing should then be washed before being worn again. 5. Facilities and industries using industrial solvents should be equipped with proper first aid, including eye-washing stations. 6. For solvents that exhibit flammable or explosive qualities, precautions should be made to avoid fires and explosions risks, including banning smoking near solvents. Flammable solvents should also be stored in secured and well-ventilated areas that are isolated from the general work space and easily accessible to emergency response personnel.

REGULATORY CONTROLS IN THE US With the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to ensure safe and

366

Industrial Solvents

healthy working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards for the use of industrial solvents and providing training, outreach, education, and technical assistance (OSHA 2017a). OSHA requires that information about the identities and hazards of the chemicals and toxic substances (including solvents) used in the workplace is available and understandable to workers. Chemical manufacturers and consumers are required to evaluate the hazards of the chemicals they produce or import to prepare labels and SDS for exposed workers, and to train workers to handle the chemicals appropriately. The training for employees must include information on the hazards of the chemicals in the work area and the measures employed to protect them. OSHA is also responsible for ensuring that employers identify and evaluate the respiratory hazards in workplaces. OSHA sets enforceable permissible exposure limits (PELs) to protect workers against the health effects of exposure to hazardous substances, including limits on the airborne concentrations of hazardous chemicals in the air. Most OSHA PELs are eight-hour time-weighted averages, although there are also ceiling and peak limits, and many chemicals include a skin designation to warn against skin contact. Approximately five hundred PELs have been established and are listed on OSHA’s website. THE EPA’S ROLE The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has an important role in regulating the use of industrial solvents and their impact on the environment through regulatory authorities granted under section 183 (e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which requires that the EPA regulate volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through emission standards. The CAA requires the EPA to limit VOC emissions from a variety of consumer and commercial products that contribute to ozone formation and ozone nonattainment. In addition to its regulatory role, the EPA has developed tools that enable users of solvents to identify substitutes that have lower environmental impacts than traditional solvents. “The Solvent Substitution Software Tool, PARIS III is a desktop/laptop application that enables users to find mixtures of solvents with specific physical and chemical properties that also have relatively low environmental impacts” (EPA 2017).

ROLE OF STATES IN REGULATING INDUSTRIAL SOLVENTS States also have an important role in the regulation of industrial solvents. To reduce ozone levels, numerous state agencies have issued regulations to reduce VOC emissions from a variety of sources, including products that contain solvents. In the case of cleaning products, the regulations limit the amount of VOCs that can be used in various product categories. States such as California have banned the outright use of solvents products. John Munro

Insecticides 367 See also: Benzene (C6H6); Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

ISSA. 2019. Summary of State and Federal VOC Limitations for Institutional and Consumer Products. Northbrook, IL: ISSA. Accessed July 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­issa​ .­com​/­w p​-­content​/­uploads​/ ­VOC​_Limits​_Summary​_19​.­pdf. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2017a. “Chemical Hazards and Toxic Substances.” Accessed October 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​ / ­hazardoustoxicsubstances​/­index​.­html. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2017b. “Solvents.” Accessed October 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­solvents​/­index​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. “PARIS III—EPA’s Solvent Substitution Software Tool (Program for Assisting the Replacement of Industrial Solvents).” Science in Action, May 2015. EPA/600/F-14/408. ­http://​­nepis​.­epa​.­gov​ /­Adobe​/ ­PDF​/ ­P100MHY3​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Clean Air Act Guidelines and Standards for Solvent Use and Surface Coating Industry.” Last updated June 30, 2016. ­https://​­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­stationary​-­sources​-­air​-­pollution ​/­clean​-­air​-­act​-­g uidelines​-­and​ -­standards​-­solvent​-­use​-­and​-­surface. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Program for Assisting the Replacement of Industrial Solvents (PARIS III).” Last updated April 5, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­e pa​.­gov​/­chemical​-­research​/­program​-­a ssisting​-­replacement​-­i ndustrial​-­solvents​ -­paris​-­iii.

Insecticides Insecticides are a category of pesticides, which includes substances that control unwanted organisms, and are used to eliminate or control insects. There are a variety of insecticides for different insects, and they differ in how they kill, harm, repel, or mitigate their targets. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS 2017), most insecticides are used in agriculture for crops; some are also used in the home to control termites, lawn insects, ants, cockroaches, fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes. The use of insecticides in agriculture has increased crop yields and reduced food prices; however, the advantages of using insecticides may have been offset by the damages they have brought on the ecosystem and human health. Based on the structure and source, there are natural, inorganic, and organic insecticides. Inorganic pesticides are metals or arsenic compounds and were generally used in earlier times. Natural insecticides are extracts from plants, such as nicotine and neem. Synthesized organic insecticides are the most commonly used type; they include organochlorines, organophosphates, organosulfurs, carbamates, pyrethroids, and others. Organochlorines are chemicals with chlorine in the hydrocarbon structure. The use of organochlorine insecticides began in the 1940s when dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was introduced. They are used to not only control insects but also weeds and fungi. Based on structure, organochlorines can

368 Insecticides

be divided into DDT and related compounds (such as methoxychlor); cyclodienes (including aldrin, endrin, heptachlor, dieldrin, chlordane, and endosulfan); chlordecone (kepone); and hexachlorocyclohexane (lindane) (Abdollahi et al. 2004). Organochlorines mainly work through interrupting the normal nerve pulses of insects. They were heavily and widely used in the twentieth century, especially during the 1950s to 1960s, but have caused serious environmental concerns. Due to the high persistence in the environment, nine organochlorines were included in the twelve “dirty dozen” persistent organic pollutants (POPs) of the Stockholm Convention. Many organochlorine insecticides were banned in the late 1970s or 1980s in the United States and Canada (Kannan et  al. 2005); however, most of these organochlorines are still frequently detected in the air, water, sediment, fish, and birds. Organophosphates have replaced organochlorines and become the most widely used insecticides, accounting for 50 percent of total insecticides used in the United States since the 1980s (CDC n.d.). They are derived from phosphorus acid. Similar to nerve gases, organophosphates produce effects by inhibiting in insects the function of acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme that breaks down the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the nervous system (NIEHS 2017). Compared to organochlorines, organophosphates are more toxic and less persistent. Organophosphates can be rapidly broken down while transferring from crops to soil and surface water, and thus they do not build up in the environment (CDC n.d.). People can be exposed to organophosphates through inhalation, dermal contact, and ingestion. They have serious acute toxicity, including neurotoxicity that can affect brain development, and are often used in agricultural areas for pesticides. Some organophosphates, such as malathion and diazine, are carcinogenic. Due to high toxicity, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reevaluated the entire class under the Food Quality Protection Act and many organophosphates have been voluntarily cancelled or stopped (Ware and Whitacre 2004). The carbamate insecticides derived from carbamic acid have a similar mode of action as organophosphates by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase. The main difference is that the inhabitation from carbamates is reversible, but irreversible from organophosphates, so carbamates are more rapidly metabolized than organophosphates. Pyrethroids are synthetic compounds with a structure similar to pyrethrins, which are natural chemicals derived from chrysanthemum flowers. The mode of action for pyrethrins is similar to that of DDT; they interrupt the transmission of neurons (Ware and Whitacre 2004). Pyrethroids have a similar function to pyrethrins in controlling insects and are less expensive and more photostable. The use of pyrethroids has increased in the decline of organophosphates due to the lower acute toxicity. There are more than thirty-five hundred registered pyrethroid insecticides. They have low toxicity to mammals and birds and higher toxicity to fish if applied directly to water. Cumulative risk assessments of current pyrethroids use have indicated no risk concerns for children or adults. No

Insecticides 369

clear relationship has been observed between pyrethroid exposure and asthma or allergies. In the environment, pyrethroids are easily broken down by sunlight, but they can be bound to organic matter in sediment and stay for a longer time in the environment. They are often detected in the effluent water of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), implying the inefficiency of WWTPs to pyrethroids (EPA 2017). Systemic insecticides have been developed since the 1980s. Different from the contact insecticides above, which work through directly contacting the insects, systemic insecticides are first absorbed by the plant and transported to all the tissues—root, leaf, stem, pollen, and nectar—making them poisonous to the invading organisms. Neonicotinoids and fipronil are two examples. Although systemic insecticides have low mammalian toxicity, they have been the suspected culprits of declined honeybee colonies. Insects have developed resistance to organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and other insecticides on the market over repeated use (Simon-Delso et al. 2015). However, some environmentally friendly biological insecticides have been introduced and applied: enzymes, which activate the reaction of excreting toxic substances from plants; microbes, which can release toxins to kill insects; and transgenic plants, which incorporate genes from microbes that can release toxins (Ware and Whitacre 2004). John Munro See also: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); Pesticides; Risk Assessment.

Further Reading

Abdollahi, Mohammad, Akram Ranjbar, Shahin Shadnia, Shekoufeh Nikfar, and Ali Rezaie. 2004. “Pesticides and Oxidative Stress: A Review.” Medical Science Monitor 10(6): RA141–RA147. Accessed June 17, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­pubmed​/­15173684. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). n.d. “Frequently Asked Questions about Organophosphates.” Accessed October 15, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­nceh​ /­clusters​/­fallon ​/­organophosfaq​.­htm. Kannan, Kurunthachalam, Jeff Ridal, and John Struger. 2005. “Pesticides in the Great Lakes.” In The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Vol 5, part N, Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Great Lakes, edited by Ronald A. Hites, 151–199. n.p.: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 2017. “Organophosphates.” Accessed October 15, 2017. ­https://​­tools​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­srp​/­research​ /­research4​_s3​_s5​.­cfm (web page discontinued). Simon-Delso, N., V. Amaral-Rogers, L. P. Belzunces, J. M. Bonmatin, M. Chagnon, C. Downs, L. Furlan, D. W. Gibbons, C. Giorio, V. Girolami, D. Goulson, D. P. Kreutzweiser, C. H. Krupke, M. Liess, E. Long, M. McField, P. Mineau, E. A. D. Mitchell, C. A. Morrissey, D. A. Noome, L. Pisa, J. Settele, J. D. Stark, A. Tapparo, H. Van Dyck, J. Van Praagh, J. P. Van der Sluijs, P. R. Whitehorn, and M. Wiemers. 2015. “Systemic Insecticides (Neonicotinoids and Fipronil): Trends, Uses, Mode of Action and Metabolites.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22(1): 5–34.

370

Institutional Monitoring and Controls

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Pyrethrins and Pyrethroids.” Last updated September 15, 2017. Accessed October 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­ingredients​-­used​-­pesticide​-­products​/­pyrethrins​-­and​-­pyrethroids. Ware, George W., and David M. Whitacre. 2004. The Pesticide Book. Willoughby, OH: Meister Media Worldwide.

Institutional Monitoring and Controls When a site becomes so contaminated that it poses a threat to human health or the environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a variety of approaches it can use for remediation. Several environmental laws allow the EPA to conclude the best approach for addressing the contamination is to leave it in place and then perform institutional monitoring or controls on the site. Institutional monitoring and controls may be the remedy selected under the abandoned waste sites associated with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which is commonly called Superfund, or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for operating site cleanups. Other programs, such as the brownfields program, the underground storage tanks removal program, and the federal facility program may also include some version of institutional controls and monitoring as the remediation outcome. The need for institutional controls occurs when future land use allows for having a residual from the contamination being secured without a required removal or treatment of the pollution. When institutional controls are selected for a contaminated site as a remedy for addressing the cleanup, it usually requires long-term monitoring and reporting that occurs on a routine basis for the protection of public health. Institutional controls involve both administrative and legal controls to protect exposure to the contamination. Specifically, some institutional controls can be physical barriers around the contamination, such as fences, containment ­structures, security guards, informational signs, the removal of access to the site by the public, and other means necessary to separate the contamination exposure from the general public and the environment. Some simple institutional ­monitoring includes water, air, and soil sampling, depending on the type of contamination. Institutional monitoring and controls are identified in the final plans and strategies under the various environmental laws and then usually reviewed during a public comment period before being adopted. Different land uses can be proposed for the area around the monitored site that are shown to be within acceptable risks to the public. For example, land uses of an institutional controlled site may include nonintrusive activities with a restriction on the use of groundwater, assuming that is the location of the contamination. Thus, the role of future land use is critical to setting the institutional controls. Another type of control can be the use of easements that restrict the land use or restrictive covenants. These types of institutional controls are legally based to restrict future activities of the land. Other institutional controls can include zoning; building codes; government bans on the use of the resources associated with



International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 371

the land, such as fishing, groundwater use, and recreational uses; and other public uses that may expose the public to the contamination. Often legal documents such as administrative orders, permits, Federal Facility Agreements for contamination on federal lands, or consent decrees are issued with the required monitoring and institutional controls that have been adopted for the contaminated site. The site may also require informational notices warning the public of health and environmental issues at the site. For instance, consumption advisories of fish may be required to notify the public of certain limitations at the site. In addition, public lands may have signage warning the public not to swim or recreate in the controlled area. Institutional controls and monitoring are used in remediating contaminated sites that do not pose a significant risk to the public. This option has been opposed by many environmental interest groups and local community members because it restricts future land uses of the site. This approach, when practical, has the benefit of being more cost effective than a complete removal or in situ treatment of the pollution. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. “Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites.” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. December. EPA-540-R-09-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Superfund: Institutional Controls.” Last updated June 4, 2018. Accessed August 20, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­superfund​/­superfund​-­institutional​-­controls.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is an intergovernmental, specialized cancer research agency formed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations in 1965. Its mission is to promote international collaboration and research into the causes of cancer. Interdisciplinary, the agency combines skills in epidemiology, laboratory sciences, and biostatistics to identify causes of cancer. The agency was created as a result of an initiative brought forth by a leading group of French public officials who persuaded President Charles de Gaulle of France to adopt the project. The project gained international support, leading to IARC’s creation on May 20, 1965, by a resolution of the World Health Assembly as the specialized cancer agency of the WHO, with its headquarters located in Lyon, France. Founding members included France, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States, and West Germany. Today, the agency has grown to a membership of twenty-six nations—the founding states plus Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Morocco,

372

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

the Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Russia, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. The IARC is governed by its own Governing Council, which has, over the past five decades, conducted research worldwide, including assisting cancer researchers from developing nations through education and collaborative projects. Activities by the IARC are primarily funded by member states through statutory contributions with a 2018–2019 biennium budget approved by the Governing Council in May 2017 of 44.1 million euros (WHO 2018). Scientific work at the IARC is organized into research sections. Each section is further composed into one or more research groups that focus on particular areas of cancer research, with collaboration occurring among groups with common interests. Currently, the IARC has approximately three hundred staff from more than fifty countries. Its director is elected by the Governing Council and is responsible for developing and implementing the agency’s scientific program as well as overseeing its daily operations. The IARC monograph program is a core element of its extensive research activities. Within its working groups, the IARC classifies lists of known and suspected human carcinogens and publishes its monograph series by categorizing agents, mixtures, and exposures into five levels of risk to humans based on scientific judgment and strength of evidence for carcinogenicity. Classifications include the following: • • • • •

Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans. Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.

The IARC has dealt with controversy. On March 20, 2015, the IARC classified glyphosate, most commonly known as Roundup and produced by Monsanto, as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). As a consequence, various national regulatory authorities responded and questioned the classification and underwent reevaluations of the risk imposed to humans from exposure to glyphosate. Other items under classification, including mobile phones (Group 2B) and processed meat (Group 1), have stirred similar controversy. The IARC plays an important role in cancer worldwide in education, research, and monitoring geographical variations and trends. Among its key publications include the Cancer Incidence in Five Continents series and the Global Cancer Observatory, which serves to monitor cancer data from around the world. Brian Paulson See also: Herbicides; Monsanto Company.

Further Reading

Bouvard, Veronique, Dana Loomis, Kathryn Z. Guyton, Yann Grosse, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Heidi Mattock, and Kurt Straif. 2015. “Carcinogenicity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat.” Lancet Oncology 16(16): 1599–1600.



International Joint Commission (IJC) 373

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2017. IARC Monographs: Glyphosate in Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. Accessed October 6, 2018. ­https://​­monographs​.­iarc​.­f r​/­w p​-­content​/­uploads​/­2018​/­07​/­mono112​.­pdf. International Programme on Chemical Safety. 1999. “Chemical Safety Information from Intergovernmental Organizations.” Accessed October 6, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­inchem​ .­org​/­documents​/­iarc​/­monoeval​/­eval​.­html. Kelland, Kate. 2016. “Exclusive: WHO Cancer Agency Asked Experts to Withhold Weedkiller Documents.” October 25, 2016. Accessed October 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­reuters​.­com​/­article​/­us​-­health​-­cancer​-­iarc​-­exclusive​-­idUSKCN12P2FW. Saracci, R., and C. P. Wild. 2015. International Agency for Research on Cancer: The First 50 Years. 1965–2015. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Tomatis, L. 2002. “The IARC Monographs Program: Changing Attitudes towards Public Health.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 8(2): 144–152. World Health Organization (WHO). 2018. “Enabling Our Research for Cancer Prevention.” Accessed October 5, 2018. ­w ww​.­iarc​.­f r​/­en​/­about​/­f unding​_regularbudget​ .­php.

International Joint Commission (IJC) The International Joint Commission (IJC), created by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and signed by the United States and Canada, is one of the longest active environmental bilateral cooperative efforts. Because of the shared boundaries of the Great Lakes between the two countries, the IJC was created to resolve any disputes over the waters. The organization is not a regulatory body like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Instead, it recommends and advises the countries on projects that may impact water levels and helps to settle any transboundary issues involving the Great Lakes. Specifically, the IJC assists the two countries in the protection of the transboundary environment, including the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), and the improvement of transboundary air quality; it also alerts the governments to emerging issues along the boundary that may give rise to bilateral disputes (IJC 2019). The IJC does rule on applications for approval of projects affecting boundary or transboundary waters and may regulate the operation of these projects. The only lake of the five Great Lakes that does not share a boundary with Canada is Lake Michigan. However, the five Great Lakes are an ecosystem that is intimately tied together. Recommendations by the IJC take into account a wide range of freshwater uses of the lakes. The balance of interests from drinking water, shipping, hydroelectric power, agriculture, recreation, the fishing industry, and the management of shoreline properties are all involved in the authority of the IJC. The IJC has six appointed commissioners, three from each country, with one person serving as a chair commissioner for each country. In the United States, the U.S. Senate approves the confirmation of the recommendation of the president for

374

International Joint Commission (IJC)

appointment to the IJC. In Canada, the Cabinet appoints the members. The IJC has offices in Washington, DC, and Ottawa and Windsor, Canada. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (1997); Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) (1972, 1978, 1987, 2012).

Further Reading

International Joint Commission (IJC). 2019. “The Role of the IJC.” Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ijc​.­org​/­en​/­who​/­role.

J Johnson & Johnson Johnson & Johnson produces a variety of health-care and personal care products used in hospitals and by consumers. Its headquarters is in New Jersey, and it was 134,000 employees worldwide and more than 260 operating companies located in sixty countries (Johnson & Johnson 2018). The company reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2017) that it has three business segments: consumer, pharmaceutical, and medical devices. The consumer segment includes products for beauty and infant care, nonprescription medicines, women’s health care, oral hygiene products, and wound care. Some of the major brands in this segment include Aveeno, Neutrogena, Tylenol, Sudafed, Pepcid, Benadryl, Zyrtec, Motrin, Neosporin, Band-Aid, and women’s menstrual pads Stayfree and Carefree. The pharmaceutical segment is divided into neuroscience, infectious disease, immunology, oncology, pulmonary hypertension, metabolism, and cardiovascular disease. This segment includes vaccinations and medicines and therapeutic treatments for mental health, arteries, pulmonary hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, certain cancers, and Crohn’s disease. The medical device segment includes products sold for surgery, orthopedics, diabetes, eye health, and cardiovascular disease. The company reported sales of $76.5 billion in 2017 (SEC 2017), with the United States being the larger portion of those sales. The pharmaceutical business segment makes up the bulk of sales, $36.3 billion in 2017. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1886 by three Johnson brothers. It claims that it hired eight women in its first twelve employees and has remained committed to the female consumer. It also states that it was the first major company in the United States to hire a female scientist (Johnson & Johnson 2018). The company began by manufacturing sterile bandages, sutures, surgical dressings, and medicated plasters. The first commercial first aid kit was produced in 1888 for railroad workers but was adapted into a household accident kit for common use by consumers. Travel kits, Boy Scout first aid kits, automobile kits, airplane travel kits, snake bite kits, and marine first aid kits have followed over the decades. In 1894, Johnson & Johnson created maternity kits that contained sterilized items for home births. For the Spanish-American War effort, in 1898, the company supplied first aid kits to the U.S. Army. In 1897, the company sold its first mass-produced menstruation pads for women. Prior to this time, most women used homemade pads. The company expanded with innovative products for the consumer, such as using the excess silk from the production of sterile sutures to make dental floss in 1898. The well-known

376

Johnson & Johnson

Band-Aid adhesive bandage was introduced in 1921. Another well-known brand is its baby lotion, which was introduced in 1944. In the 1930s and 1940s, the company introduced a number of products unlike anything in its past. In 1931, Johnson & Johnson provided the first contraceptive gel for women, which was a prescription medicine. In 1942, the company produced duct tape for the military during World War II. By the 1960s, the company had begun work in prescribed medicines. In 1967, Johnson & Johnson created the first antipsychotic pill, Haldol. In 1969, it advanced its work in sutures by inventing a synthetic sterile suture called the polypropylene suture. With concern about protection for nonprescription medicines, it invented the tamper-resistant safety seals for over-the-counter products. Acuvue contact lenses were created in 1987; these contacts could be worn for up to seven days, which was a more extended time period than other products. In 1998, the company invented Dermabond, a topical skin adhesive, to close open wounds without sutures. And, in 2015, the company released a drug for the treatment of myeloma cancer. Johnson & Johnson is party to numerous legal actions regarding injury and personal health issues, including class action suits. Some of the most extensive have included hip patients, with more than 10,000 claims settled; 53,600 claims on pelvic meshes; and 6,610 claims related to body powders containing talc (SEC 2017). The company and its subsidiaries are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) and associated with corrective actions that include underground storage tanks and contaminated soils under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (EPA 2018). One example is the lower Passaic River, which is a seventeen-mile-long area located in New Jersey. There are multiple parties associated with its contamination, and it was identified by the EPA as a Superfund site in 1984. Several remedial actions by the state of New Jersey and the EPA have taken place since that time. More than one hundred companies, including 3M, General Electric (GE), Occidental Chemical, and Johnson & Johnson will be paying for the $250 million cost of cleanup planned for the river (Bloomberg Environment 2018). The more recent controversial public health concern is the use of baby powder and its purported links to ovarian cancer. In 2018, the New York Times reported that the circuit court in Missouri required the company to pay $4.69 billion to twenty-two women and their families who claimed that asbestos in this Johnson & Johnson talcum powder product caused ovarian cancer. The punitive damages are one of the largest awarded in a product liability lawsuit (Hsu 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Bloomberg Environment. 2018. “Occidental Chemical Seeks to Split $250 Million Cleanup Bill.” July 2, 2018. Accessed September 13, 2018. ­https://​­bnanews​.­bna​ .­com​/­environment​-­a nd​- ­energy​/­occidental​- ­chemical​-­seeks​-­to​-­split​-­250​-­m illion​ -­cleanup​-­bill​-­1.



JustGreen Partnership (JGP) 377

Hsu, Tiffany. 2018. “Johnson & Johnson Told to Pay $4.7 Billion in Baby Power Lawsuit.” New York Times, July 12, 2018. Accessed September 13, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­nytimes​.­com​/­2018​/­07​/­12​/ ­business​/­johnson​-­johnson​-­talcum​-­powder​.­html. Johnson & Jonson. 2018. “Our Heritage.” Accessed September 13, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­jnj​ .­com​/­about​-­jnj​/­company​-­history. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Janssen Research and Development LLC (formerly Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development) in Spring House, Pennsylvania.” January 22, 2018. Accessed September 13, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­hwcorrectiveactionsites​ / ­hazardous​-­waste​-­cleanup​-­janssen​-­research​-­and​-­development​-­llc​-­formerly. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “Johnson & Johnson.” December 31, 2017. Accessed September 13, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­investor​.­jnj​.­com​/­_document​ ?­id​= ​­0000015a​-­d1ee​-­d39d​-­a37f​-­f5eec0c60000.

JustGreen Partnership (JGP) The JustGreen Partnership (JGP) is a nonprofit organization that was formed in the spring of 2007 by fifteen organizations and has since grown to over fifty organizations, primarily across New York. It includes such organizations as the Center for Environmental Health, Clean and Healthy New York, the Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition, the New York League of Conservation Voters, the New York State United Teachers, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice. The group is composed of health, environmental, disability, environmental justice, educational, faith-based, community, and worker advocates who are working for environmental health and justice throughout New York State. The partnership works at the local, state, and national level and is the New York–based SAFER collaboration. The JGP claims its mission is to seek to build a healthy economy that provides good jobs that produce clean products and services so that our workplaces, schools, homes, communities, and bodies are free of toxic chemicals. The JGP considers among its greatest successes its help in getting the first-inthe-nation ban on the “flame-retardant” chemical TCEP (tris(2-carboxyethyl) phosphine) and its help in achieving a state ban on bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups. In terms of working with the New York State legislature, the JGP supported passage of lead poisoning and primary prevention law and secured the passage of a lead in jewelry restriction and drafting of regulations by the Department of Health (DOH) (now covered by new federal Consumer Product Safety Commission law). Among JGP’s important reports are Is It in Us? Chemical Contamination of Our Bodies—Regulatory Failure and Opportunities for Action and Baby’s Toxic Bottle. In recent years, the JGP has supported several initiatives, all part of the Environmental Protection Fund. For instance, the JGP has supported the Pollution Prevention Institute, which offers assistance to start-up companies to demonstrate the environmental benefits of their innovative ideas. The JPG has also supported the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse, which provides technical support to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The JPG has also supported the Children’s Environmental Health Centers of Excellence. In general, the

378

JustGreen Partnership (JGP)

JPG has supported budget initiatives in the areas of environmental justice and health. Robert L. Perry See also: Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2); Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); WE ACT for Environmental Justice.

Further Reading

Clean and Healthy New York. 2017. “2017–18 Budget Priorities.” Accessed July 14, 2018. ­http://​­nyassembly​.­gov​/­write​/­upload​/­publichearing​/­000726​/­000779​.­pdf. JustGreen Partnership. “Home.” Accessed July 14, 2018. ­http://​­just​-­green​.­org.

K Killer Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania(1948) In late October 1948, an inversion layer that had trapped extraordinarily high levels of sulfur dioxide, sulfates, and fluorides from local steel mills caused the deaths of twenty people and adversely affected nearly seven thousand residents of Donora, Pennsylvania, in the Monongahela River valley (Kiester 1999). This tragedy, along with others of the era, would later lead to the convening of the first national air pollution conference and the eventual passage of the nation’s first Clean Air Act (CAA). THE “DONORA DEATH FOG” By the mid–twentieth century, residents of Donora had long been used to the acrid air that would envelope the mill town and denude the vegetation on the banks of the Monongahela River in western Pennsylvania. Donora, located about twenty miles south of Pittsburgh, was in the center of a heavily industrialized region. The town was home to the American Steel & Wire Company (ASW), a subsidiary of U.S. Steel, which also operated the Zinc Works plant in the area. The plant, built in 1915, was one of the largest facilities at the time. Its smokestacks, however, were less than 150 feet tall—far too short to propel their contents above the surrounding 600-foot hills (Davis 2002). Simply put, Donora was ill-suited for dispersing the atmospheric effluent. In fact, in 1918, the American Steel & Wire Company would pay off the first legal judgment against it for air pollution damage to health (Snyder 1994). The 1948 occurrence of thick smog was nothing new. Previous instances of thick smog had occurred in 1923 and 1938 (Fletcher 1949). A meteorologist from the U.S. Weather Bureau noted in his report a year after the 1948 disaster that the area’s river valley and its tributary valleys could be compared to a tunnel, having numerous “blind alley” tunnels, wherein, if wind circulation were weak, a constant emission of pollutants would produce a “steady accumulation of smoke and gases within the system” (Fletcher 1949). The pollution emitted by the mill and the zinc works plant typically included hydrogen fluoride, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, multiple sulfur compounds, and heavy metals (Jacobs et  al. 2018). The fluoride gas, in particular, could “eat the gloss off light bulbs, etch normal glass, and scar the teeth of children” (Davis 2002, 15). The steel mill and zinc works plant, which operated side by side, brought much economic prosperity to the town and operated twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. At its peak, Zinc Works employed about fifteen hundred workers, most of

380

Killer Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania

whom enjoyed an average workday of three hours but received the highest wages in town. Most of the workers were under twenty-five years old; few remained very long (Davis 2002). The disaster had its beginnings on the Tuesday morning of October 26, 1948. Under normal conditions, westerly winds in the area would dissipate the air pollution. However, on that Tuesday morning, a fog had settled over the town—the result of a high-pressure cold front that had caused an inversion layer, where colder air trapped warmer particulate- and gas-laden air below. By Friday, ­October 29, with the fog growing ever thicker, hospital admissions had increased dramatically. Many complained of coughs or searing chest pains, and people were beginning to die (Schroeder 2011). Rescue efforts on the part of ambulances and firefighters to deliver oxygen to the afflicted were hampered by the fog’s density. One of the town’s Board of Health members, Dr. Rongaus, warned those with chronic heart or respiratory ailments to leave town; however, with roads congested by smog and traffic, evacuation was difficult (Snyder 1994). The town set up a temporary morgue (Kiester 1999). The steel mill and zinc works continued to operate throughout the weekend, but by Sunday morning, November 1, Roger Blough, then the chief counsel of ASW, ordered the works’ furnaces to be dead-fired, without zinc oar. “A zinc furnace . . . cannot be allowed to stop; once cooled it can never be restarted. Dead firing . . . would protect the equipment while reducing the plant’s emissions” (Davis 2002, 19). So, although ASW reduced operations, it disclaimed any responsibility for the town’s deaths, arguing that Zinc Works had followed safety procedures that had been in operation since 1915 (Kiester 1999). By the time the fog dissipated on that Sunday, owing to a rainstorm, twenty had died in Donora and nearby Webster, with an additional 1,440 affected by serious illness and another 4,470 people who had mild or moderate symptoms The plants reopened on Monday. The tragedy of the “Donora Death Fog,” as it became known, quickly received national attention when Walter Winchell broadcast news of the disaster on his national radio show. Opinions on the causes of the Donora tragedy were quickly divided between those who felt the obvious culprit was the zinc works and those who argued that other factors were to blame. Dr. Rongaus, who was the only member of the Board of Health not employed by the mill, blamed the zinc works and said of the episode, “This was just plain murder” (Schroeder 2011). James Townsend, a public health researcher with ties to the industry, claimed that freak weather conditions were at fault. U.S. Steel issued a full-page newspaper ad that claimed its innocence in the tragedy, even while expressing solidarity with the suffering townspeople (Schroeder 2011). There was much debate concerning who could be trusted to objectively investigate the crisis (Jacobs et  al. 2018). Ultimately, borough leaders in Donora, members of the United Steelworkers Union, the State of Pennsylvania, and ASW itself convinced the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) to investigate the smog (Jacobs et  al. 2018). The investigation is considered to be the first large-scale epidemiological study of an environmental health disaster ever conducted in the United States (Jacobs et al. 2018). The PHS conducted an extensive study that



Killer Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania 381

included house-to-house surveys, autopsy reviews, veterinary investigations, air pollution monitoring stations, and analyses of weather conditions (Jacobs et al. 2018). Released in the following year as “Air Pollution in Donora, Pa.: Epidemiology of the Unusual Smog Episode of October 1948,” the PHS study was rife with controversy. Even the surveyors themselves noted problems with reporting impartial information. Those who wanted to blame the plant for culpability for the smog episode may have exaggerated their stories of illnesses. Others, because they feared a backlash from management, may have minimized their own illnesses (Schrenk et al. 1949). Philip Sadtler, an industry consultant at the time, called the PHS report a “whitewash” that helped U.S. Steel escape liability for the deaths and spared fluoride-emitting industries the expense of having to control their toxic emissions (Bryson 1998). Sadtler reported that he had found over one thousand parts per million of fluoride in an air-conditioning unit from Donora; as well, blood samples from those who had died showed twelve to twenty-five times the normal levels of fluoride (Davis 2002). In its conclusion, the PHS report did not claim that Zinc Works played any important part in the town’s deaths. “Despite independent tests showing that even sixty days later, air concentrations of fluoride gas were ten times what was then considered safe, the [PHS] made no measurements of fluoride levels for itself and did not mention the possibility of fluoride poisoning in its preliminary report” (Davis 2002, 25). Snyder (1994, 130) notes that the PHS’s inconclusive results largely supported the working assumptions of Zinc Works’ managers: “Air quality sampling, weather modeling, and the test smog did not pin responsibility for the smog upon the Zinc Works. Pollutant levels estimated from measurements taken during the test smog had not exceeded workplace safety limits.” The crisis, according to the report, was the result of a combination of fumes from a variety of sources, inclement weather, and preexisting respiratory and heart disease. In essence, the report relieved Zinc Works’ managers for the smog, something that would greatly disappoint those who had delayed filing legal claims in the belief that damage suits against ASW would confirm the involvement of the mills (Snyder 1994). In the sense of long-term effects of the smog, a 1959 study reported higher than expected cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality rates were observed in Donora, which suggested that the smog, in conjunction with long-term pollution overall, had longer-term effects than what was commonly acknowledged (Jacobs et al. 2018). Similarly, one analysis of sediment from a lake near Donora found that concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc have remained above the recommended concentration levels over seventy years after the smog crisis. The analysts of the study point out that events such as human disturbance or resuspension from flooding could release these contaminants back into the water, resulting in increased environmental and human exposures; thus, pollution that contributed to the 1948 smog crisis still remains a risk (Jacobs et al. 2018).

382

Killer Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania

EFFECTS OF THE DISASTER ON AIR POLLUTION REGULATION Prior to the Donora disaster, air pollution was not considered an urgent issue. There were no laws in the United States limiting the amount of toxins a company could release into the atmosphere. As well, deadly temperature inversions in the mid–twentieth century were not unheard of (e.g., the Meuse River valley in Belgium in 1930 and Poza Rica, Mexico, in 1950). During the 1940s, Los Angeles’ photochemical smog (a mixture of ozone and related compounds that are produced photochemically from directly emitted species) had certainly become well known. California passed its first state pollution law in 1947. In the wake of the Donora disaster, President Truman convened the first national air pollution conference in 1950, citing Donora as an important example of the need for such efforts (Kiester 1999). Just two years later, in 1952, the sulfur and soot-laden smog that covered London and claimed four thousand deaths over a two-week period provided further impetus for the need of air pollution regulation. In 1955, Congress responded with the passage of the Air Pollution Control Act, which identified air pollution as a national problem, and provided funds to the PHS to conduct research into the causes and control of air pollution (Helfand et al. 2001). In 1963, Congress passed the Clean Air Act of 1963 (CAA), which set emissions standards for stationary sources such as power plants and steel mills. Finally, in 1970, President Richard Nixon established the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by executive order, and the Clean Air Act was amended to institute National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which set exposure limits for several major air pollutants (Berger et al. 2017). Interestingly, the Donora smog crisis would become a seminal event for both the modern environmental movement and the United Steelworkers of America (USW). The crisis demonstrated that occupational health and safety issues extended beyond plant gates. At its 1949 convention, the USW discussed Donora and the prevention of future disasters. In 1963, it supported passage of the CAA. During the 1990s, the USW and the Sierra Club teamed up on several corporate campaigns—the basis of a “blue-green” alliance. In 2005, the USW and the Sierra Club called a daylong summit in Washington, DC, in which leaders of several major environmental organizations and union representatives declared that the labor and environmental movements in the United States could no longer act in isolation (Foster 2007). Donora, for all intents and purposes, became the “patient zero” in the history of American environmental regulation (Schlanger 2017). A sign at the Donora Smog Museum reads, “Clean Air Started Here.” In an ironic twist, President Trump, in explaining his withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, stated, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris” (Berger et al. 2017). Robert L. Perry See also: Automobile Emissions; Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970).



Known to Be a Human Carcinogen 383

Further Reading

Berger, Rebecca E., Ramya Ramaswami, Caren G. Solomon, and Jeffrey M. Drazen. 2017. “Air Pollution Still Kills.” New England Journal of Medicine 376: 2591–2592. Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nejm​.­org​/­doi​/­10​.­1056​/ ­NEJMe1706865. Bryson, Chris. 1998. “The Donora Fluoride Fog: A Secret History of America’s Worst Air Pollution Disaster.” Earth Island Journal 13(4): 36–37. Davis, Devra. 2002. When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle against Pollution. New York: Basic Books. Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­fulcrum​.­org​/­epubs​/­r r171x74w​?­locale​= ​­en​#/­6​/­4​[­xhtml00000002]!/4/1:0. Fletcher, Robert D. 1949. “The Donora Smog Disaster—A Problem in Atmospheric Pollution.” Weatherwise 2(3): 56–60. Foster, David. 2007. “Steel Magnolias: Labor Allies with the Environmental Movement.” New Labor Forum 16(1): 58–67. Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­jstor​ .­org​/­stable​/­40342668. Helfand, William H., Jan Lazarus, and Paul Theerman. 2001. “Donora, Pennsylvania: An Environmental Disaster of the 20th Century.” American Journal of Public Health 91(4): 553. Jacobs, Elizabeth T., Jefferey L. Burgess, and Mark B. Abbott. 2018. “The Donora Smog Revisited: 70 Years after the Event That Inspired the Clean Air Act.” American Journal of Public Heath 108(52): 585. Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­ajph​ .­aphapublications​.­org​/­doi​/­pdfplus​/­10​.­2105​/­AJPH​.­2017​.­304219. Kiester, Edwin, Jr. 1999. “A Darkness in Sonora.” Smithsonian 30(8): 22-24. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­smithsonianmag​.­com​/ ­history​/­a​-­darkness​-­in​-­donora​ -­174128118​/ Schlanger, Zoë. 2017. “The Story of 26 Sudden Deaths in 1948 Is a Bleak Reminder of Why America Needs Clean Air Laws.” Quartz (­qz​.­com). Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­qz​.­com​/­1117029​/­the​-­sudden​-­death​-­of​-­26​-­people​-­in​-­a​-­tiny​-­american​-­town​-­on​ -­halloween​-­weekend​-­shows​-­the​-­bleak​-­reality​-­of​-­life​-­before​-­clean​-­air​-­laws. Schrenk, H. H., Harry Heimann, George D. Clayton, W. M. Gafafer, and Harry Wexler. 1949. “Air Pollution in Donora, Pa.: Epidemiology of the Unusual Smog Episode of October 1948: Preliminary Report.” In Health Service Areas: Estimates of Future Physician Requirements, Issues 305–306. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­play​.­google​.­com​/ ­books​ /­reader​?­id​= ​­bDbrbikZPFsC​&­hl​= ​­en​&­pg​= ​­GBS​.­PP1. Schroeder, Gabe. 2011. “‘Just Plain Murder’: Public Debate and Corporate Diplomacy in Donora’s Fight for Clean Air.” History Teacher 45(1): 93–116. Accessed December 23, 2019. ­w ww​.­jstor​.­org​/­stable​/­41304033. Snyder, Lynne Page. 1994. “‘The Death-Dealing Smog over Donora, Pennsylvania’: Industrial Air Pollution, Public Health Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, 1948– 1949.” Environmental History Review 18(1): 117–139. doi:10.2307/3984747.

Known to Be a Human Carcinogen The phrase “known to be a human carcinogen” is one that is important for the public and consumers of chemicals to understand. Other related phrases commonly used include “suspected to cause cancer” and “a probable human carcinogen.” To begin, human carcinogens are agents that cause changes in the DNA of a human cell. Other types of carcinogens may accelerate cell division, which can

384

Known to Be a Human Carcinogen

lead to a higher chance of DNA mutations and cancer. In both cases, cancer is caused by uncontrolled growth from the spread of these abnormal cells throughout the body. When these agents are from external sources to the human body, it usually means exposure to an environmental toxic substance may have been the cause. These environmental factors include chemicals in the workplace or occupation exposures, household (paints, cleaners, pesticide uses, water, and food sources) and behavior exposures (smoking tobacco products, and secondhand smoke), ad exposures from toxic substances in the environment. Cancer-causing substances usually impact the human body based on different levels of exposure, such as concentrations of the substance and duration of the exposure. Information on concluding the exposure intensity and durations are performed in research studies using laboratory animals. Some information has also been gathered from epidemiolocal studies, such as those associated with international releases of chemicals and radiation exposures. One difficulty in understanding what is a cancer-causing agent is that these substances are situational and exposure based. This means that the route into the human body and the genetic composition of the person play key roles in the substances causing cancer. Duration of exposure is also a key factor. For instance, ultraviolet sunlight and alcohol beverages are listed as known carcinogens. However, exposure to small doses of these substances does not mean a human will incur cancer from them. Also, the dose one person can tolerate is very different from that of another person. Two important organizations that help to make the determination on cancer-causing agents include the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) under the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the United States. The NTP is an umbrella organization that was created in 1978. It comprises several other agencies dealing with public health in the United States. These contributing organizations include the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). IARC and NTP are nonaffiliated organizations, so substances will often appear on both lists. IARC is a global source for cancer information that has been operating since 1965; its headquarters is in Lyon, France. The IARC has evaluated over nine hundred potential cancer-causing substances since the 1980s. It classifies the substances into five groups that consider their impacts to humans which range from possible and probable carcinogens to unclassifiable and probably not carcinogens. It also clearly identifies with certainty those substances that are carcinogenic. Most chemicals are classified as probable, possible, or unknown carcinogens. The carcinogenic to humans classification identifies approximately one hundred substances. The NTP evaluates chemicals that impact public health. It issues a report that includes two categories for over 250 potential carcinogens. These include those known to be human carcinogens and reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2011), the NTP classification means that studies in humans have shown sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity, which indicates a causal relationship



Known to Be a Human Carcinogen 385

between exposure to the agent, substance, or mixture and human cancer. According to the NTP (2018), more than eighty thousand chemicals are registered for use in the United States, with about two thousand new chemicals added each year. Many of the effects are not known for all these chemicals, nor are they all tested. Most of these chemicals are used in everyday life, such as food, household cleaners, personal care products and cosmetics, lawn and outdoor care, and prescription drugs. The NTP is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Other state and federal public health and environmental agencies also publish lists classifying substances based on the likelihood of their being a carcinogen. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a similar system to IARC that includes additional categories of suggestive evidence of carcinogen potential, inadequate information, and not likely to be a cancer-causing agent. State agencies also provide lists to the public classifying cancer-causing substances. The American Cancer Society (ACS) is responsible for supporting cancer research and serves as a public information service on the topic. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the United States, only surpassed by heart disease. The ACS (2018) estimates that many deaths from cancer can be avoided. For instance, about 19 percent of all cancers are caused by smoking tobacco products. Many of the more than five million skin cancer cases that are diagnosed annually could have bene prevented by protecting skin from excessive sun exposure and not using indoor tanning devices (ACS 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “NTP: Known to Be a Human Carcinogen.” Toxic Substance Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed August 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxorganlisting​ .­asp​?­sysid​= ​­23. American Cancer Society (ACS). 2016. “Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.” Last revised November 3, 2016. Accessed August 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​ /­cancer​/­cancer​-­causes​/­general​-­info​/­k nown​-­and​-­probable​-­human​-­carcinogens​.­html. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2018. “IARC News.” Accessed August 20, 2018. h­ ttps://​­www​.­iarc​.­f r. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018. “About NTP.” Last updated February 13, 2018. Accessed August 21, 2018. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­about​/­index​.­html​.

L Landfill Disposal Management of solid and hazardous waste is a major environmental challenge facing the United States and the world. Landfill disposal is only one of several methods used to manage solid waste. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2016, 6), about 258 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) were generated in the United States in 2014. The largest components were organic materials such as paper and paperboard at over 26 percent and yard trimmings and food at 28.2 percent. Plastics comprised about 13 percent; rubber, leather, and textiles accounted for over 9 percent; and metals made up 9 percent. Wood followed at over 6 percent and glass at over 4 percent. Other miscellaneous wastes made up approximately 3 percent. Over eighty-nine million tons of MSW were recycled and composted, equivalent to a 34.6 percent recycling rate, and 89.5 percent of boxes were recycled. Sixty-one percent of yard waste was composted (EPA 2016, 6). Recycling and composting MSW reduces greenhouse gases (GHGs). In 2014, the 89 million tons of recycled MSW avoided over 181 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, comparable to the annual emissions of thirty-eight million passenger cars. In addition, over 33 million tons of MSW were combusted with energy recovery (EPA 2016, 6). WORLDWIDE SOLID WASTE GENERATION Worldwide, the volume of urban waste being produced is growing faster than the rate of urbanization. By 2025, there will be 1.4 billion additional people living in cities, with each person producing an average of 1.42 kilograms of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day—more than double the current average of 0.64 kilograms per day (one kilogram equals 2.20462 pounds). In a little over ten years, worldwide urban waste is estimated to more than triple, from 0.68 billion to 2.2 billion tons per year, according to the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP 2015). Top Solid Waste Producers Per Capita According to the UNEP (2015), the top producers of solid waste in the developing world in 2015 were small island nations, including Trinidad and Tobago

388

Landfill Disposal

(14.40 kilograms per capita per day), Antigua and Barbuda (5.5 kilograms), Saint Kitts and Nevis (5.45 kilograms), Sri Lanka (5.10 kilograms), Barbados (4.75 kilograms), Saint Lucia (4.35 kilograms), and the Solomon Islands (4.30 kilograms). Guyana (5.33 kilograms) and Kuwait (5.72 kilograms) also produced a large amount. The worldwide average is 1.2 kilograms per capita per day (UNEP 2015). New Zealand (3.68 kilograms), Ireland (3.58 kilograms), Norway (2.80 kilograms), Switzerland (2.61 kilograms), and the United States (2.58 kilograms) were the top five producers in the developed world. The countries producing the least urban waste were Ghana (0.09 kilograms) and Uruguay (0.11 kilograms) (UNEP 2015).

USE OF LANDFILLS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE UNITED STATES According to the EPA (2018a), despite significant recycling, 136 million tons of MSW were placed in U.S. landfills in 2014. New municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) are well-engineered and well-managed facilities for solid waste disposal. An MSWLF is a designated area of land or excavation that receives household waste and may also receive other types of nonhazardous wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and industrial nonhazardous solid waste. They are sited, designed, operated, and monitored to ensure compliance with federal regulations, including those associated with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). MSWLFs are also constructed to protect the environment from contaminants, which may be present in the waste stream. Landfills are banned from environmentally sensitive areas, and they use on-site environmental monitoring systems. These monitoring systems check for any sign of groundwater contamination and for landfill gases such as methane, which is a greenhouse gas (GHG). The use of MSWLFs is one of the most common approaches to managing waste in the United States. Unlike small countries such as Japan and Belgium, the United States has extensive tracts of open land, and landfills are usually less controversial and less expensive to site than other facilities that use incineration to reduce the volume of solid waste. In 2009, there were 1,908 MSWLFs in the continental United States. They are managed by the states and localities via delegated powers from the federal government (EPA 2018a). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MSWLFS Solid wastes in landfills typically generate methane gas and leachates (water that has percolated through a solid and leached out constituents that may or may not be hazardous) primarily due to microbial decomposition, climatic conditions, refuse characteristics, and landfilling operations. There is often a tendency for the



Landfill Disposal 389

gas and leachate to migrate away from the landfill boundaries and release into the surrounding environment, which presents serious environmental concerns. Besides potential health hazards, methane can produce fires, explosions, vegetation damage, unpleasant odors, landfill settlement, groundwater pollution, and gases that contribute to air pollution and climate change. Many landfills have equipment to burn off the excess methane gas.

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING LANDFILLS RCRA Subtitle D (for solid waste) and Subtitle C (for hazardous waste) along with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulate landfills in the United States. Nonhazardous Solid Waste Landfills Under RCRA Subtitle D, state and local governmental units are identified as the main planning, monitoring, and implementing bodies for dealing with solid waste (nonhazardous), including industrial solid waste and household trash. According to the EPA (2018a), Subtitle D regulates landfills designed to accept household waste, bioreactor landfills that specialize in quickly breaking down organic waste, industrial waste landfills that take in large volumes of waste from commercial and industrial operations, and construction and demolition debris landfills designed for this type of waste only, which commonly includes large and heavy materials such as cement, wood, drywall, glass, metal, and other building materials. Hazardous Waste Landfills RCRA Subtitle C is intended to make sure hazardous waste is managed to protect both the environment and health of the residents in the area. This subtitle includes requirements for the creation, transport, treatment, and disposal of these type of wastes. Subtitle C landfills include some specialized landfill types, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and coal combustion residual (CCR) or coal ash, as well as hazardous waste landfills that do not take in other types of waste at all. PCB disposal is also regulated by the TSCA. Enforcement Mechanisms for Solid Waste RCRA Subtitle D uses the states to manage nonhazardous solid waste. In turn, states usually delegate their management authorities to counties and cities. Each state must apply to the EPA for approval of its program. The EPA then determines whether the state’s plans meet the federal requirements for design and operation of the MSWLFs. States can choose to impose more rigorous requirements than the federal requirements (EPA 2018b).

390

Landfill Disposal

Summation of RCRA and Its 1984 Amendments Through RCRA and its amendments, the EPA has the following powers: 1. Identify, define, and list hazardous wastes. 2. Ban the land disposal of dioxin, PCBs, and other toxic synthetic chemicals. They must be neutralized and stored in drums or incinerated in approved facilities. 3. Set standards by keeping records on the manufacture, use, and disposal of hazardous waste. 4. Set standards for how private firms handle, package, and transport hazardous waste. 5. Set standards for the operation of hazardous waste disposal sites by private firms and require treatment of hazardous wastes prior to disposal. 6. License private waste disposal companies through a hazardous waste permit program. 7. Inspect private waste disposal sites. 8. Impose fines and penalties for violations. 9. Set standards for state hazardous waste management programs. The implementation of these programs is largely controlled by the states. Under RCRA, the EPA has set up a leaking underground storage tank (UST) program to identify and remove threats to groundwater. In addition to MSWLFs, as of 2011, RCRA governs the contraction of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) in the United States. There were 1,389 such sites for hazardous waste in the United States at that time (EPA 2018b). Unlicensed dumping of toxic waste is a felony under both RCRA and the Clean Water Act. OTHER STATUTES GOVERNING WASTE DISPOSAL AND POLLUTION CONTROL Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) The Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) gives the EPA the authority to identify hazardous waste sites, maintain the National Priorities List (NPL) of the most polluted sites (Superfund sites), recover the cleanup costs from those responsible for the dumping, and clean up abandoned sites. The EPA is also empowered to bill states 10 percent of the cost on private land and 50 percent on public land. Oil Pollution Act The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of oil and three hundred other substances in harmful amounts into surface water and groundwater. However,



Landfill Disposal 391

Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to strengthen the ability of EPA to prevent and respond to catastrophic oil spills. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) amendments of 1972 require manufacturers of chemical pesticides to register them with the EPA before they are distributed. Pesticides must be labeled, stored, handled, and applied according to federal standards. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) enables the EPA to obtain information from private companies on new and existing chemicals to control or in some cases ban the manufacture, distribution, importing, and processing of toxic chemicals. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was passed in 1986 in response to concerns regarding the environmental and safety hazards posed by the storage and handling of toxic chemicals. EPCRA was passed as a response to the 1984 disaster in Bhopal, India, which resulted in the accidental release of methylisocyanate, a deadly chemical compound, which killed and severely injured more than two thousand people (EPA 2018b). The Pollution Prevention Act The 1990 Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) created the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to promote the reduction, reuse, and recycling of toxic chemicals and waste in general. Businesses must report the amounts of toxic substances they treat, dispose of, recycle, reuse, or release into the environment. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics is responsible for administering the EPCRA, the TSCA, and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) (EPA 2018b). WORLDWIDE WASTE DISPOSAL Developing Countries Most developing countries lack any organized means of managing solid waste. In some countries, garbage is rarely collected. Regulations vary from country to country and from town to town, and corrupt public officials will

392

Landfill Disposal

often look the other way for a small bribe when it comes to adherence to trash laws. Laws are usually lax—open burning of garbage and open dumping is a customary practice. Frequently, a lack of funds prevents municipalities in these countries from creating a proper waste management system. Moreover, landfills are left exposed to the environment and provide a feeding place for bacteria, vermin, and birds. Open landfills are a significant source of air pollution and communicable disease. One of the worst examples of solid waste management in a developing nation is in Manila, the capital city of the Philippines. Residents generate 8,000 tons (7,982 metric tons) of garbage each day; yet, for decades, the government did not collect the garbage or educate the public about recycling or other waste management options. Consequently, the city’s solid waste accumulated year after year at various sites, creating mountains of trash. The dumps attracted flies, rats, and other vermin (Climate Policy Watcher 2018). According to the UNEP (2015), open dumps were also used by the poor to scavenge to earn a small income. Many people even lived on the dumps in cardboard shanties amid rotting garbage, methane fumes, and various toxins. At the beginning of the twentieth century, one of the biggest open dumps—a huge trash mountain called Payadas—collapsed after typhoon rains and destroyed a shantytown, killing 219 people. While the government eventually cleaned up Payadas, it created a new dump nearby that is accumulating trash while providing income for many poor residents. Waste management conditions in Manila are duplicated in many developing nations across the globe. In Thailand, for instance, when one travels by open trains (no windows that can be closed), there are hundreds of drums proximate to the tracks that are regularly used by residents to burn trash and waste, thereby transferring noxious odors, chemicals, and bacteria into the atmosphere. John Munro See also: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Hazardous Waste; Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (1990); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976); Toxic Chemicals, Incineration of; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Climate Policy Watcher. 2018. “Garbage Challenges in Developing Countries.” October 17, 2018. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­climate​-­policy​-­watcher​.­org​ /­waste​-­management​/­garbage​-­challenges​-­in​-­developing​-­countries​.­html. UN Environment Programme (UNEP). 2015. Global Waste Management Outlook. Accessed July 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­unenvironment​.­org​/­resources​/­report​/­global​ -­waste​-­management​-­outlook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2014 Factsheet.” Factsheet, November 2016. Accessed ­https://​­www​ .­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2016​-­11​/­documents​/­2014​_smmfactsheet​_508​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018a. “Basic Information about Landfills.” Last updated February 14, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­landfills​/ ­basic​ -­i nformation​-­a bout​-­landfillshttps://­w ww​.­e pa​.­gov​/­landfills​/ ­basic​-­i nformation​ -­about​-­landfills.



Laundry Detergents 393

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018b. “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” Last updated September 13, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­landfills​/­municipal​-­solid​-­waste​ -­landfills.

Laundry Detergents Among the most commonly used household products are laundry detergents. Unfortunately, many brands of leading detergents often contain harmful chemicals that can lead to negative health consequences, such as skin and throat irritation, and even to carcinogenicity. Worldwide use of laundry detergents is huge: approximately two billion kilograms per year—much of which is ultimately deposited in aquatic systems (Sobrino-Figueroa 2018). Prior to World War I, most people used soap to clean their laundry; however, owing to the shortage of fats and oils used in manufacturing explosives during the war, synthetic detergents were developed, and their use increased several fold after World War II when scientists discovered that petrochemicals could replace soaps. By the 1950s, detergents had largely replaced soaps (Nelson 2018). With so much use of laundry detergents worldwide, there is increased concern about the products’ carbon footprint. According to the Wall Street Journal, the average American family does about three hundred loads of laundry per year, or about six loads per week, which suggests a per-family carbon footprint from doing laundry of about 480 pounds per year, or about 10 pounds per week. Added to this are the attendant energy costs of running washers and dryers (Ball 2008). Several organic and inorganic chemical compounds go into the making of laundry detergents, including surfactants (which help to lower the surface tension of the cleaning water to make the water “wetter”), builders (which supply alkalinity to assist cleaning), anti-redepositioning agents (which help to keep soil particles from resettling on fabrics), corrosion inhibitors (which are typically found in the form of sodium silicates), fluorescent whitening agents, processing aids, pigments, preservatives, fragrances, opacifiers, bleach, enzymes, fillers, and suds control agents (ACI n.d.). In terms of toxicity, laundry detergents have mainly been studied for their impacts on humans and aquatic life. At least until the late twentieth century, one of the most common ingredients in both laundry and dishwashing detergents was phosphates. These are often carried into waste systems and remain difficult to breakdown through ordinary wastewater processing systems. Thus, they end up in streams, lakes, and rivers, causing increased algae growth, which in turn affects many types of aquatic species. By the 1960s and early 1970s, some of the Great Lakes were found to be heavily polluted with phosphates from detergents, and consumer agencies began calling for their ban (Duke 2017). However, some have argued that the concentration of phosphates in detergents has little statistically significant effect on detergent toxicity. Instead, it has been argued that detergent toxicity is most likely due to other detergent components, such as surfactants, enzymes, and chelates (e.g., sodium citrate), which are intended to reduce the effects of dissolved metals such as iron and manganese.

394

Laundry Detergents

Warne and Schifko (1999) point out that perhaps one of the most environmentally problematic compounds is the surfactants, which can form micelles (an aggregate of molecules in a colloidal solution) that increase the toxicity of other organic compounds in the same solutions. Their review of the research found that some detergent components can lead to sexual disruption of fish, and they may have estrogenic effects as well. Other harmful aquatic effects from detergents (particularly in their surfactants) include the modification of gill tissues, causing respiration problems in fish and mollusks, and changes in the nerve receptors of fish that induce disorders in feeding and thermoregulation (Sobrino-Figeroa 2018). In terms of toxic effects on humans, there are several issues. Most exposure to these products occurs through direct skin exposure or through inhalation. For instance, laundry detergents, especially when combined with the use of fabric softeners and dryer sheets, have been found to emit more than twenty-five different volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Nelson 2018). Among the most toxic laundry detergents are nonylphenols and nonylphenol ethoxylates (also referred to as NE/NPEs), which have been linked to cancer, DNA damage, skin allergies and irritation, asthma and respiratory problems, and hormone disruption; 1,4-dioxane, one of the most common chemicals in personal hygiene products and laundry detergents, which has led to concerns about cancer, skin and eye irritation, and nonreproductive organ toxicity; sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) and sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), which are used as bubbling agents and have been shown to lead to increased risk of skin, eye, or respiratory irritation and nervous system problems; and artificial fragrances, whose health concerns include respiratory distress, dermatitis, irritated eyes, and potential effects on the reproductive system (The Hearty Soul 2019). Testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that 75 percent of the fragrances contain phthalates, which have been linked to diabetes, obesity, and hormone disruption (Nelson 2018). Since their introduction in early 2012, one of the more important concerns related to laundry detergents is the use of laundry detergent packs. These are small single-dose pods or pouches that contain concentrated liquid laundry detergent surrounded by a water-soluble membrane. By May 2012, reports from poison centers in the United States were showing an increasing number of cases of exposure to these pods (mainly from ingestion) among young children (Forrester 2012). A study from the National Poison Data System found that between 2012 and 2017, there were a reported 72,947 exposures to liquid laundry detergent packets, 90 percent of which occurred in children under the age of six because they had trouble distinguishing the packets from candies and gummies (Mammoser 2019). Nevertheless, new safety standards, including using child-resistant containers, opaque packaging, minimum “burst strength” (to make the packets more difficult to pop open), and the use of a bittering agent on the packets have helped to discourage consumption (Mammoser 2019). Robert L. Perry See also: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).



Lead (Pb) 395

Further Reading

American Cleaning Institute (ACI). n.d. “Ingredient Glossary.” Accessed August 15, 2019. ­https://​­w ww​.­cleaninginstitute​.­org​/­u nderstanding​-­products​/­ingredients​/­ingredient​ -­glossary. Ball, Jeffrey. 2008. “Six Products, Six Carbon Footprints.” Wall Street Journal, October 6, 2008. Accessed August 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­wsj​.­com​/­a rticles​ /­SB122304950601802565. Duke, Brantley. 2017. “Why Are Phosphates in Detergent So Dangerous.” SFGate, July 21, 2017. Accessed August 15, 2019. ­https://​­homeguides​.­sfgate​.­com​/­why​-­are​ -­phosphates​-­in​-­detergent​-­so​-­dangerous​-­12268795​.­html. Forrester, Mathias B. 2012. “Surveillance Detection of Concentrated Laundry Detergent Pack Exposures.” Clinical Toxicology 50: 847–850. The Hearty Soul. 2019. “List: Worst Laundry Detergent Brands with Ingredients Linked to Allergies, Cancer.” Accessed August 15, 2019. ­https://​­theheartysoul​.­com​/­laundry​ -­detergent​-­brands​-­health​-­concerns. Mammoser, Gigen. 2019. “Why Laundry Detergent Pods Are Still a Danger for Kids.” Healthline. Accessed August 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­healthline​.­com​/ ­health​-­news​ /­tide​-­pods​-­are​-­still​-­a​-­problem. Nelson, Marilee. 2018. “Dangerous Detergent: Is My Laundry Detergent Toxic?” Branch Basics. Accessed August 15, 2019. ­https://​­branchbasics​.­com​/­blog​/­laundry​-­chemicals. Sobrino-Figueroa, A. 2018. “Toxic Effect of Commercial Detergents on Organisms from Different Trophic Levels.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25: 13283–13291. Warne, M. St. J., and A. D. Schifko. 1999. “Toxicity of Laundry Detergent Components to a Freshwater Cladoceran and Their Contribution to Detergent Toxicity.” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 44: 196–206.

Lead (Pb) Lead (Pb) is a bluish-gray heavy metal that is widely distributed throughout the environment and homes and has well-known major health implications for all people, even from low-concentration exposures. Lead is a neurotoxin that impacts the central nervous system, particularly brain development, which makes it highly dangerous for children. Exposure and poisoning are marked by neurotoxicity, neurodevelopmental defects, and gastrointestinal, kidney, and bone marrow toxicity; yet, immediate exposure goes undetected most of the time because it yields no observable symptoms. Although lead occurs naturally in the earth’s crust in trace amounts, exposure primarily comes from paint, gasoline, and industry, through burning fossil fuels, mining, lead smelters, and manufacturing. Lead has been used in many products, such as ceramics, cosmetics, plumbing materials (pipes and solder), batteries, ammunition, and vests to shield people from X-rays and certain industrial tests, but lead use in products has drastically reduced in the last several decades with the removal of lead from gasoline and paint. Federal and state regulatory agencies have strict regulations for lead in the air, drinking water, soil, the home, consumer products, food, and the workplace.

396

Lead (Pb)

Lead transports long distances through the air and will eventually enter soil or groundwater. Most exposure occurs by ingesting lead-contaminated food or water, which, in addition to outside sources, can become contaminated by lead-containing dishes or glasses. Exposure can also come from lead dust off old cracking and chipping lead paint and through hobbies, such as stained glass production that uses leaded solder, which vaporizes during production. Young children have increased exposure through ingestion by the hand-to-mouth pathway. Children are also exposed by drinking water contamination and, in the past, from lead-based paint on toys, in the household, and on playgrounds. Before 1978, when the federal government banned lead-based paint, most homes contained it. Some older homes today still contain lead paint, which is one of the most common causes of lead poisoning. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2018), there is no safe blood lead level in children. A pregnant woman’s exposure is of particular concern because it can expose her developing baby. In a USA Today article about the widespread concern over lead in drinking water across many U.S. cities and towns, Laura Unger and Mark Nichols (2016) reported that at least four million households today have children exposed to high levels of lead. The CDC (2018) reports that there are approximately a half million children in the United States under the age of five with blood lead levels above the intervention limit. One recent example of lead exposure is an entire population of children exposed through contaminated drinking water in Flint, Michigan, which captured the public’s attention nationwide as well as that of Congress. In 2016 an EPA employee discovered that lead levels were extremely high in the water, but federal and state officials ignored the problem. The cause was directly linked to the switch of the city’s drinking water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River, which was a more corrosive water. State officials did not use the customary anticorrosive agents on their pipes to protect against lead leaching out into the water, and the result was many months of lead exposure to Flint residents and their children. Because of this event, the top EPA regional administrator resigned, and several state officials underwent criminal prosecution. Lead exposure has been significantly decreased following the government’s action to ban lead’s use in many products and restrict occupational exposure. In addition, plastics, steel, and zinc have replaced lead in many products. Tin has been used as a substitute in solder for potable water systems, and the electronics industry has transitioned to using lead-free solders. Six lead mines in Missouri plus five in Alaska, Idaho, and Washington comprise the lead mine production in the United States. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2017, 96), “The lead-acid battery industry accounted for more than 85 percent of reported US lead consumption during 2016. Lead-acid batteries were primarily used as starting-lighting-ignition batteries for automobiles, as industrial-type batteries for standby power for computer and telecommunications networks, and for motive power.” The last lead smelter in the United States closed in 2013, so the United States has increased imported refined lead in recent years, during which Australia,



Lead Prohibited in Automobile Gasoline Additive 397

China, Ireland, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, and Russia have been significant international lead resources. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination (2016); Neurological Toxicity.

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2018. “Lead.” Last updated July 18, 2018. Accessed September 7, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­nceh​/­lead. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). n.d. “Blood Lead Levels in Children.” Accessed September 7, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­nceh​/­lead​/­ACCLPP​/ ­Lead​_Levels​_in​_Children​_Fact​_Sheet​.­pdf. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Lead, CID=5352425.” PubChem Database. Accessed September 7, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound​/­Lead. Ungar, Laura, and Mark Nichols. 2016. “Four Million Americans Could Be Drinking Toxic Water and Would Never Know.” USA Today, December 13, 2016. Accessed September 7, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­usatoday​.­com​/­story​/­news​/­2016​/­12​/­13​/ ­broken​ -­system​-­means​-­m illions​-­of​-­r ural​-­a mericans​-­exposed​-­t o​-­poisoned​-­or​-­u ntested​ -­water​/­94071732. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Lead: Protect Your Family from Exposures to Lead.” Last updated August 30, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­lead​/­protect​-­your​-­family​-­exposures​-­lead​#­older. U.S. Geological Survey. 2017. “Lead.” Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2017: 96–97. Accessed September 7, 2017. ­https://​­minerals​.­usgs​.­gov​/­minerals​/­pubs​ /­commodity​/­lead​/­mcs​-­2017​-­lead​.­pdf.

Lead Prohibited in Automobile Gasoline Additive(1986) Lead’s toxicity has been known for over three thousand years, and it is one of the most frequently observed causes of occupational disease. During the early 1920s, as competition among automobile manufacturers became fiercer—particularly among Ford, General Motors (GM), and Studebaker—greater efforts were directed toward making cars larger, more fuel efficient, and faster, and the industry largely ignored lead’s dangers. In 1922, engineers at the General Motors Research Corporation in Dayton, Ohio, discovered that adding tetraethyl lead (TEL) to gasoline increased the fuel’s octane and eliminated engine “knock.” GM contracted with DuPont and Standard Oil of New Jersey (now known as Exxon) to produce leaded gasoline. Despite many occupational illnesses and deaths related to lead exposure, production of TEL continued for several decades. The phasing out of TEL production started in the 1960s, and by 1986, it was prohibited as an automobile gasoline additive. First discovered by a German chemist in 1854, TEL was not used commercially on account of “its known deadliness” (Kitman 2000). However, the automotive industry, in its search for an antiknock compound, was interested in the metal as a fuel additive. Between 1916 and 1921, Charles F. Kettering—GM’s vice president for research and also president of the Society of Automotive Engineers—and his colleagues at GM’s research laboratories in Dayton, Ohio,

398

Lead Prohibited in Automobile Gasoline Additive

were engaged in a search for antiknock fuel additives that would improve engine compression and power. Although lead was not the best additive in terms of performance, Kettering and division head Thomas Midgley found it to be the cheapest. GM began preparing to market leaded gasoline. The new product was named “Ethyl Gas” (not to be confused with ethyl alcohol), and in February 1923, the first public sale of ethyl gasoline was made in Dayton, Ohio. GM held the patent, but Standard Oil had the better means of production. GM and Standard Oil jointly formed a new corporation, the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation, in the summer of 1924. Warnings about the danger of leaded gasoline came directly to Midgley and Kettering from research scientists at the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS). In public, leaded gasoline was portrayed as a breakthrough. However, in the TEL refineries, workers were routinely exposed to highly concentrated lead vapor. Seven workers died between September 1923 and the fall of 1924 in GM’s Dayton, Ohio, and DuPont’s southern New Jersey factories. Between October 26 and October 30, 1924, forty-nine workers at the Standard Oil Company’s experimental laboratories at the Bayway plant near Elizabeth, New Jersey, experienced severe trauma. Five of the workers died in quick succession. In the wake of the tragedy, public concern grew about the health dangers from leaded gasoline, and in reaction, several cities and states banned the sale of it. Industrial scientists continued to defend leaded gasoline, and public health experts repeatedly warned of its dangers. By 1926, the USPHS had concluded that leaded gasoline posed no immediate threat to the public, and by 1936, TEL fluid was being added to 90 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States. The phaseout of leaded gasoline began in the 1950s after several air pollution incidents in London, Los Angeles, New York, and Donora, Pennsylvania, awakened interest in public health issues, including leaded gasoline. American automobile manufacturers were concerned that air pollution would pose a threat to their businesses, and in the mid-1950s, they concluded a formal agreement to license pollution control devices, such as the catalytic converter (Kitman 2000). Beyond its seemingly prohibitive costs, one of the major problems with the use of the converters was that lead ruined their platinum surfaces. Stronger public pressure for cleaner air led to the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA), which mandated a 90 percent reduction in three major emissions: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and other hydrocarbons (mostly unburned fuel). In 1973, the year in which the production of leaded gasoline reached its peak, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced regulations requiring a gradual reduction in the lead content of each refinery’s total gasoline pool. More phasedowns of leaded gasoline continued throughout the 1970s, and in the meantime, automakers equipped new cars with catalytic converters designed to run only on unleaded fuel starting in 1975 and 1976, and new unleaded gasoline pumps began appearing at filling stations nationwide (Kovarik 2005). By then, studies showed increasing evidence of adverse effects of atmospheric lead on the intelligence of children and on hypertension in adults, further prompting public pressure to accelerate the phaseout of lead in gasoline (Newell and Rogers 2003).



Learning Disabilities 399

In August 1984, the EPA proposed a reduction of lead to 0.1 grams per leaded gallon (gplg) by January 1, 1986. Because it was known that some refineries would not be able to reach the standard quickly enough, the EPA considered both a gradual phasedown as well as a total ban. In 1985, the EPA reduced the standard to 0.5 gplg, and beginning in 1986, the allowable content of lead in leaded gasoline was reduced to 0.1 gplg. By 1986, the EPA’s standard represented a drop of more than 98 percent in the lead content of U.S. gasoline from 1970 to 1986. With the phaseout of leaded gasoline, the average blood lead level had dropped to 3.6 µg/dL by 1996, with similar declines in blood lead levels corresponding to leaded gasoline phaseouts observed throughout the world (Kovarik 2005). Robert L. Perry See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Gasoline; Killer Smog in Donora, Pennsylvania (1948); Lead (Pb); Workplace Lead Poisoning in Bayway, New Jersey (1924).

Further Reading

Kitman, Jamie Lincoln. 2000. “The Secret History of Lead.” The Nation, March 2, 2000. Accessed July 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­thenation​.­com​/­article​/­secret​-­history​-­lead. Kovarik, William. 2005. “Ethyl-Leaded Gasoline: How a Classic Occupational Disease Became an International Public Health Disaster.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11: 384–397. Newell, Richard G., and Kristian Rogers. 2003. “The U.S. Experience with the Phasedown of Lead in Gasoline.” Resources for the Future. Accessed July 11, 2018. ­http://​­web​.­mit​.­edu​/­ckolstad​/­w ww​/ ­Newell​.­pdf. Rosner, David, and Gerald Markowitz. 1985. “A ‘Gift of God’? The Public Health Controversy over Leaded Gasoline during the 1920s.” Accessed July 6, 2018. ­http://​­www​ .­columbia​.­edu​/­itc​/ ­hs​/­pubhealth​/­p6300​/­client​_edit​/­pdfs​/­rosner1​.­pdf.

Learning Disabilities Learning disabilities from exposure to toxic chemicals is a serious concern for parents and children’s health practitioners. Some chemicals and contaminants are known toxins to children and developing fetuses. However, the etiology (cause) of the growing occurrences of learning disabilities is unknown, and researchers are questioning the role of toxic chemicals that children are widely exposed to as they mature, many of which remain untested for impacts to children. Today, children are exposed to thousands of synthetic chemicals from birth. A leading organization in this area is the Children’s Environmental Health Center, located at the Ichan School of Medical at Mount Sinai Institute in New York. To those researchers involved with the center’s exposomic studies, the view is that all diseases have an environmental component. Researchers at the Mount Sinai Institute for Exposomic Research are studying how early environmental exposures affect human health, disease, and development. The exposome is the measurement of all exposures from conception to death, including the social and physical environment, chemicals, and diet. Environmental exposures that occur in utero and during childhood are particularly critical to help us understand the development

400

Learning Disabilities

of disease and translate those findings into new strategies for prevention and treatment (Children’s Environmental Health Center 2019). According to Phillip Landrigan, a leading pediatrician and epidemiologist at Mount Sinai, “Over 85,000 synthetic chemical compounds are registered for commercial use under the Toxic Substances Control Act” (Landrigan and Slutsky 2018). Many of these chemicals are introduced in the home through foods and consumer products, common household items, and personal care products. Also, many of these chemicals have not been tested for toxicity to adult humans, let alone children. According to the World Bank (2019), Dr. Landrigan’s research was the pioneering work on the effects of lead poisoning in children that led the U.S. government to mandate the removal of lead from gasoline and paint. His research in this area is credited as reducing more than 90 percent of childhood lead poisoning over the past twenty-five years (World Bank 2019). As a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on pesticides, Dr. Landrigan focused on the relationship between pesticides and children’s diets. This work generated widespread understanding that children are uniquely vulnerable to toxic chemicals in the environment. The findings of the NAS Committee led to the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, the first legislation in the United States to include specific protections for infants and children. The Children’s Environmental Health Center has developed a list of ten chemical found in consumer products that are suspected to contribute to autism and learning disabilities (Landrigan, Lambertini, and Birnbaum 2012, 259): 1. Lead 2. Methylmercury 3. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 4. Organophosphate pesticides 5. Organochlorine pesticides 6. Endocrine disruptors 7. Automotive exhaust 8. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 9. Brominated flame retardants 10. Perfluorinated compounds The concerning scientific question is, do these chemicals play a role in the increase of neurodevelopmental disabilities such as autism and attention deficit disorders (ADD), asthma and childhood cancers, or endocrine disruption, when considering inherited factors. Genetic factors are still being studied in terms of their contributions to many learning disabilities versus environmental impacts, so studies are often inconclusive. Researchers are finding that environmental and genetic influences are intertwined, which makes isolating individual factors difficult to reach definitive conclusions. The Department of Health in the State of Washington studies show that approximately $74.3 billion of costs annually in the United States are attributable to the



Learning Disabilities 401

effect of environmental chemicals on intellectual disabilities from exposure to children. For instance, decreased intelligence from early childhood exposure to lead was estimated to result in about $675 million per year in income lost to those affected in Washington State. The NAS reports that 3 percent of all neurobehavioral disorders in children, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD)[,] . . . Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), [and] opposition defiance disorder (ODD)[,] among many others[,] are caused by toxic exposures in the environment and that another 25 percent are caused by interactions between environmental factors and genetics. But the precise environmental causes are not yet known. While genetic research has demonstrated that ASD and certain other neurodevelopmental disorders have a strong hereditary component, many believe that environmental causes may also play a role. (Children’s Environmental Health Center 2019)

Advocacy groups such as Rooted in Rights and Healthy Legacy represent coalitions of medical and children’s health supporters to promote a national call to action to significantly reduce exposure to chemicals and pollutants that contribute to children’s developmental disabilities. The Learning Disability Association of America also advocates for the banning of chemicals that are harmful to children. They report that scientists, health professionals, and advocates have come together to raise awareness of toxic chemicals that harm brain development. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Endocrine Disruptors; Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996); Healthy Legacy; Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg); Pesticides; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); Project Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks (TENDR); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Children’s Environmental Health Center. 2019. “About the Mount Sinai Institute for Exposomic Research.” Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­icahn​.­mssm​.­edu​/­about​ /­departments​/­environmental​-­public​-­health ​/­cehc. Healthy Legacy. 2017. Mission. Accessed August 24, 2018. ­http://​­healthy​-­legacy​.­squarespace​ .­com​/­our​-­coalition. Landrigan, Phillip, Luca Lambertini, and Linda Birnbaum. 2012. “A Research Strategy to Discover the Environmental Causes of Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disabilities.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120(7): a258–a260. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​ .­1289​/­ehp​.­1104285. Landrigan, Phillip, and Jordan Slutsky. 2018. “Are Learning Disabilities Linked to Environmental Toxins?” Learning Disabilities Worldwide. Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­w ww​.­ldworldwide​.­org​/­environmental​-­toxins. Learning Disabilities Association of America. 2019. “Chemicals.” Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­ldaamerica​.­org​/?­s​= ​­chemicals. Washington State Department of Health. 2012. “Impact of Environmental Chemicals on Children’s Learning and Behavior.” August 2012. DOH 334-313. Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­doh​.­wa​.­gov​/ ­Portals​/­1​/ ­Documents​/ ­Pubs​/­334​-­313​.­pdf. World Bank. 2019. “Featured Speaker—Philip J. Landrigan.” World Bank Live. Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­live​.­worldbank​.­org​/­experts​/­philip​-­j​-­landrigan.

402

Lethal Dose 50% (LD50)

Lethal Dose 50% (LD50) Lethal Dose 50%, often referred to as LD50, is a frequently used indicator for measuring the toxicity of a substance and represents the amount of a substance that causes death in half (50%) of the test’s subjects. As a result, it is also referred to as the median toxicity of a chemical. One method of describing a substance’s acute toxicity is by using the LD50 value as an indicator. For decades LD50 has been relied on by scientists, primarily toxicologists, for testing the toxicity of substances. It was outlined in 1927 by scientist J. W. Trevan in his famous article “The Error of Determination of Toxicity” in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B (Trevan 1927). He determined that the error of the calculations used in the LD50 was more accurate than other approaches; he based his analysis on the exposure of mice to injections of cocaine. Today, scientists continue to use testing that involves a variety of animals. Most studies often still use a sample of mice, and sometimes rats, but other animals, such as dogs, cats, rabbits, and primates, can be used for testing certain substances and may include any route of exposure: ingestion, inhalation, or dermal. The calculation of LD50 is a simple ratio—the amount of test substance per body weight of the animal with a 50 percent fatality of overall test subjects, that is, milligrams of the substance tested per kilograms of the test animal’s weight. The lower the LD50, the higher the fatality rate; however LD50 values do not address nonfatal toxic effects of a substance. For instance, a chemical may have a high LD50 but produce illness at very limited or low exposures; therefore, when these values are applied to occupational or public health issues, it is not valid to conclude that substances with low LD50 are more dangerous or hazardous than those with higher levels. The interpretation of the values is limited to the understanding that the lower the LD50 number, the more toxic the substance when compared to others. However, many substances can have low toxicity with illicit disease or poor health at low levels of exposure. It should be noted that one concern about LD50 tests is the application to certain human populations. For instance, children would have toxicity at much lower values than adults because of their smaller body weight and active development—and likewise with application to people with vulnerable or comprised health versus the general population. Various substances are tested using the LD50 approach. This includes all medicines, many agricultural chemicals and cleaners, and some cosmetics. LD50 values have not been measured for all chemicals. Although the test is generally accepted internationally as a measure of toxicity, there have been several criticisms of this approach that have led to changes in its application. The underlying assumption is that the results of these tests, which are performed on animals, are then extrapolated to humans. The validity of this application from test animals to humans has been questioned. Another controversy related to this concern is the treatment of animals for these studies. Because of ethical issues, humans are not used as samples for LD50 studies, so all the data has come from test animals. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act



Lethal Dose 50% (LD50) 403

was passed for the protection of animals. The act has been amended many times since this original legislation, but this law fell short of fully protecting research animals. Laboratory test animals such as rats and mice were excluded from protection. Standards for the treatment of laboratory animals is implemented by the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) as part of the requirements for receiving federal funding. Thus, the United States has very limited protections for animals used in LD50 tests. Today, many countries have supported alternatives to the methods used in the LD50 studies. The oral LD50 has been eliminated as a requirement by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United States. The European Union and the United States allow the use of alternatives to the oral exposure type of LD50 test. In the alternatives, fewer animals are used, and more humane treatment is conducted during testing. Other organizations and federal agencies, such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers’ of America, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), have all spoken out publicly against the large sample sizes of test animals to statistically reach the 50 percent required for implementing the test. While sixty to two hundred animals are often used per sample, these organizations have supported smaller samples of only six to ten test animals. One widely accepted alternative is the up-and-down procedure approved by the EPA. It is now used for the measure of acute oral toxicity tests for industrial chemicals and pesticides. According to the EPA, “This method maintains the performance of acute testing for applications that use the median lethal dose (classic LD50) test while achieving significant reductions in animal use. It uses sequential dosing, together with sophisticated computer-assisted computational methods during the execution and calculation phases of the test” (EPA 2017). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require LD50 tests on animals for cosmetics. As a result, labels on cosmetic products often include the statements “cruelty free” or “no animal testing”; however, there are no federal regulations on product labels regarding animal testing. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Toxicity Labels.

Further Reading

National Anti-Vivisection Society. n.d. “Animal Testing.” Accessed September 14, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­navs​.­org​/­what​-­we​- ­do​/ ­keep​-­you​-­i nformed​/­science​- ­corner​/­a reas​- ­of​ -­science​-­that​-­use​-­animals​/­animals​-­in​-­testing​/#.­W bqjwdFryUk. Trevan, J. W. 1927. “The Error of Determination of Toxicity.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 101(July 1, 1927): 483–514. Accessed September 13, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­dcscience​.­net​/­Trevan​-­PRSB​-­1927​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Acute Oral Toxicity Up-and-Down Procedure.” Last updated March 29, 2017. Accessed September 14, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­pesticide​-­science​-­and​-­assessing​-­pesticide​-­r isks​/­acute​-­oral​-­toxicity​ -­and​-­down​-­procedure.

404

Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO)

Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) The Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) was founded in 1994 by public school parents who were concerned about asbestos exposure from renovations taking place at a local elementary school. From this concern, the community turned to other health-related issues in their neighborhood. Little Village is located on the southwest side of Chicago, in a major industrial corridor. It is also a major cultural hub for the Mexican community in Chicago. The area is 85 percent Latino and has an average median income that falls below the average for Chicago, classifying it as low income based on U.S. Census estimates. It is considered an environmental justice community of Chicago because of the disproportionate impacts to the community members from the overburden of health risks from environmental contaminants. One of the major campaigns that LVEJO has completed is the cleanup and remediation of a Superfund site that was contaminated with polyaromatic hydrocarbons at a former facility called Celotex that was operated by Honeywell Corp. LVEJO was instrumental in the soil remediation of over a hundred homes and the transformation of the former Superfund site into a public park for its densely populated urban community. Kimberly Wasserman-Nieto is the executive director of LVEJO in Chicago. Born to two community activists from Little Village, she has been active in the organization since 1998, where she worked as a community organizer, supporting the building of a public park, community gardens, and the revitalization of her neighborhood. LVEJO embodies the environmental justice mission of providing for human rights where people live, work, and play. Thus, Wasserman-Nieto has led the organization on a variety of community campaigns, from access to public transit to the closure of a coal-fired power plant in her community as well as the nearby neighborhood of Pilsen. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); Wasserman-Nieto, Kimberly (1977–).

Further Reading

Goldman Environmental Foundation. 2019. “Kim Wasserman: 2013 Goldman Prize Recipient North America.” The 30 Years Goldman Environmental Prize. Accessed March 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­goldmanprize​.­org​/­recipient​/ ­kimberly​-­wasserman. Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO). 2019. “About Us.” Accessed March 27, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­lvejo​.­org. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Environmental Issues in Chicago’s Little Village and Pilsen Neighborhoods.” EPA in Illinois, June 12, 2018. Accessed March 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­il​/­environmental​-­issues​-­chicagos​-­little​ -­village​-­pilsen​-­neighborhoods.

Love Canal, New York(1976) Love Canal was originally planned in 1892 as a canal to connect the upper and lower Niagara River in Niagara Falls, New York, for a hydroelectric facility. It was named after William T. Love, a business entrepreneur who sought to bring



Love Canal, New York 405

hydroelectricity to the area for the development of a future city. Due to an economic downturn in the United States, the project was never finished, but a large hole in the ground initially dug for the canal was completed. This hole became a landfill disposal site for over twenty thousand tons of chemical wastes that included many known carcinogens, such as dioxin. Several disposers used the landfill, such as the Niagara Falls municipality, the U.S. Army, and, eventually, the Hooker Chemical Corporation, which was the primary contributor to the landfill of toxic chemicals containing several carcinogens. After the landfill was filled to capacity, it was covered with topsoil without any liners or barriers encapsulating the waste. Hooker Chemical Corporation sold it to the Niagara Falls Board of Education for $1. In the 1950s, the land was developed for a community that included an elementary school and hundreds of single-family homes on top of and surrounding the former landfill. By 1978, there were approximately eight hundred private single-family homes that had flourished into a working-class community. Because of community members’ growing concern over widespread illnesses, mobilized by local resident Lois Gibbs, the city and county governments hired the Calspan Corporation to take samples and investigate the area. Calspan found toxic chemical residues in the air and sump pumps of many homes at the southern end of the canal and barrels of chemical wastes just beneath the surface of the landfill. In addition, they found high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the storm sewer system. In early 1978, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) collected samples from the air and soil from household basements. It also created a health study of the families closest to the landfill. The department found an increase in reproductive problems among women and high levels of chemical contaminants that included carcinogens in soil and air. In June 1978, Lois Gibbs created the Love Canal Parents Movement, a group of residents concerned about the lack of action being taken and lack of protection being provided by local government officials over the chemicals contained in the landfill under their schools and homes. Finally, in August 1978, the NYSDOH issued a health declaration that strongly recommended the closure of the elementary school. In addition, it strongly advised pregnant women and children under the age of two to evacuate as soon as possible and that no food be ingested from backyard gardens. The remaining people were asked not to spend significant time in their basements. On August 7, 1978, President Carter declared an emergency evacuation. The Love Canal Homeowners Association—composed of five hundred families living around the Love Canal landfill—was formed to give residents a voice in the policy decisions being made about their community during the crisis (Gibbs 2008). Just as the state issued the health declaration, the community held a public meeting to elect leaders for the new homeowners association. Initially, the State of New York assisted with the evacuation of the 239 families living closest to the landfill, and remediation and securing the site began. Residents outside the evacuation zone who remained in Love Canal were concerned about their health and safety. As a result, protests continued to take place after the evacuation, and in 1979, the Love Canal Homeowners Association completed a

406

Love Canal, New York

map of the location of cancers and childhood diseases for the remaining households. On February 8, 1979, the NYSDOH declared a second evacuation for pregnant women and children under the age of two. Finally, in October 1980, President Carter issued a total evacuation of Love Canal, and all the homeowners in the community had the opportunity for the federal government to purchase their homes at fair market value. Love Canal was a major catalyst that helped create policy change in protecting human health and the environment. The national news highlighted the protests and evacuations, which helped pass the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund), which is retroactive. The more controversial provisions of the Superfund law are the “strict” and “joint and several” liability requirements, whereby any one party or number of responsible parties of a hazardous waste site may be held liable for the entire cleanup regardless of whether they followed industry standards at the time of dumping. And this is the first and only time a law in the United States included retroactive liability for acts done prior to the law’s passing (EPA 2017). This provision meant that Hooker Chemical Corporation, and its successor, Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem; a wholly owned subsidiary of the Occidental Petroleum Corporation), was held liable for waste cleanup costs even though the firm had followed the law in disposal. In addition, it was held liable for all the waste remediation, even though several other joint polluters contributed to the landfill. Today, the former landfill at Love Canal has been completely fenced in to prevent any access by residents, and it has been retrofitted with a plastic liner and covered with a clay layer and additional topsoil. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared that Love Canal is no longer a threat to human health. The Love Canal Revitalization Agency was created as a public corporation to renovate and remediate the homes in the community and has completed the remodeling and sold the homes to new residents. Love Canal has been renamed Black Creek Village. Consisting of residential homes and parkland, the Black Creek Village neighborhood was established in 1998 following a federal declaration issued by the EPA that the area was safe for long-term habitation. Concerns linger about the safety of the community, as expressed by residents in an article by Carolyn Thompson (2013) in USA Today. Gibbs is also skeptical of the safety for public health in the new community and is surprised there are no longer warning signs at the site, just “private property.” She describes the former Love Canal community as “like a gated community for chemicals.” Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Gibbs, Lois (1951–).

Further Reading

“Despite Toxic History, Residents Return to Love Canal.” 1998. CNN, August 7, 1998. Accessed September 1, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­cnn​.­com​/ ­US​/­9808​/­07​/­love​.­canal.



Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAEL) 407

Gibbs, Lois. 2008. “History—Love Canal: The Start of a Movement.” Boston University School of Public Health. Accessed September 1, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­bu​.­edu​ /­lovecanal​/­canal. Thompson, Carolyn. 2013. “Lawsuits: Love Canal Still Oozes 35 Years Later.” USA Today, November 2, 2013. Accessed September 1, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­usatoday​ .­com​/­story​/­money​/ ­business​/­2013​/­11​/­02​/­suits​- ­claim​-­love​- ­canal​- ­still​- ­o ozing​-­35​ -­years​-­later​/­3384259. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Superfund Liability.” January 24, 2017. ­https://​­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­enforcement​/­superfund​-­liability.

Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAEL) Lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAEL) is a term that reflects the lowest dose for a substance that demonstrates an observed adverse effect. This is opposed to the term no observed adverse effect levels (NOAEL), which indicates the dose where there was not an observed adverse impact. These terms are used in experimental studies using animals and human clinical studies. The two terms are identified on dose-response graphs by researchers for potentially toxic chemicals and pharmaceuticals in risk assessments. According to Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA 2018), an independent scientific research and educational nonprofit organization, “LOAEL is the lowest exposure level at which there are statistical or biologically significant increases in frequencies or severity of adverse effect between the exposed population and it appropriate control group.” The LOAEL is the measure of a chemical’s lowest concentration or amount that causes no harm to humans; in other words, it is considered the lowest dose of a chemical that does not produce toxic effects. This includes adverse impacts to human growth and development, reproduction, or life span. This is often established using laboratory animal tests that are then extrapolated to humans. Both NOAELs and LOAELs can be used to examine beneficial outcomes of chemicals and do not directly measure toxicity to human health. Both of these estimates assist in measuring risk assessments performed for public and environmental health. These terms are also used in estimating not only exposures to pollutants but also medicine undergoing development. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the methods for establishing NOAELs and LOAELs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2018) has created a chemical hazard profile database for the public to search the toxicity information of chemicals under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program, which was created by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This database lists the LOAELs for all the chemicals in the inventory. The EPA distinguishes between lowest observable adverse effect concentration (LOAEC) and LOAEL. It defines LOAEL as the lowest level of a chemical stressor evaluated in a toxicity test that shows harmful effects on a plant or animal (EPA 2016). Although LOAELs and LOAECs are similar, they are not interchangeable. Based on the EPA’s (2016) definition, a

408

Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW)

LOAEL refers to a dose of chemical that is ingested, and a LOAEC refers to direct exposure to a chemical (e.g., through gills or the skin). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976); Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Further Reading

Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment. 2018. “NOAEL.” Accessed October 6, 2018. ­https://​­w ww​.­tera​.­org​/­iter​/­glossary​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “LOAEL/LOAEC.” Ecological Risk Assessment—Glossary of Terms. Region 5 Superfund. February 21, 2016. Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­archive​.­epa​.­gov​/­reg5sfun​/­ecology​/­web​/ ­html​ /­glossary​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “TRI-Chemical Hazard Information Profiles (TRI-CHIP.” Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program, September 18, 2018. Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­toxics​-­release​-­inventory​-­t ri​ -­program​/­t ri​-­chemical​-­hazard​-­information​-­profiles​-­t ri​-­chip.

Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW) Low-level nuclear waste (LLW) is generated from two major sources in the United States: industry and defense operations. Defense LLW is managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and each generator of industrial LLW is responsible for its disposal in accordance with regulations set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). According to the NRC (2017), radioactivity in approximately 95 percent of all LLW diminishes to background levels within one hundred years or less, with the remaining 5 percent diminishing in less than five hundred years. LLW is disposed of in commercially operated disposal facilities across the United States. Low-level nuclear waste from industry usually includes waste items from commercial nuclear power plant operations that have become contaminated with radioactive material through exposure to neutron radiation. This waste can be in large quantities. It typically consists of contaminated protective shoe covers and clothing, wiping rags, mops, filters, and reactor water treatment residues. A smaller portion of LLW comes from the pharmaceutical industry, research laboratories, and the health-care sector, such as hospitals and medical manufacturers that utilize radioactive materials in their processes; it includes laboratory equipment and glassware, luminous dials, medical tubes, swabs, hypodermic needles, syringes, and laboratory animal carcasses and tissues. LLW is distinguished based on the level of radioactivity into classes of waste labeled A, B, or C. These classes determine the disposal and handling precautions necessary for protection of human health and the environment. Disposal facilities must qualify for disposing of each class of waste with permits for operation from the NRC. Class A waste is the least dangerous to human health with the lowest concentration and shortest half-lives within one hundred years, and often in shorter periods of time. According to the NRC (2017), Class A waste is the largest source of LLW in terms of quantity. Class B and C wastes make up a small amount



LyondellBasell Industries 409

of the quantity of LLW but contain the most radioactivity of the three classes. Greater than class C waste is technically LLW, but the radioactivity levels are so high it is disposed of and regulated by the DOE through different policy processes than commercial LLW. Unlike the other nuclear wastes, LLW is not defined scientifically or by source in laws or policies. Under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (amended in 1985), LLW is defined by what it is not. It is defined in this legislation as not classified as the other nuclear wastes, which include high-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, and spent nuclear fuel. Basically, LLW is defined by default, meaning it is not part of the other groups of nuclear waste in the United States. LLW policy has been described as a dysfunctional approach to managing this waste stream (Berman 2013). In the LLW legislation, disposal for LLW was originally the responsibility of the state governments; however, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that this violated the Tenth Amendment, which secures states’ rights. The result is that the Supreme Court has redefined the ownership for LLW as the generators and not the states, as prescribed in the original legislation. Currently, four major facilities—one each in South Carolina, Utah, Texas, and Washington—accept LLW in the United States. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW); Native American Impacts; Transuranic (TRU) Waste; Uranium.

Further Reading

Berman, Jacob. 2013. “Wasting Away: America’s Dysfunctional System of Low-Level Radioactive Disposal.” Seattle Journal of Environmental Law 3(1): 272–291. Accessed January 16, 2018. ­http://​­digitalcommons​.­law​.­seattleu​.­edu​/­sjel​/­vol3​/­iss1​/­10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2017. “Low-Level Waste.” Last updated August 3, 2017. Accessed January 16, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­n rc​.­gov​/­waste​ /­low​-­level​-­waste​.­html.

LyondellBasell Industries LyondellBasell Industries (commonly referred to as LyondellBasell), with headquarters in Houston, Texas, is one of the largest plastics companies in the world. Its products focus on the areas of food safety, flexible packaging, pipes for water supplies, electronics, appliances, and a variety of products contained in cars and trucks. The company sells its products to over one hundred countries, and it is the world’s largest producer of polymer compounds. Its materials are used in agriculture, health care, and energy, such as solar panels. The chemicals produced by LyondellBasell include large plans that cover large volumes of liquid and gas hydrocarbon chemicals used in plastic resins and other chemicals. These are the building block foundations for other chemicals. These chemicals are used in home furnishings, automotive components, paints, and coatings. At the Houston facility, the company refines crude oil into products such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. This requires the company to purchase large

410

LyondellBasell Industries

quantities of natural gas liquids and crude oil derivatives for the manufacture of their products and chemicals. The company was created from a merger of the Lyondell and Basell companies in 2007. The merger left the company burdened with debt, which resulted in a bankruptcy in 2009. After reemerging from bankruptcy in 2010, the company has been growing. It is the eighth largest chemical company in the world. LyondellBasell was founded on the production of polypropylene and polyethylene chemicals that are used in a variety of products today. It is also the largest producer of oxyfuel in North America and Europe. Its products are used in such household products as children’s toys, food packaging, and fuels. It has manufacturing facilities in twenty-four countries (LyondellBasell 2019). Its reported income from continuing operations in 2017 was $4.9 billion, and cash from operating activities was $5.2 billion (LyondellBasell 2017, 3). The company has six operating business segments. These includes the production of olefins and polyolefins in the Americas. Internationally, the company leads in intermediate and derivative chemicals, advance polymers, refining, and technology. Olefin production is used in consumer products, housing, and other goods. Polyolefins are used in thermoplastics, such as in food and beverage packaging, housewares, construction materials, and other automotive and consumer applications. In North America, LyondellBasell (SEC 2019, 6), is the second-largest producer of ethylene. It is the largest producer of polypropylene chemicals in Europe and North America. According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 2019, 28–29), LyondellBasell has incurred several violations. In September 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a violation at the Morris, Illinois, facility related to flaring activity. It was expected to issue a penalty of over $100,000. In July 2014, the company received a Clean Air Act (CAA) violation for flares at four of its facilities. The EPA is seeking a consent decree with corrective actions and a sanction in excess of $100,000. In January 2018, the Houston refining facility received penalties of $680,000 from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. In March 2018, the Cologne, Germany, local court issued a regulatory fine of over $1.8 million for a pipeline leak at the Wesseling, Germany, facilities. In March 2018, the Illinois EPA agreed to a consent order and a penalty of $125,000 for the Morris facility. The company estimates that its remediation expenses should occur over a number of years. These include liability for future environmental remediation costs at facilities that total up to $102 million as of December 2017. Accrued liabilities for individual sites can range from less than $1 million to $17 million (SEC 2019, 133–134). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

Further Reading

Blum, Jordan. 2017. “After 10 Years and Bankruptcy Filing, LyondellBasell Leads Gulf Petrochemical Boom.” Houston Chronicle, October 30, 2017. Accessed April 5,



LyondellBasell Industries 411

2019. ­https://​­www​.­houstonchronicle​.­com​/ ­business​/­energy​/­article​/­After​-­10​-­years​ -­and​-­bankruptcy​-­filing​-­12311231​.­php. LyondellBasell. 2017. “Advancing the Possible: Annual Report 2017.” Accessed April 5, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­lyondellbasell​.­com​/­en​/­investors​/­quarterly​-­releases. LyondellBasell. 2019. “Corporate Profile.” Accessed April 5, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­lyondellbasell​ .­com​/­en​/­about​-­us. U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). 2019. “Lyon Lyondell Industries, 10-K Report.” February 19, 2019. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­lyondellbasell​ .­com​/­en​/­investors​/­sec​-­filings​/.

M Maathai, Wangari(1940–2011) In 2004, Dr. Wangari Maathai was the first African woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work as the founder of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya. She has published several books on her life and work. These include her inspirational memoir Unbowed: A Memoir. She outlines her commitment and ethics to the environment in Replenishing the Earth. Her work creating and building the sustainability movement in Kenya is highlighted in The Challenge for Africa and The Green Belt Movement. A documentary, Taking Root: The Vision of Wangari Maathai, was produced in 2008. Maathai was born April 1, 1940. In 1964, she obtained an undergraduate degree in biology from Mount St. Scholastica College in Atchison, Kansas, and in 1966, she completed a master of science in biological sciences from the University of Pittsburgh. She returned to Kenya to complete her doctorate in anatomy in 1971 from the University of Nairobi, where she also taught veterinary anatomy. She holds the achievement of being the first woman in East and Central Africa to earn a doctorate degree. Maathai has served as chairperson of the Department of Veterinary Anatomy at the University of Nairobi. Maathai served in the Kenyan Parliament from 2002 to 2007 and as the assistant minister for environment and natural resources from 2003 to 2007. She is known for integrating the struggle for democracy, human rights, women’s rights, and environmental sustainability through planting trees rather than using pesticides and chemicals for agriculture. It is estimated that she is responsible for planting over thirty million trees in Kenya (Nobel Prize Organization 2019). The secretary-general of the United Nations named Maathai a UN messenger of peace in 2009, with a focus on the environment and climate change. In 2010, she was appointed to the Millennium Development Goals Advocacy Group to assist in leading the United Nations in sustainability. She has had numerous awards, honorary degrees, professional affiliations, and academic appointments during her lifetime. The Nobel Prize Committee characterized her as thinking globally but acting locally. Dr. Maathai passed away on September 25, 2011, from ovarian cancer. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Movement (1970s); Pesticides.

Further Reading

Green Belt Movement. 2019. “Wangari Maathai.” Accessed March 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­greenbeltmovement​.­org​/­wangari​-­maathai.

414

Meat and Fish Consumption

Nobel Prize Organization. 2019. “Wangari Maathai: Biographical.” Accessed March 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nobelprize​.­org​/­prizes​/­peace​/­2004​/­maathai​/ ­biographical.

Material Safety Data Sheets(see Safety Data Sheets) Meat and Fish Consumption Meat and fish are primary sources of protein as well as primary food sources for billions of people worldwide, and they both have their own environmental challenges. Meat typically comes from several types of warm-blooded animals common throughout agriculture: cows, calves, pigs, poultry (chicken, ducks, geese, and turkeys), sheep, and goats. Compared to other food-related commodities, meat is associated with higher production costs and output prices. The level of meat consumption per capita varies according to living standards, local diets, levels of livestock production, culture, and consumer prices as well as variable macroeconomic factors impacting the gross national product (GNP) of individual nations. Meat consumption is measured in thousands of tonnes (metric tons) of carcass weight, except for poultry, which is expressed in ready-to-cook weight and in kilograms of retail weight per capita. U.S. meat consumption is 25.6 kilograms per capita, while the rest of the world’s 6.5 kilograms per capita. Uruguay has a consumption rate of 43.1 kilograms per capita (OECD and FAO 2017). The worldwide meat industry is expected to double by 2020, although local and regional economic conditions may temporarily slow growth; however, structural realities will continue to promote growth that reflects the growth of global populations. Growth in the GNP per capita in developing countries boosts the demand for meat even higher. In developing countries with more money, people generally increase the meat and animal products in their diets (OECD and FAO 2017). To respond to the rising demand for meat, livestock production has become increasingly industrialized. Small farms are continuing to disappear in the United States and the rest of the world. Today, three-quarters of the world’s poultry supply, half the pork, and two-thirds of the eggs come from large-scale industrial meat factories. Issues such as runoff and associated environmental contamination of waterways and odor that were present in much smaller quantities forty years ago have now become major problems. Meat production also consumes a lot more land. If the rest of the world were to consume as much meat per capita as the Western world, 176 pounds, the amount of land required on a global scale would be two-thirds more than what is presently used for meat production. Meat products contribute to 18 percent of global greenhouse emissions, use precious supplies of fresh water, negatively impact forests and grasslands, and promote soil erosion. Fertilizers create dead zones in coastal areas and smother coral reefs. Meat production also contributes to the overuse and diffusion of antibiotics throughout ecosystems, increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics and thereby threatening human health.



Meat and Fish Toxicity 415

The global fishery and aquaculture sector have continued to expand, although at a relatively modest rate. International fish prices were 7 percent higher during the second half of 2016 as compared to the same period in 2015. Nominal prices for fish (both aquaculture and wild capture) are expected to continue to increase at 0.8 percent per annum from 2017 through 2026. Salmon, a highly traded fish commodity, has been the primary driver for increases in the overall price of fish. Consumer demand for fish in general and salmon remained high, with slight increases in per capita consumption worldwide (OECD and FAO 2017). Since 2013, aquaculture has become the major global source of fish for human consumption, replacing wild capture fisheries, which are experiencing lower catches of several major but lower-value species, including anchoveta, a small anchovy used for fish meal and fish oil. Aquaculture is expected to continue to grow worldwide for the foreseeable future, through 2026. The dramatic move toward consuming fish from aquaculture is producing serious environmental effects. The aquaculture industry is shifting toward crop-based feed ingredients, including soybeans. While more research is needed to fully understand the environmental impacts of aquaculture, there is evidence of significant environmental impacts resulting from nutrient and pesticide runoff from the crops used in aquaculture feed. John Munro See also: Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change; Groundwater Contamination; Meat and Fish Toxicity; Pesticides; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Further Reading

Fry, Jillian P., David C. Love, Graham K. MacDonald, Paul C. West, Peder M. Engstrom, Keeve E. Nachman, and Robert S. Lawrence. 2016. “Environmental Health Impacts of Feeding Crops to Farmed Fish,” Environment International 91(May): 201–214. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2020. “Meat Consumption (Indicator).” ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1787​/­fa290fd0​-­en. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­data​.­oecd​.­org​/­agroutput​/­meat​-­consumption​.­htm. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2017. “Fish and Seafood.” In OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2017–2026. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Meat and Fish Toxicity In the last fifty years, worldwide meat consumption (mostly beef, chicken, and fish) has grown at a rapid rate. In fact, the total production of beef, for example, has grown four- to fivefold since 1961, with Asia being the largest meat producer, accounting for 40–45 percent of total meat production (Ritchie and Roser 2017). Toward the end of the twentieth century, concern about industrialized agriculture and pesticide use heightened the public’s interest in food safety. Research found several potential areas of toxic risk, including heavy metals and phenols. Toxic exposure to heavy metals can occur both directly and indirectly. Exposure can occur through inhalation (often related to occupations such as mining);

416

Meat and Fish Toxicity

ingestion of contaminated drinking water (which is happening more frequently, particularly over a lifetime); or the consumption of metal-laced foods. Among the metals considered most problematic for humans are arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium. These have been ranked first, second, third, and seventh, respectively, on the National Priorities List (NPL) of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), according to a combination of their frequency, toxicity, and human exposure potential. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) belong to a group of synthetic organic chemicals that can cause a number of different harmful effects. One of the major problems with PCBs is that, once in the environment, they do not readily break down and may remain for very long periods of time. They can be stored in the body, mainly in the fat and liver. Although PCBs were no longer made in the United States after 1977, exposure still occurs. Most people are exposed to PCBs primarily from eating contaminated food and breathing contaminated air. The major dietary sources of PCBs are fish, meat, and dairy products (ATSDR 2000). In 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducted a survey to gather information on dioxins, furans, dioxin-like compounds (DLCs), and PCBs in U.S. meat and poultry products. Dioxins and DLCs, which are often by-products of combustion and manufacturing processes, such as paper manufacturing, and municipal and medical waste incineration, accumulate in the fatty tissues of humans and food animals consumed by humans (FSIS 2015). Researchers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have found that people who consume even small amounts of dioxins from meat and dairy products have an increased risk of suffering from cancer as a result of their dioxin consumption (PETA 2010). Another major concern related to toxins in meat products is the use of antibiotics and hormones. For instance, Roxarsone, an antibiotic commonly used on factory farms, contains significant amounts of arsenic, exposure to which can dramatically increase the risk of cancer, dementia, neurological problems, and other ailments in humans (PETA 2010). Similarly, the synthetic hormones found in a high percentage of cows on large feedlots in the United States have been shown to increase the risk of disrupted development and cancer in humans. These hormones can also increase the risk of developing other disorders, including gynecomastia (enlarged male breasts) (PETA 2010). Another source of toxins in meats is pesticides, where animal intake (as opposed to contaminated plant food) is the largest source of certain pesticides for both adults and children. As for toxins in fish specifically, one analysis of seafood found that fish populations throughout the world’s oceans are contaminated with industrial and agricultural pollutants, collectively known as persistent organic pollutants (POPs). If there were a positive note to this study, it would be that concentrations of these pollutants have been consistently dropping over the last three decades (Scripps Institution of Oceanography 2016). Robert L. Perry See also: Heavy Metals; Meat and Fish Consumption; Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); Pesticides; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).



Mercury (Hg) 417

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2000. “Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).” Accessed July 17, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxprofiles​/­t p17​-­p​.­pdf. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). 2015. “Dioxin FY2013 Survey: Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds in the U.S. Domestic Meat and Poultry Supply.” Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­fsis​.­usda​.­gov​/­w ps​/­wcm​/­connect​ /­d a1d623d​-­3005​- ­4116​-­bef7​-­2a61d1ebd543​/ ­Dioxin​-­Report​-­F Y2013​.­p df​?­MOD​= ​ ­AJPERES. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). 2010. “Meat Contamination.” Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­peta​.­org​/­living​/­food​/­meat​-­contamination. Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. 2017. “Meat and Seafood Production & Consumption.” Our World in Data. Accessed April 3, 2019. ­https://​­ourworldindata​.­org​/­meat​-­and​ -­seafood​-­production​-­consumption. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. 2016. “Study Finds Toxic Pollutants in Fish across the World’s Oceans.” Accessed April 1, 2019. ­https://​­scripps​.­ucsd​.­edu​/­news​/­study​ -­finds​-­toxic​-­pollutants​-­fish​-­across​-­worlds​-­oceans.

Mercury (Hg) Mercury is a shiny silver metal and the only metal that is liquid at room temperature. Mercury occurs naturally in the environment, where it exists in several forms. These forms can be organized under three categories: metallic mercury (also known as elemental mercury), inorganic mercury, and organic mercury. Certain bacteria and fungi produce methylmercury, an organic mercury compound, from other forms of mercury. Methylmercury is of particular concern because it can bioaccumulate in certain fish, which can then be consumed with mercury levels in concentrations much higher than the levels in surrounding water. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage the nervous system and disrupt kidney function. Exposure is most likely to occur during mining and production of mercury, gold, and silver and consuming contaminated seafood. Mercury is a poor heat conductor, but it forms amalgams readily, except with iron. Mercury can combine with other elements, such as chlorine, sulfur, or oxygen, to form inorganic mercury compounds that take the form of white crystals, making them appear as salts. Mercury also combines with carbon to make organic mercury compounds. Most mercury is used for the manufacture of industrial chemicals and for electrical and electronic applications. In the past, mercury was used in many industrial applications. It has also been used to fight syphilis and as a laxative, disinfectant, and astringent. Because it can be absorbed through the skin and mucous membranes, mercury is considered a poison. Due to its toxicity, mercury’s clinical use is decreasing. Mercury was frequently found in thermometers, barometers, gauges, valves, switches, batteries, and high-intensity discharge lamps and was widely used in amalgams for dentistry. It is found in preservatives, heat transfer technology, pigments, catalysts, and lubricating oils.

418

Mercury (Hg)

Metallic mercury is the pure form of mercury used in thermometers and some electrical switches. At room temperature, some of the metallic mercury will evaporate and form colorless, odorless mercury vapors. With higher temperatures, more vapors will be released from liquid metallic mercury. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2017, 108), mercury has not been produced in the United States since 1992. Beginning in 2013, the export of elemental mercury from the United States was banned under the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008. Most mercury mines are located in China, Kyrgyzstan, or Russia, but in 2016, mercury was recovered as a by-product from processing gold and silver ores at several mines in Nevada. That same year, the U.S. federal government permitted six companies to store mercury produced from recycling and recovery. Mercury is recycled from batteries, compact and traditional fluorescent lamps, dental amalgams, medical devices, and thermostats. Today, leading uses of mercury include electronics and the manufacture of fluorescent lighting. Exposure to mercury occurs from breathing contaminated air, ingesting contaminated water or food, or undergoing dental and medical treatments. At high levels, mercury may damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetuses. Short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury vapors may cause lung damage, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increases in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and eye irritation. There is inadequate human cancer data available regarding all forms of mercury exposure. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that mercuric chloride and methylmercury are possible human carcinogens. Young children are more sensitive to mercury than adults. Mercury can pass through breast milk and transfer from a mother’s body to her fetus, possibly resulting in brain damage, mental retardation, incoordination, blindness, seizures, or the inability to speak following birth. Children poisoned by mercury may develop problems or damage in their nervous, digestive, and renal systems. Dental amalgam fillings may expose people in the general population to metallic mercury. An amalgam is a mixture of metals often used in silver-colored dental fillings; however, exposure to small amounts of mercury, such as what is in a dental amalgam, does not necessarily pose a health risk. Some religions have practices that may include the use of metallic mercury. Examples of these religions include Santeria (Cuba), voodoo, Palo Mayombe (Caribbean), and Espiritismo (Puerto Rico). Azogue contains metallic mercury and is sold in a small sealed container in stores for spiritual ceremonies. When combined and used as a vapor, poisonous exposure to mercury can occur. A recent editorial reviewing the history of a fishing village in Minamata, Japan, accounted the problems of exposure to mercury from drinking water and the consumption of fish (Dawn 2017). In 1956, methylmercury-contaminated wastewater was released from the Chisso Corporation’s chemical factory. This highly toxic chemical bioaccumulated in shellfish and fish in Minamata Bay and the Shiranui Sea, which was then eaten by local residents, resulting in mercury poisoning. An



Metal Mining 419

estimated thousands of people died, with additional people exposed. This kind of exposure is now named after the village, Minamata disease, a neurological disease that causes a range of chronic disorders with varying severity, including anxiety; appetite loss; damage to hearing, speech, and vision; loss of muscle movement and coordination; and paralysis, coma, and death. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Neurological Toxicity.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Mercury.” Toxic Substances Portal, March 3, 2011. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­24. Cruz, Gilbert. 2010. “Minamata Disease.” Time, May 3, 2010. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­http://​­content​.­time​.­com​/­time​/­specials​/­packages​/­article​/­0,28804,1986457_1986501 _1986450,­00​.­html. Dawn. 2017. “Mercury Poisoning.” January 2, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­dawn​.­com​/­news​/­1305818. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Mercury, CID=23931.” PubChem Database. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound​/­Mercury. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Mercury.” Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­mercury​/­index​.­html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “Mercury.” Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2017: 108–109. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​­minerals​.­usgs​.­gov​/­minerals​ /­pubs​/­commodity​/­mercury​/­mcs​-­2017​-­mercu​.­pdf.

Metal Mining There are two major categories of mining in the United States: metal mining (including uranium) and coal mining. Metal mining is one of the oldest industries in the United States. The industry extracts ores (the metal-containing part of the rock) and then processes it to isolate the metal. The metals are required to follow the reporting requirements of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2019a), as of 2016, the metal mining industry employed thirty-eight thousand people. Metal mining is a large sector of the U.S. economy. In 2018, metal mining in the United States produced $25.9 billion, which was 4 percent less than 2017. Lower average metal prices and lower production of many metals contributed to the reduction in value for 2018. The principal contributors to the total value of metal mine production in 2018 were gold, copper, iron ore, and zinc, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2019). Metal mining has created a legacy of pollution and contamination that continues to impact human health and the environment today. The metal mining industry is primarily located in the Western states of the United States, where the majority of the metals are geographically located. There are some exceptions, such as iron ore deposits in the Great Lakes region, zinc deposits in Tennessee, and lead deposits in Missouri.

420

Metal Mining

The industry is dominated by large companies. Metals are important components in construction, automotive, machinery, aviation, electrical, and industrial products. They are essential in batteries, communications, brass and bronze products, and many alloys. Metals are a major component of the U.S. economic sector both directly and indirectly through the use of the metals in a variety of products and industrial processes. BACKGROUND Historically, the United States has heavily relied on mining for its economic development, and it continues to do so. In 1871, the United States became the largest economy in the world. Mining made a large contribution to this milestone and a larger impact on its history and even social development. The Mining Law of 1872 advocated for the opening of Western federal lands to exploration and development of metal mining of gold, silver, and copper with no consideration of closing a mine, reclamation, or remediation of the associated pollution. Various major findings of gold and silver spurred exploration, immigration, and settlement in the American West and other locales. Some of the more famous examples are the “rushes” of the 1830s in southeast Georgia, the 1848 California gold rush, the 1858 Colorado Pikes Peak and 1870s Leadville rushes, and the 1859 Nevada ­Comstock Lode. Boomtowns appeared almost overnight, drawing supporting service providers to set up shops, banks, and other establishments, and indigenous peoples were forced from the areas. Demand for other metals grew from the industrial revolution, causing the rapid growth of mining sites for lead, copper, zinc, and more as metal deposits were identified. This demand for metals and the abundant supply in the United States has fueled the mining industry, which has driven innovation in mining and metal processing technologies in the United States. The estimated value of U.S. metal mine production in 2015 was $26.6 billion, 15 percent less than that of 2014. Principal contributors to the total value of metal mine production in 2015 were copper (29%), gold (29%), iron ore (14%), molybdenum concentrates (12%), and zinc (6%). The total value of nonfuel mineral mining and production in the United States in 2016 was $74 billion (USGS 2016). TYPES OF MINING There are several types of mining that each contribute different human health and environmental risks: underground mining, surface mining, and open-pit mining. Underground mining is one of the oldest processes for extracting metals from the earth. The metal contained in a rock ore is buried deep below the surface, which is often referred to as hardrock mining. This differs from surface mining, where the metals are closer to the surface. Underground mining involves excavation of soil and rock under the ground to access the ore containing the desired metals. The ore is brought to the surface, where it is further processed to obtain



Metal Mining 421

the metal. Oftentimes these mines are left abandoned after the extraction has ended. This can cause significant damage from water pollution, which may include metals leaching from the mine into the nearby areas. Both acid and alkaline draining can occur from the mine from precipitation events, causing leaching into the surrounding land and aquatic ecosystems. Metals such as gold, silver, iron, copper, zinc, tin, lead, uranium, silver, vanadium, nickel, and lead require this type of mining. Underground mining may involve the use of explosives to access the metal ores deep underground. Surface mining is less expensive than underground mining because it is easier to reach the ore. Surface mines are generally used for shallow ores with less valuable products. Placer mining can be used to recover metals from sediments in rivers, beach and sand areas, and other environments. In the early mining, this was the technique used for getting gold from sand or gravel. In situ mining is primarily used in uranium mining; the ore is dissolved in place and then processed. Open-pit mining, which is commonly called strip mining, is also used for uranium extraction. The largest open pit uranium mine is at the Jackpile Mine in New Mexico. Iron is mostly mined at the surface, whereas lead is mostly underground. Metal mining is overseen by several federal and state agencies. The U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Environment, and the U.S. Forest Service under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) along with the EPA and other federal agencies involved with worker safety are all involved in the protection of human health and the environment at mines. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) of the U.S. Department of Labor focuses on the protection of worker safety for miners. It reports that the fatalities of U.S. mining activities have significantly declined from 1978. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) manages the National Information Center, which collects the mineral production data for the world. The American Geosciences Institute was created in 1948 as a directive from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). This professional organization is particularly concerned with mining activities in the United States. The National Mining Association is one of the major advocacy group associated with the mining sector. The United States has declared National Miners Day as December 6 to recognize the contributions of the workers in the industry.

POLLUTION FROM METAL MINING The EPA estimates metal mining releases in categories such as off-site disposal, on-site land disposal, and on-site air and water releases. The EPA (2020) estimates that more than 99 percent of the metal mining industry’s releases of chemicals identified in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) were in the form of onsite land disposal. This means the areas at the mining sites have some of the most serious contaminated areas and risks to human health. Year to year, the metal mining industry has large fluctuations of wastes that are sometimes influenced by

422

Metal Mining

production at a single mine. When changes occur in the chemical composition of production and the chemical composition of the ore being mined, there can be significant changes in the amount of pollutants produced. As of 2017, the metal mining industry reported 50 percent of the total TRI releases (EPA 2020). Many of the chemicals used in manufacturing or processing the ore from metal mining are required to be reported to the EPA under the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (formerly known as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 1986). These include the metal ore and compounds in addition to the chemicals used in the extraction and processing. These chemicals can be in gas, liquid, or solid forms. For instance, the fumes or dust associated with metal mining, often from the extraction of aluminum, vanadium, and zinc, can be found at these sites. Other chemicals that are reported often include naphthalene, cyanide compounds, creosols, cleaners, degreasers, and other chemicals used to treat mining wastes are reported as well. Many abandoned mines are addressed for remediation through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the EPA. These sites have land, surface water, and surrounding ecosystems that have been contaminated from the extraction of ore for metal mining. Until the modern environmental movement, the federal government did not provide environmental oversight on mining. Before the 1970s, it was common for mining companies to abandon these sites. This meant the mine was open to the environment, often with overburden waste piles remaining in place or dumped into the mines. Remediation of these abandoned mines costs in the billions (GAO 2011). In fact, McCullough (2018) reports that over five hundred thousand abandoned hardrock mining sites exist across the United States, with estimated cleanup costs of $33 billion to $72 billion. The EPA works with the Abandoned Mine Lands team to set priorities for these abandoned mines. One of the goals for these sites are reuse and repurposing the land for other purposes. For instance, there lands have been encouraged to be repurposed for the development of solar energy farms and wind farms. John Munro See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986); Mining Wastes; Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Further Reading

McCullough, Haley. 2018. “The Abandoned Mine Problem: Who Should Bear the Burden?” University of Denver Law Review (October 11, 2018). Accessed April 15, 2019. ­http://​­duwaterlawreview​.­com​/­the​-­abandoned​-­mine​-­problem​-­who​-­should​-­bear​-­the​ -­burden. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. “Metal Mining.” February 11, 2020. Accessed June 23. 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­t rinationalanalysis​/­metal​-­mining U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. Mineral Commodity Summaries. January 2016. Accessed October 13, 2018. ­https://​­minerals​.­u sgs​.­gov​/­m inerals​/­pubs​/­mcs​/­2016​ /­mcs2016​.­pdf.



Methyl Alcohol or Methanol (CH4O or CH3OH) 423

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. “US Mines Produced an Estimates $82.2 Billion in Mineral during 2019.” March 4, 2019. Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­usgs​ .­gov​/­news​/­us​-­mines​-­produced​-­estimated​-­822​-­billion​-­minerals​-­during​-­2018. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2011. Abandon Mines. GAO-11-8343T. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Methyl Alcohol or Methanol (CH4O or CH3OH) Methyl alcohol has one carbon atom, which makes it the simplest alcohol. It is most frequently encountered as a liquid at room temperature but does exist as a gas. As a liquid, it is a volatile, colorless organic chemical that produces a distinct alcoholic odor. It is soluble in water and is extremely toxic and flammable. Methyl alcohol has been used as far back as the ancient Egyptians, as an embalming agent. Late in the 1600s, it was captured from the distillation of wood by scientists, which is why it is often called wood alcohol. By the late 1800s, the chemical structure and use were known, and chemists named it methanol. Naturally occurring sources of methanol include volcanic gases, vegetation, microbes, and insects (EPA 1992). Because it is found in large quantities in space where stars form, it is used as an indicator to find those regions in the universe. On Earth, it is primarily produced by bacteria, so it is found in limited, small amounts in the environment and in the atmosphere. Methanol is formed during the decomposition of biological wastes, sewage, and wastewater sludge. It can also be produced as a by-product from the oxidation of natural gas, and the liquid can be manufactured from a reaction between carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Methanol is primarily used as the foundation in manufacturing other chemicals, such as formaldehyde, which is used as a component in many products: resins, glues, paints, and explosives. Since the 1800s, methanol has been used as a solvent in industrial processes. Today, it is used in the production of acetic acid, a foundation product of polyester fabrics and plastics; in antifreeze and deicer products, such as windshield wiper fluid, preservatives, and pesticides; and as a solvent in the manufacture of cholesterol, streptomycin, vitamins, hormones, and other pharmaceuticals. It is also used as an ingredient for the biodiesel production process. One unique sector that relies on methanol is race cars; it is their primary source of fuel. It is also used as fuel by campers and for their stoves on boats because it does not require pressurized burners and generates significant heat. Methanol is a neurotoxic poison that when ingested attacks the optic nerve, causing blindness. The primary route of exposure is through inhalation. It also affects the human central nervous system, causing headaches, disorientation, dizziness, nausea, coordination problems, and death. Links exist between methanol poisoning and parkinsonian symptoms (motor skills and coordination), and it is suspected to cause birth defects. The chemical is not classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a carcinogen. Industrial sources of exposure include oral ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption, and the primary source of exposure for the general population is

424 Milk

through foods containing methanol, such as the artificial sweetener aspartame, fruits and vegetables, juices, and a variety of fermented beverages. Methanol has a significant international economy. The Methanol Institute is a trade organization that represents the companies that make methanol. It is promoted as a fuel for transportation in China and other nations. According to the Methanol Institute (n.d.), “The wide range of uses for formaldehyde make it essential for the operations of nearly 50,000 product manufacturing facilities in the U.S. alone. Worldwide, one-third of the demand for methanol is for formaldehyde production. At about 10 million metric tons, this is the largest single market for methanol.” Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Antifreeze (Ethylene Glycol); Formaldehyde (CH2O); Neurological Toxicity.

Further Reading

The Chemical Company. n.d. “Methanol.” Accessed September 18, 2017. ­https://​­thechemco​ .­com​/­chemical​/­methanol. Korabathina, Kalyani. 2017. “Methanol Toxicity.” Medscape. Last updated January 31, 2017. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­http://​­emedicine​.­medscape​.­com​/­a rticle​ /­1174890​- ­overview. Methanol Institute. n.d. “The Chemical.” Accessed September 18, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­methanol​ .­org​/­chemical. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Methanol, CID=887.” PubChem Database. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound​/ ­Methanol. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. “Methanol.” Last updated January 2000. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​ /­2016​- ­09​/­documents​/­methanol​.­pdf.

Milk Milk and dairy products are common parts of the human diet. While most mammals stop drinking milk after weaning, humans are the only species that consumes milk throughout life. This is particularly true for the majority of Northern Europeans, in whom the lactase enzyme gene remains active, thus allowing them to consume relatively high quantities of milk. Prior to the twentieth century, milk consumption had been associated with a range of diseases, including scarlet fever, cholera, typhoid, and salmonella. However, with the advent of pasteurization, milk consumption greatly increased throughout the world and was often considered one of the safest foods (Givens et al. 2014). Toward the end of the twentieth century, concerns about industrialized agriculture and pesticide use heightened the public’s interest in food safety. Among the greatest concerns was the safety of milk and dairy products. While the overall safety of dairy consumption is still debated, research has found several potential areas of toxic risk, three of which are mycotoxins, heavy metals, and phenols.

Milk 425

Mycotoxins are produced by fungi that cause a toxic response when ingested by humans and animals. While human exposure to mycotoxins can occur directly through ingestion of contaminated agriculture products, such as cereals, corn, or fruits, exposure can also occur indirectly through the consumption of eggs or milk from animals that were fed with contaminated products. Some of the toxic effects to humans from mycotoxins include carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, estrogenicity, reproductive disorders, immunosuppression, and dermal irritation (Flores-Flores et al. 2015). As with mycotoxins, toxic exposure to heavy metals can occur both directly and indirectly. Exposure can occur through inhalation (often related to occupations such as mining); the ingestion of contaminated drinking water (which happens more frequently, particularly over a lifetime); and the consumption of metal-laced foods, including dairy products. What has been very problematic in recent years is the presence of toxic metals in human milk, where breastfed babies have been particularly vulnerable, owing to their organ immaturity and nervous system susceptibility (Rebelo and Caldas 2016). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) belong to a group of synthetic organic chemicals that can cause a number of different harmful effects. One of the major problems with PCBs is that, once in the environment, they do not readily break down and may remain for very long periods of time. They can be stored in the body, mainly in the fat and liver, and can enter the bodies of infants through breastfeeding. Although PCBs were no longer made in the United States after 1977, exposure still occurs. Most people are primarily exposed to PCBs from contaminated food and breathing contaminated air. The major dietary sources of PCBs are fish, meat, and dairy products (ATSDR 2000). Several studies have examined how PCBs can affect human health—most of which involved examining children of mothers who were exposed to PCBs. Many of the studies have had shortcomings, which makes it difficult for scientists to establish a clear association between PCB exposure levels and health effects. Nevertheless, studies have found that exposure to PCBs may cause irritation of the nose and lungs, gastrointestinal discomfort, changes in the blood and liver, depression, and fatigue. Research in this area continues (ATSDR 2000). Robert L. Perry See also: Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2000. “Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).” Accessed July 17, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxprofiles​/­t p17​-­p​.­pdf. Flores-Flores, Myra Evelen, Elena Lizarraga, Adela Lopex de Cerain, and Elena Gonzalez-Penas. 2015. “Presence of Mycotoxins in Animal Milk: A Review.” Food Control 53: 163–176. Givens, D. I., K. M. Livingstone, J. E. Pickering, Á. A. Fekete, A. Dougkas, and P. C. Elwood. 2014. “Milk: White Elixir or White Poison? An Examination of the Associations between Dairy Consumption and Disease in Human Subjects.” Animal Frontiers 4(2): 8–14.

426

Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs)

Rebelo, Fernanda Maciel, and Eloisa Dutra Caldas. 2016. “Arsenic, Lead, Mercury and Cadmium: Toxicity Levels in Breast Milk and the Risks for Breastfed Infants.” Environmental Research 151: 677–690.

Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) Minimal risk levels (MRLs) are established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The minimal risk level is defined by the ATSDR (2018) “as an estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse non-cancer health effect over a specified duration of exposure.” The creation of these measures was a requirement from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) for ATSDR to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop significant human exposure levels for hazardous substances. MRL is not a remediation level but a screening level used to identify potential health impacts from contaminants. ATSDR developed MRLs to provide screening levels for the identification of potential human health impacts from hazardous waste and other accidental releases. ATSDR publishes these MRL measures as a screening tool for the public and health providers. As ATSDR develops toxicological profiles for chemicals, its MRL determinations are derived from data on noncancer health impacts using the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). Cancer impacts are not included in MRLs. ATSDR provides MRLs for the inhalation of gases and volatile compounds and for daily human ingestion or oral doses. ATSDR has not defined a dermal contact standard for MRLs. However, exposure to a hazardous substance above the MRL does not necessarily result in an adverse health impact. MRLs are established for three periods of exposure to a hazardous chemical: acute (one to fourteen days), intermediate (fifteen days to a year), and chronic (greater than a year). MRLs are also provided for external radiation exposures. ATSDR produces MRLs for oral and inhaled exposures for these different durations of exposure. They also include what is called an endpoint. The endpoint is the most sensitive reaction that impacts humans, not the permanent human health impact. There are approximately 449 chemicals with MRLs: 158 inhalation, 283 oral pathway, and 8 radiation-based MRLs (ATSDR 2018). MRLs are based on the findings in the literature for both human and laboratory animal studies. However, MRLs can be used to estimate the amount of exposure a person can have to a potentially hazardous chemical without a detectable human health risk. ATSDR works with state and local public health agencies as well as the EPA when exposures at a site exceed the MRLs. To establish an MRL, ATSDR reviews medical and scientific studies and makes recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Occupations Safety and Health (NIOSH), the EPA, and the National Toxicological Program (NTP). After federal government review, the MRL is reviewed by an external group of experts. The proposed MRL is released for public comments, and those are considered before the final adoption of the



Mining Wastes 427

MRL. These measures are important when screening for adverse health impact causes; however, there is a degree of uncertainty for people with sensitivities and for vulnerable populations, such as children, pregnant women, seniors, and those who are immune compromised, such as people with HIV. MRLs are cautious estimates that are considered conservative to provide protection to human health. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); National Toxicology Program (NTP); No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2018. “Minimal Risk Levels.” June 21, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­m rls​/­index​ .­asp.

Mining Wastes Wastes created from the operation of mines, including mineral processing and extraction, are known as mining wastes, and they can be solids, liquids, or gases. The majority of mining performed in the United States is hardrock mining for metals, and the other type is mining for industrial minerals, which are associated with nonmetals. Mining wastes also happen with coal mining and radioactive mining, but they are governed under different regulations. Wastes not included in the definition of mining wastes in the United States are wastes or by-products from cement kiln dust, the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas, and the combustion of fossil fuels, such as fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and particulate matter (PM) from flue gas. Pollution from mining wastes are regulated similar to other contaminants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Specific mineral processing wastes are categorized by the EPA (2016) in the Mining Waste Exclusion regulation as “special wastes,” and they are exempt from federal hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). When removing materials from the ground for the purpose of extracting a mineral, significant wastes can be generated both on-site and at remote locations where the mineral is processed. This usually involves quarrying. At the mining location, ore is processed through physical grinding, crushing, or other separation. With many mined ores, additional metallurgic treatments are required. Mineral processing by crushing, washing, and flotation (referred to as beneficiation) separates the mineral from the ore in which it naturally occurs. Metallurgical extraction occurs when the ore is treated to isolate and concentrate the desired mineral. Wastes from these processes are collectively known as mining wastes and are generated in large volumes. Mining wastes from extraction and beneficiation generally originate from the mining of metallic ores and phosphate rock. Metal ores are often found with oxides and sulfides. Mining wastes can also include the excess mined materials removed to access the ore in the ground. This is known as overburden spoils or

428

Mining Wastes

mill tailings; when the ore is pulverized into fine particles for preparation before extraction, the result is a slurry of fine particles called mine tailings. According to Diehl and Smith (2003), historically, mining has altered the hydrology and aquatic ecosystems where the mines are located. Mining wastes are often near smelting operations and can include particulates that are transported by wind to distant locations, impacting surface water, air quality, and soils. Water polluted from abandoned mines’ drainage runoff can be extremely toxic, polluted with highly acidic heavy metals, which creates toxic groundwater and drinking water and contaminates soils. When calcite or dolomite is present, an alkaline toxicity can occur from mine drainage. In addition to causing contamination, mining wastes can impact terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems around the overburdened areas. Today, regulator permits are required for all new and ongoing mining operations, including exploration activities. According to the American Geosciences Institute (2018), this permitting process ensures that environmental standards are maintained from the beginning to the end of mining process. New mines are now required to have operation and closure plans that define how the mine will be reclaimed upon completion of mining operations. In addition to the EPA and various state agencies that regulate mines, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) provides policies to ensure workers are protected from mining hazards. Its mission it to help reduce deaths, injuries, and illnesses from U.S. mines. According to the European Commission (2018), mining waste is one of the largest waste streams in the European Union. The commission reports that, in many cases, tailings are stored on heaps or in large ponds, where they are retained by dams. The collapse of these pilings may have serious impacts on the environment and human health and safety, as indicated by accidents in Aberfan (Wales, 1966); Stava (Italy, 1985); Aznalcóllar (Spain, 1998); and Baia Mare and Baia Borsa (Romania, 2000). According to some estimates, the liability associated with the management of mine wastes in Canada and the United States is in excess of $50 billion (Natural Resources Canada 2016). Looking toward the future, some are concerned deep-sea mining may be as damaging to the environment as land mining. Deep-sea mining for minerals started in the 1960s; however, technology improvements have only recently made it an economically viable option. As a result, there is a new global gold rush in deep-sea mining. The International Seabed Authority, which is drawing up a draft mining code, has issued twenty-nine exploration contracts for undersea mining in international waters beyond any national jurisdiction. According to one study by the Harvard Environmental Law Journal (Hunter, Singh, and Aguon 2018), the exploratory phase of deep-sea mining has already adversely affected indigenous peoples in the Pacific; in Tonga, large mining prospecting vessels have disturbed traditional fishing grounds; and in Papua New Guinea, villages bordering the exploration site in the Bismarck Sea have reported high incidence of dead fish washed ashore (Hunter et al. 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis



Monsanto Company 429

See also: Groundwater Contamination; Metal Mining; Native American Impacts; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

American Geosciences Institute. n.d. “What Are Environmental Regulations on Mining Activities?” Adapted from Metal Mining and the Environment (1999) by T. L. Hudson, F. D. Fox, and G. S. Plumlee, published by the American Geosciences Institute Environmental Awareness Series. Accessed May 3, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­a mericangeosciences​ .­o rg​ /­c ritical​ -­i ssues​ /­f aq​ /­w hat​ -­a re​ -­r egulations​ -­m ining​ -­activities. Diehl, Sharon F., and Kathleen S. Smith. 2003. “Mining Wastes Overview.” Assessing the Toxicity Potential of Mine-Waste Piles Workshop, June 1, 2003. Accessed May 3, 2018. ­https://​­pubs​.­usgs​.­gov​/­of​/­2003​/­ofr​- ­03​-­210​/­IC​_Overview​.­pdf. European Commission. 2018. “Extractive Waste.” Last updated January 1, 2018. Accessed May 3, 2018. ­http://​­ec​.­europa​.­eu​/­environment​/­waste​/­mining​/­index​.­htm. Hunter, Julie, Pradeep Singh, and Julian Aguon. 2018. “Broadening Common Heritage: Addressing Gaps in the Deep Sea Mining Regulatory Regime.” Harvard Environmental Law Review (April 16, 2018). Accessed May 3, 2018. ­http://​­harvardelr​.­com​ /­2018​/­04​/­16​/ ­broadening​-­common​-­heritage. Lottermoser, Bernd. G. 2010. Mine Wastes. 3rd ed. New York: Springer. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). n.d. “History: Legislative History of US Mine Safety and Health.” Accessed May 3, 2018. h­ ttps://​­www​.­msha​.­gov​/­about​ /­history. Natural Resources Canada. 2016. “Mining Wastes as Resources.” Last updated May 6, 2016. Accessed May 2, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­n rcan​.­gc​.­ca​/­mining​-­materials​/­green​ -­mining​/­18288. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Mining Waste.” Last updated April 19, 2016. Accessed May 3, 2018. ­https://​­archive​.­epa​.­gov​/­epawaste​/­nonhaz​/­industrial​ /­special​/­web​/­html​/­index​-­5​.­html.

Monsanto Company Monsanto Company was a global leader of agricultural products for farming. Their products increased the productivity of crops and include the manufacture of products such as herbicides, seeds, and other biotechnology products. The two main business segments included seeds and genomics and agricultural productivity. Major products included germplasm; pesticides to protect crops from insects; and, in general, glyphosate-based herbicides such as its Roundup brand. The herbicide chemical glyphosate was the world’s most popular weed killer, and it has encountered significant controversy because of its links to cancer. Approximately 44 percent of the company’s total sales came from outside of the United States (SEC 2017, 18). In the business segment for seeds and genomics, sales external to the United States are primarily to customers in Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and Mexico. The company has research sites in Iowa, India, Hawaii, and California. Other major brands included Dekalb, Monsanto Traits, Acceleron, De Ruiter, and Channel. Monsanto reported net sales for 2017 of $14.6 billion (SEC 2017). Monsanto was created in 2002 in a separation from Pharmacia Corp. In

430

Monsanto Company

mid-2018, Monsanto was purchased in a merger with Bayer AG, Corp., a German company. Monsanto was party to several environmental remediation and contaminated sites. Some of the legal proceedings are a legacy of its former parent company, Pharmacia LLC, and subsidiary Solutia, Inc. Several sites included Superfund remediation cleanup efforts under the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). For instance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2018a) has identified that the company released polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from its PCB-manufacturing plant in Anniston, Alabama. The plant is now fenced, and access is restricted. Hazardous wastes were disposed of in several areas, and PCBs were discharged into a stream and nearby creeks. Another Superfund site is the Soda Springs Plant in Idaho (EPA 2018b). Site activities by Monsanto contaminated soil and groundwater with hazardous chemicals and radioactive elements. This plant was purchased in 1952 to obtain phosphate ore. There are several sites undergoing remediation under the EPA for Monsanto contamination. A federal jury awarded $80 million to a cancer victim, whose illness was blamed on Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The company has appealed the verdict (Yerton 2019). Multiple litigation cases involving cancer impacts from the herbicide chemicals used in Monsanto products are continuing in Hawaii and California. Farmers in Hawaii are concerned because they regularly applied Roundup on coffee plants from 1995 to 2004 (Yerton 2019). The advocacy group March Against Monsanto (2018) was founded in 2019 in response to protests against the Monsanto Company’s chemicals, particularly the glyphosate-containing herbicides, as well as its genetically modified products. A listing of these various court actions can be found on the U.S. Right to Know (2019) website, which is a nonprofit public interest groups that reports on pesticides, genetically modified products, and sweeteners. The acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer has been called a disaster by investors because of the liability from potentially billions of dollars from the Roundup lawsuits that are ongoing. It is estimated that Bayer now faces about 48,600 U.S. plaintiffs in Roundup cases, which continue to proliferate over time (Dolmetsch 2020). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Herbicides; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

Dolmetsch, Chris. 2020. “Bayer Investor Sues Top Officials for Disastrous’ Monsanto Deal.” Claims Journal. March 9, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​ .­claimsjournal​.­com​/­news​/­national​/­2020​/­03​/­09​/­295900​.­htm. Genetic Literacy Project. 2018. “March against Monsanto: Once Grassroots Movement Now Big Business, Angry Moms Target GMOs, Vaccines, Chemicals.” December 29, 2018. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­geneticliteracyproject​.­org​/­glp​-­facts​ /­march​-­against​-­monsanto​/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018a. “Anniston PCB Site (Monsanto Co) Anniston, AL.” October 23, 2018. Accessed April 4, 2019. h­ ttps://​­cumulis​.­epa​.­gov​ /­supercpad​/­SiteProfiles​/­index​.­cfm​?­f useaction​= ​­second​.­cleanup​&­id​= ​­0400123.



Montreal Protocol 431

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018b. “Monsanto Chemical Co. (Soda Spring Plant) Soda Spring, ID.” October 23, 2018. Accessed April 4, 2019. ­https://​ ­cumulis​.­epa​.­gov​/­supercpad​/­cursites​/­csitinfo​.­cfm​?­id​= ​­1000213. U.S. Right to Know. 2019. “Monsanto Papers.” Accessed April 5, 2019. ­https://​­usrtk​.­org​ /­monsanto​-­papers. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “Monsanto Company: 10-K Report.” Accessed April 5, 2019. ­https://​­otp​.­investis​.­com​/­clients​/­us​/­monsanto​/­SEC​ /­s ec​- ­show​. ­a spx​? ­Type​= ​­html​&­FilingId​= ​­12343801​&­C IK​= ​­0001110783​&­I ndex​= ​ ­10000. Yerton, Stewart. 2019. “Monsanto $80M Verdict in Roundup Case Won’t Affect Other Suits.” Honolulu Civil Beat. Accessed April 5, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­civilbeat​.­org​ /­2019​/­04​/­monsanto​-­80m​-­verdict​-­in​-­roundup​-­case​-­wont​-­affect​-­other​-­suits.

Montreal Protocol The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, commonly referred to as the Montreal Protocol, limits the use and manufacture of certain chemicals that contribute to stratospheric ozone layer deterioration. The Montreal Protocol was passed in September 1987, with implementation on January 1, 1989. The protocol is considered the most effective multilateral environmental agreement because it has the complete support of 197 nations. Besides being widely accepted by nations across the globe, it is viewed by the international community as successfully healing the hole in the ozone layer. It is one of the only times in international environmental policy that countries have cooperated in working to prevent future deterioration of the protective ozone layer around Earth. The planet has a naturally occurring stratospheric layer of ozone that protects it from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. This radiation is absorbed by the stratospheric ozone layer, preventing the radiation from reaching Earth’s surface. A hole in this ozone layer would increase the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the surface, resulting in an increase in skin cancer and cataracts as well as planetary impacts, such as damage to crops and oceans. Stratospheric ozone is not to be confused with ozone, which is in ambient air, namely, the air we breathe. Ambient ozone, while chemically the same as the stratospheric ozone, is considered a major air pollutant. It results from ultraviolet light and combinations in the air of nitrogen oxides from cars, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and water vapor. In the early 1970s, scientists discovered that chlorofluorocarbons, known as CFCs, were a major factor in the depletion of ozone around Antarctica. Since 1985, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been tracking a literal hole in the ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol bans carbon tetrachloride, CFCs, trichloroethylene, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrobromofluorocarbons, methyl bromide, bromochloromethane, hydrofluorocarbons, and halons. The most well known of these chemicals, CFCs, were frequently used as propellants and in aerosols, such as deodorants, hair sprays, car and home air conditioners, and refrigerators. One unintended consequence of the Montreal Protocol was the shift to using

432

Mosaic Company

hydrofluorocarbons as a substitute for refrigerants and air-conditioning. As a result, these chemicals became the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Based on estimates by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP n.d.), there has been a phaseout of 99 percent of the one hundred ozone-depleting substances. As a result, two million cases of skin cancer may be prevented each year by 2030. The ozone layer is on track to recover, with the prediction that the hole will close by 2050. The Montreal Protocol has also become one of international agreements toward preventing climate change, as it has averted more than 135 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (UNEP n.d.). One of its provisions that has contributed to its effectiveness is a fund for developing countries to assist them in their elimination of ozone-depleting chemicals. The Kigali Amendment is the fifth in a series of amendments to the Montreal Protocol that has allowed the agreement to remain updated with new chemicals. According to UNEP (n.d.), this amendment commits nations to reduce the production and consumption of powerful GHGs such as hydrofluorocarbons by more than 80 percent over the next thirty years while also protecting the ozone layer. All prior amendments and adjustments of the Montreal Protocol have gained universal support. As compared to the Kyoto Protocol, which focused on carbon emissions from GHGs, the Montreal Protocol is considered a policy success. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change; Ozone Hole.

Further Reading

Gillis, Justin. 2013. “The Montreal Protocol, a Little Treaty That Could.” New York Times, December 9, 2013. Accessed August 21, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2013​/­12​ /­10​/­science​/­the​-­montreal​-­protocol​-­a​-­little​-­t reaty​-­that​-­could​.­html. Low, Patrick. 2016. “Why the Montreal Protocol Is the Most Successful Climate Agreement Ever.” South China Morning Post, October 26, 2016. Accessed August 21, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­scmp​.­com​/ ­business​/­article​/­2040177​/­why​-­montreal​-­protocol​-­most​ -­successful​-­climate​-­agreement​-­ever. Ritter, Stephan K. 2015. “The Montreal Protocol Is Healing Earth’s Ozone Hole.” C&NE 93(22): 8. Published online May 28, 2015. Accessed August 21, 2017. ­http://​­cen​.­acs​ .­org​/­articles​/­93​/­i22​/ ­Montreal​-­Protocol​-­Healing​-­Earths​- ­Ozone​.­html. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). n.d. “The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.” Accessed August 21, 2017. ­https:// unep​.ch​/oz​one/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf.

Mosaic Company The Mosaic Company (referred to as Mosaic) produces phosphate and potash (potassium) for use in fertilizers, crop nutrients, and food for cattle. It is considered the world’s leading manufacturer of these products. It mines and processes



Mosaic Company 433

phosphate and potash into crop nutrients that are shipped to customers in over forty countries. Mosaic is one of the newer chemical companies. In 2004, it was formed as the parent company through the combination of IMC Global, Inc., and the fertilizer businesses of Cargill, Inc. In 2014, the company acquired CF Industries Inc., and in 2018, it added the Vale Fertlizantes, which assisted with it becoming a major fertilizer producer and distributor in Brazil. The company’s headquarters is in Plymouth, Minnesota, which manages a workforce of over fifteen thousand employees in approximately six countries (Mosaic 2018a). The company mines phosphate in Florida and Brazil. Potash is mined in Saskatchewan and New Mexico. It has several mines, processing plants, and distribution centers around the world. The company has three business segments: phosphates, potash, and international distribution. The phosphate segment produces phosphate-based animal feed ingredients and crop nutrients. Most of Mosaic’s sales come from this segment. The potash segment is focused on the production of fertilizer and includes industrial applications and animal feed ingredients. The international business segment includes warehouses in Brazil, Paraguay, India, and China. This segment also includes the distribution centers for the other two segments. The largest operating centers are located in Brazil, Florida, and Saskatchewan. As part of its operations, it uses significant amounts of sulfur and ammonia. The company reported (Mosaic 2018b) net sales and operating earnings of $7.4 billion in 2017. The founding companies of Mosaic have roots in phosphate and potash. IMC Global, Inc., was created in 1909 as a phosphate-mining company. In 1940, Mosaic (2018a) reported that the company mined fifty thousand tons of potash from its Carlsbad, New Mexico, plant. The other founding company was Cargill, Inc., which launched its crop nutrition business sector in the 1960s. It was a major producer of phosphates. The merger of these companies formed Mosaic. Mosaic is reported to have over $851 million in fines associated with environmental violations since 2000, based on the Good Jobs First Report in 2018, which lists individual violations extracted from national enforcement and compliance data of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The company has been a potentially responsible party (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), and under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), it is party to consent decrees dealing with the handling of hazardous wastes at its fertilizer-manufacturing facilities in Florida and Louisiana. In 2016, these consent decrees required a deposit of $630 million in cash into two trust funds to provide for financial assurances for the remediation costs of the sites. Related to this case, in 2015, the EPA announced a settlement with Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, a subsidiary company, to ensure the safe treatment, storage, and disposal of sixty billion pounds of hazardous waste at six Mosaic facilities in Florida and two in Louisiana. This was the largest amount of hazardous waste addressed in an RCRA settlement (EPA 2015). At its Gypstack sites in Florida and Louisiana, closure and water treatment activities totaled $110 million in 2018. It is anticipated another $170 million will be used in 2018 for land reclamation. The company was required to continue to invest

434 Mothballs

in the trust fund until it reaches the full funding of $1.8 billion. The trust funds will include the future closure and treatment of hazardous wastewater at four Mosaic facilities in Florida and one in Louisiana, among other facilities undergoing closure. One site, the New Wales facility in Florida, developed a sinkhole in 2016 that resulted in a consent order with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the EPA. The company was required to remediate and close the sinkhole and to conduct monitoring of the groundwater. According to the SEC (2017) report, the costs were reported at $62 million in remediation, with additional cost estimates of $22 million. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Good Jobs First. 2018. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary.” Accessed September 12, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­prog​.­php​?­parent​= ​­mosaic. Mosaic. 2018a. “Facts about the Mosaic Company.” Accessed September 18, 2018. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­mosaicco​.­com​/­media​_center​/­3102​.­htm. Mosaic. 2018b. “2017 Annual Report.” Accessed September 18, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­mosaicco​ .­com​/­documents​/­Mosaic​_2017​_Annual​_Report​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. “Reference News Release.” Last updated January 8, 2018. Accessed September 18, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­enforcement​/­reference​-­news​-­release​-­major​-­fertilizer​-­producer​-­mosaic​-­fertilizer​ -­llc​-­ensure​-­proper. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “The Mosaic Company: 10-K Report.” Accessed September 18, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­sec​.­gov​/­A rchives​/­edgar​/­data​ /­1285785​/­000161803417000005​/­mos​-­20161231x10k​.­htm.

Mothballs The term mothballs refers to a commonly used insecticide containing naphthalene or p-dichlorobenzene. It is generally sold as a white crystalline solid and has a characteristic pungent odor. Mothballs transform from a solid directly into a gas; the vapors build up and kill moths and their larvae. The two major ingredients in mothballs, used individually or in combination, are extremely dangerous and have been linked to a number of short- and long-term health effects, including cancer and blood, kidney, and liver issues. Naphthalene, an aromatic component from crude oil, is for use in indoor and outdoor applications. Indoors, it is typically used in ball or flake form as a moth repellant and is most often placed in closed drawers, closets, and other storage areas. It is also used in attics as a squirrel and bat repellant. Outdoors, it is used in flake or granular form around gardens and buildings to repel such animals as snakes, rabbits, rats, and mice. In its crystalline form, naphthalene is used as a deodorizer for diaper pails and toilets and in resins, dyes, and pharmaceuticals.

Mothballs 435

Naphthalene is registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for nine registered products—one in manufacturing and eight in end-use products. Similar to naphthalene in appearance and odor, p-dichlorobenzene (or paradichlorobenzene) is now more commonly used than naphthalene because of the latter’s flammability and higher toxicity. However, paradichlorobenzene is limited to indoor use only. P-dichlorobenzene is registered with the EPA for twenty-eight registered products—five in manufacturing and twenty-three in end-use products. Public misuse of mothballs is fairly common. Mothballs are often used in air ducts and in other areas, such as crawl spaces, where vapors can enter or be distributed throughout the indoor environment. Once mothball vapors can be smelled, exposure is occurring and being rapidly absorbed. Vapor inhalation of mothballs may cause headaches, dizziness, irritation to the nose and throat, nausea, and vomiting. Reported incidents of naphthalene ingestion among children account for most of the reported cases of naphthalene exposures (though the severity of the reported incidents is much lower than for other pesticides as a whole). Children’s ingestion of mothballs has been attributed to their widespread use in homes and the ease of accessing the product, particularly in the ball form. Children often find the colored mothballs attractive and mistake them for candy (EPA 2008; Sudakin et al. 2011). Cases of intentional inhalation (or “sniffing”) of mothballs as a recreational drug have also been documented. A study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in 2000 found increased incidences of two types of nasal tumors in naphthalene-treated animals—indicating “evidence of carcinogenic activity” (Harriott 2008). Sales of mothballs remain common throughout the United States. While some states have enacted more restrictive regulations, including cancellations of the use of naphthalene as a pesticide, California has not allowed the registration of naphthalene as an active ingredient since 1992. Robert L. Perry See also: Household Exposure; Insecticides.

Further Reading

Harriott, Nichelle. 2008. “Clearing the Air of Toxic Moth Repellents.” Accessed July 13, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­beyondpesticides​.­org​/­assets​/­media​/­documents​/­gateway​/ ­health​ %­20effects​/ ­Mothballs​.­pdf. Sudakin, Daniel L., David L. Stone, and Laura Power. 2011. “Naphthalene Mothballs: Emerging and Recurring Issues and Their Relevance to Environmental Health.” Current Topics in Toxicology 7: 13–19. Accessed July 13, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​ .­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pmc​/­articles​/ ­PMC3850774. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. “Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Para-Dichlorobenzene.” Accessed July 13, 2018. ­https://​­www3​.­epa​.­gov​ /­pesticides​/­chem​_ search​/­reg​_ actions​/­reregistration​/­red​_ PC​- ­061501​_ 28​-­Sep​- ­07​ .­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. “Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Naphthalene.” Accessed July 13, 2018. ­https://​­nepis​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­Exe​/­ZyPDF​.­cgi​ /­P10027VV​.­PDF​?­Dockey​= ​­P10027VV​.­PDF.

N Nader, Ralph(1934–) Ralph Nader is a lawyer and widely versed policy advocate who is credited as a policy entrepreneur for his work in several fields, such as consumer and environmental protections, and for standing against corruption associated with large corporations. He has written over two dozen books and reports, appeared in several movies as himself, and produced a documentary shown at the Sundance Film Festival, plus he is an active radio host. But most of all, he has been the initiator of many organizations that continue to make changes in public policy. Nader was born February 27, 1934, in Winsted, Connecticut, to Nathra and Rose Nader, Lebanese immigrants. He received an undergraduate degree from Princeton University (1955), a law degree from Harvard Law School (1958), and then served in the U.S. Army in 1959. Nader began his career as a lawyer in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1959, and from 1961 to 1963, he lectured at the University of Hartford on history and government. His first policy advocacy focused on consumer protection. He founded many organizations on this topic, such as the Center for Study of Responsive Law, Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), the Center for Auto Safety, Public Citizen, the Clean Water Action Project, the Disability Rights Center, the Pension Rights Center, and the Project for Corporate Responsibility. The Center for Study of Responsive Law is his original research organization that, along with several legal students called “Nader’s Raiders,” tackled numerous consumer issues, including a detailed study of Congress (Congressional Quarterly 1972) and an in-depth investigation into the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Their conclusions on the FTC exposed cronyism and corruption within the commission. Today, the center continues work that reflects Nader’s enduring commitment to environmental, consumer, and worker health and safety issues. With Public Citizen, Nader created the largest advocacy organization for consumers. The groups under Public Citizen include Congress Watch, the Health Research Group, the Critical Mass Energy Project, the Global Trade Watch, and the Litigation Group. Public Citizen’s nationwide membership has grown to over one hundred thousand (Ralph Nader n.d.). Probably the most influential national organization Ralph Nader initiated was Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs). These grassroots groups are composed of students at college campuses across twenty-three states who directly manage the organizations. In 1996 and 2000, Nader ran as the Green Party candidate for the U.S. presidency and again in 2004 and 2008 as an independent candidate but not associated

438

Nader, Ralph

with any party. Although he has never held elected office, he has had an indelible and long-lasting impact on many pieces of national legislation and been the impetus underlying the creation of federal agencies. He is responsible for the initiation of several motor vehicle safety provision laws, and he assisted in the initiation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). He also advocated for the creation of several federal regulatory agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). More recently, Nader’s work emphasis is on multinational corporations’ growth and power over government. Nader views the passage of trade treaties, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), as a merger of corporate and government interests that benefits the elite establishment, which is expanding over time (Ralph Nader n.d.). In September 2015, Nader opened his most recent project, the American Museum of Tort Law. This is the only museum of its kind, with a focus on wrongful injuries in the United States. Like Nader’s commitment to the justice system, this museum highlights the trial-by-jury concept and the protections of tort law. Exhibits in the museum display many famous tort cases in the United States, several that he worked on. Nader’s books cover topics on consumerism, the environment, and the problems with corporations. One of his most famous books, Unsafe at Any Speed (1965), is credited with having launched the consumer movement of the 1960s to 1970s. This book influenced significant automobile safety measures that continue to be added to automobiles today. Other books include The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future (2012); Told You So: The Big Book of Weekly Columns (2013); Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State (2014); Return to Sender: Unanswered Letters to the President, 2001–2015 (2015); and Animal Envy: A Fable (2016). His most recent book, Breaking through Power (2016), focuses on the success stories of average people against corporations. Nader filmed the documentary An Unreasonable Man (2007), which focuses on his struggle with General Motors (GM). The film portrays GM’s undermining approach of hiring private investigators to deal with Nadar’s concerns about the Chevrolet Corvair. In 2014, Nader began the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, which is associated with the Pacifica Radio Network. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Clean Water Action (CWA); Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (1972); Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Further Reading

Center for Study of Responsible Law. n.d. “History of the Center for Study of Responsible Law.” Accessed June 18, 2020. h­ ttp://​­csrl​.­org​/­about.



National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 439

Congressional Quarterly. 1972. “Nader Raiders Focus Major Project on Congress.” CQ Almanac 1972, 28th ed., 11-125–11-128. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly. Accessed June 23, 2020. ­https://​­library​.­cqpress​.­com​/­cqalmanac​/­document​ .­php​?­id​= ​­cqal72​-­1250169. Eckholm, Erik. 2015. “Ralph Nader’s Tort Law Museum Seeks to Keep His Crusade Evergreen.” New York Times, September 25, 2015. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2015​/­09​/­26​/­us​/­ralph​-­naders​-­tort​-­law​-­museum​-­seeks​-­to​ -­keep​-­his​-­crusade​-­evergreen​.­html. Jensen, Christopher. 2015. “50 Years Ago, ‘Unsafe at Any Speed’ Shook the Auto World.” New York Times, November 26, 2015. Accessed August 17, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­nytimes​.­com​/­2015​/­11​/­27​/­automobiles​/­50​-­years​-­ago​-­u nsafe​-­at​-­a ny​-­speed​-­shook​ -­the​-­auto​-­world​.­html. Ralph Nader. n.d. Website. Accessed August 17, 2017. h­ ttps://​­nader​.­org. Ralph Nader Radio Hour. 2015. Website. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­ralphnaderradiohour​ .­com​/­about​-­the​-­show.

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) originated from a large section of the original 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and the reauthorization and amendment of the bill in the 1990 Clean Air Act. It largely deals with setting limits of both individuals and businesses in the emitting and release of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that can lead to nonnegligible increases in public health effects. NESHAP separates and classifies hazardous air pollutants into two separate types: those that come from mobile sources and those that come stationary sources. Both types are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under NESHAP. Mobile sources normally refer to such things as automobiles, motorcycles, airplanes, and smaller mobile sources like lawnmowers. Generally, mobile sources of these emissions are from vehicles that used some type of internal combustion engine. Stationary sources are normally places where products are manufactured but also includes sources such as coal mines and power plants that use coal to generate electricity. One of the reasons for both the CAA and NESHAP is that the human and public health costs of not regulating HAPs are not slight. According to some estimates, millions of individuals worldwide experience premature death as a result of the lack of control of HAPs. However, the majority of these deaths do not originate from the United States or Western countries, which is likely because of the stringent regulations placed on businesses by NESHAP and the CAA. However, the usage of the standards is not a one-size-fits-all approach to the regulations and reduction of emissions. The EPA uses a specific measurement definition to determine whether the source of the air pollutant is significant. The larger sources of air pollution are classified as major sources, and those with less pollution are classified as area sources. Area sources tend to have fewer restrictions, and the ability of the EPA to regulate these materials takes less effort than

440

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

those classified as major sources of pollutants. Additionally, the technique of regulating the emissions standards under NESHAP is not based solely on the release of the air pollutants but the best technological way to prevent the release of air pollutants. As a result, this incentivizes individuals to develop technology that reduces the number of emissions released. However, the standards are not without critique or controversy. One of the biggest areas of concern has been whether the EPA has the statutory authority to regulate carbon dioxide, a main and potent contributor to climate change, via NESHAP and the CAA. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide, but only if the stationary sources were already being regulated as major sources of air pollutants under NESHAP. As a result, climate change and environmental activists have been largely stymied by the political process and could not get a decisive victory at the Supreme Court. One of the main and most important features of NESHAP involves the regulations controlling and limiting emissions released by mobile source pollution. Mobile source pollution includes various machinery that can move; these movements cause air pollutants to be released into the atmosphere. This includes vehicles that operate on American roadways: motorcycles, passenger cars and trucks, commercial trucks, and buses. However, it also includes non-road vehicles, such as aircraft, heavy equipment, trains, and boats. The majority of the air pollution caused by these types of mobile air pollutant sources is some type of combustible engine. Sometimes the combustible engines are relatively small, causing very little emissions that would need to be regulated, such as a gasoline engine on a lawnmower, but they can also be relatively large, such as diesel engines found in many larger trucks used for hauling both small and large goods across the country in large quantities. One of the problems with these engines is that they can cause the appearance and creation of smog, which is ozone pollution at ground level. Although the gasoline and diesel engines do not directly cause ground-level harmful ozone pollution, chemical reactions with other pollutants in the air can cause smog. When humans inhale and respirate ground-level ozone pollution, it may cause difficulty when breathing, coughing, and sore throat. It can also aggravate advanced lung diseases, such as asthma, emphysema and chronic bronchitis. As a result, NESHAP places restrictions and regulations on the amount of emissions released by these mobile air pollutant sources. Under the CAA, the EPA, using NESHAP, also maintains responsibility for regulating hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources. When the EPA refers to stationary sources, this means that the pollution originates from some process where the building does not change locations. As a result, the most common of these types of locations involve power plants, refineries, and power plants, but they could also involve the manufacture of building materials that may result in the release of HAPs. NESHAP also develops two different classifications for the number of HAPs caused by different industries. If a particular contributor is labeled as a major source of HAPs, the restrictions and oversights on those industries can be relatively strict. However, to ensure that NESHAP does not use a one-size-fits-all



National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 441

approach to reduce HAP emissions, it can also designate a certain industry or place as an area source rather than a major source. The restrictions and the number of regulations that are placed on these types of industries are much less and focus more on recommendations on ways to lower the number of emissions released rather than by regulating and enforcing penalties, taxes, and levies on these industries. However, the EPA does not possess the ability via law to arbitrarily determine whether one industry or source is classified as an area or major source of air pollutants. It is done by a measurement of the actual amount of pollutants released into the air. The impact of the HAPs regulated by NESHAP is not slight. Although it is estimated that twelve thousand premature deaths could be associated with new rules targeted at lowering HAPs under NESHAP, the World Health Organization (WHO) lists the number of deaths worldwide from air pollution at 7 million, and other studies (Lelieveld et al. 2019) have estimated that the number could be as high as 8.8 million in 2019. However, the majority of deaths do not come from the developed world but from developing economies such as India, China, and Brazil. Part of the reason that developed countries do not experience the same level of public health effects from HAPs is the development, establishment, and enforcement of standards of emissions. And although some progress in developing nations has been made with respect to limiting HAPs, they still cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in developing nations. One of the requirements of the 1990 extension and amendment of the CAA involves the monitoring and limiting of HAPs through the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. Under these standards, the various industries that remain involved in the production and release of HAPs under regulation by the EPA deliver reports to the EPA regarding the best technological ways to limit the number of emissions. This is quite an important distinction because it does not allow the EPA to call for the blanket banning of some products solely because of the air pollutant that is released. It must use technological means for reducing the amounts of materials released by either stationary or mobile sources of HAPs. In the second part of the review of limiting the emissions, the EPA is required to assess the remaining health risks of the HAP. After this is completed, the EPA may make additional recommendations regarding how the standards should be updated in the future to deal with the potential health effects of the release of the air pollutant. Additionally, the regulations regarding the MACT standards are never really set in stone. Every eight years, even if a previous MACT standard has been adopted and passed through the second phase, there is a residual risk assessment in which the EPA reviews the findings. The purpose of this is relatively simple. Individuals and entrepreneurs throughout the United States in various industries have strong, rational incentives to create and develop technologies that help reduce emissions. These types of technologies not only reward the individual or firm in the private sector, but it can also lead to government tax incentives for creating the technology. One only has to look at solar panel technology to see that individuals that invested in developing the technology have been handsomely rewarded for their development and

442

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

creation of this technology that reduces the carbon footprint and also makes lowering emissions a much easier task. As a result, if the EPA closed off the review of certain industries after the second phase is complete, they would be unable to go back and revisit the emissions and craft new rules and regulations. As a result of having an automatic review, the EPA can return to the industries and show that a certain technology reduces emissions, and it can begin the process of developing rules that require the industry to begin adopting the new technology. CURRENT REGULATIONS ON STATIONARY HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: ASBESTOS One of the most common sources of stationary HAPs that NESHAP regulates is asbestos. As the U.S. Department of Labor states, “Asbestos is the name given to a group of naturally occurring minerals that are resistant to both heat and corrosion.” These products are found in a variety of industries, but most specifically in the construction of buildings, the manufacture of floor tiles and automobile parts, and in older industrial uses of HVAC equipment, including insulation and piping. Unfortunately, the effects of these chemicals are quite severe for both individuals and public health. As the WHO declared in 2012, “Breathing asbestos fibers can cause a buildup of scar-like tissue in the lungs called asbestosis and result in loss of lung function that often progresses to disability and death.” Even more, the condition may also lead to a condition called mesothelioma, which is the fatal malignant tumor in the membrane of the cavity of the lungs or the stomach. Because the main way that asbestos finds its way into the air and presents substantial public health issues is through the destruction and remodeling of buildings, NESHAP requires relatively strict procedures for the removal and demolition of buildings. Normally, when the owner of a property wishes to destroy or renovate a building (usually to build a new building in the same physical location), NESHAP first requires that the individual notify a state or local environmental regulatory agency prior to the demolition. At that time, a regulator will come to the location and perform an inspection of the building to assess whether the original building was constructed with asbestos-containing materials. If the building contains these materials, the regulatory agency gives specific procedures of how to deal with the demolition so that permissible amounts of asbestos are released into the air, but they also give specific procedures on safely, effectively, and efficiently disposing of the asbestos-containing materials.

CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE REGULATION OF EMISSIONS: CARBON DIOXIDE Although there are obvious air pollutants that are regulated by the EPA through NESHAP, such as ozone and smog, there are also other pollutants for which there is much less consensus on the ability (both legal and practical) on



National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 443

governing bodies to set emission standards. Many environmental activists and those focused on addressing the impacts of climate change have sought to have the EPA, under the CAA and NESHAP, regulate carbon dioxide as a contributor to climate change. Under the CAA, a group of activists sued the Bush administration to force the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from mobile sources, including automobiles. The administration retorted in federal court that even if the CAA gave the administration the ability to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under NESHAP, it would still decline to regulate it as a matter of it not being sound policy as supported by the science. When the Bush administration left office, the Obama administration began paving the way to regulate carbon dioxide emissions through the CAA. However, relatively quickly, it faced strong and fierce opposition from business groups claiming that carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant that can be regulated under the CAA. The case eventually found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 7–2 decision, the court held that the CAA does grant the EPA the ability to regulate carbon dioxide as a hazardous pollutant, but only from stationary sources that were already being regulated. In addition, the court held that the EPA could only regulate large stationary sources of HAPs, but not if the only HAP being regulated was carbon dioxide. This had several effects. First, it basically enshrined the ability of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide. However, it very narrowly allowed the federal government and the EPA, through NESHAP, to regulate carbon dioxide in a manner that could address climate change. And seeing how environmental activists, the EPA, and the federal government’s main purpose of the lawsuit was to develop a strategy for addressing climate change that would not have to go through the ordinary legislative obstacle course that is Congress, the qualified ability to regulate carbon dioxide under NESHAP provided more disappointment and frustration than hope. The failure of activists in front of the Supreme Court also magnified the problem going forward for NESHAP to play a guiding role (through the EPA) in addressing the causes of climate change. One of the main ways that activists have been trying to regulate carbon dioxide, as a contributor to climate change, is through a cap-and-trade system, which involves businesses buying permits to release carbon dioxide for some monetary price. However, most accounts find that cap–and-trade contributes little in influencing climate change one way or another (Ball 2018). Taylor C. McMichael See also: Asbestos; Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

Ball, Jeffrey. 2018. “Why Carbon Pricing Isn’t Working. Good Idea in Theory, Failing in Practice.” Accessed December 31, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­foreignaffairs​.­com​/­articles​ /­world​/­2018​- ­06​-­14​/­why​-­carbon​-­pricing​-­isnt​-­working. Lelieveld, Jos, Klaus Klingmüller, Andrea Pozzer, Ulrich Pöschl, Mohammed Fnais, Andreas Daiber, and Thomas Münzel. 2019. “Cardiovascular Disease Burden

444

National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network

from Ambient Air Pollution in Europe Reassessed Using Novel Hazard Ratio Functions.” European Heart Journal 40(20):1590–1596. U.S. Department of Labor. 2019. “Asbestos.” Accessed December 31, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­asbestos. World Health Organization (WHO) and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2012. Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 100C. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer.

National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network The National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (referred to as the Network) is maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The purpose of this network is to deliver information and data to protect human health. In 2001, the Pew Environmental Health Commission reported that there was a need for a national environmental public tracking system. As a result, in 2002, the CDC established the Network with the support of Congress. The Network is a source of data that includes tables, charts, maps, and links to information from a variety of sources in three areas: environments and hazards, health effects, and population health. This network serves like a clearinghouse of information for the public. It includes a geographic information system (GIS) to track information in a specific state; the name of the state is entered and then information is displayed at the county level. It includes links to specific state and local data sources. Under health effects, the Network pulls together data on asthma, birth defects, heat stress, respiratory and birth outcomes, developmental disabilities and child lead poisoning, heart disease, cancer, carbon monoxide poisoning, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hormones disorders. In the area of environments and hazards, it includes information on climate change, community characteristics and design, toxic substances release, outdoor air, drinking water, pesticide exposure, drought and sunlight (UV) impacts, and radon testing. For population health, the network includes information on vulnerabilities, children’s environmental health, health impact assessments, biomonitoring, and lifestyle risk factors. The CDC funds twenty-six state and local tracking programs as part of the National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (CDC 2018). It includes downloadable data sets on drought, solar radiation, and air pollution. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2018. “National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network.” April 4, 2018. Accessed April 11, 2019. ­https://​ ­ephtracking​.­cdc​.­gov.



National Environmental Sacrifice Zones 445

National Environmental Sacrifice Zones Sacrifice zones is originally an Orwellian term used in the former Soviet Union to describe populated areas irrevocably polluted by nuclear fallout. It now refers to residential areas where residents are exposed to disproportionately high levels of hazardous chemicals. Most sacrifice zones coincide with present or past industrial areas and are typically populated by African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and low-income whites. Sacrifice zones represent a lethal form of racial and economic discrimination. Most recently, the term was used in Steve Lerner’s book Sacrifice Zones: The Front Lines of Toxic Exposure in the United States, which documents the shocking and inspiring stories of twelve unlikely environmental activists facing serious environmental threats in their communities. Lerner documents communities from Florida to California that have contaminated land areas serious enough to be major health hazards to residential populations. It has only been when residents have become “citizen activists” that direct actions have been taken by government to lower the environmental risk profiles of these communities (Lerner 2010). Lerner (2010) also argues there is a disturbing commonality to these communities: they are predominantly populated by poor or minority people groups. Sacrifice Zones is Lerner’s call to confront the environmental racism that continues to maintain sacrifice zones while ignoring the health and safety risks to the local populations. CONDITIONS IN SACRIFICE ZONES Sacrifice zones are the result of social inequities that are deeply rooted in the culture of all societies. They are largely a product of local zoning decisions made by state and local officials in consultation with businesses to place industrial activities in areas where there is less chance the citizens will protest the building of an industrial plant or the consequent pollution. The consequences of these zoning decisions are predictable. Residents in industrial areas are more likely than the overall population to experience elevated rates of respiratory disease, cancer, reproductive disorders, birth defects, learning disabilities, skin rashes, and early death. The causes of environmental injustice that have led to national environmental sacrifice zones, and the resulting health disparities, reflects a complex legacy: one of governmentally assisted housing segregation, discrimination in land use, and the disparate enforcement of environmental laws. A RECENT EXAMPLE OF A POTENTIAL SACRIFICE ZONE The most notable example of a recent sacrifice zone is Flint, Michigan, where, in 2014, the City of Flint decided to switch its source of drinking water from Lake Huron to the less-expensive water from the Flint River, which is nineteen times more corrosive than Lake Huron’s water. The City of Flint failed to use corrosion inhibitors, and inadequately treated water leached lead from the water pipes,

446

National Environmental Sacrifice Zones

resulting in extremely elevated heavy metal neurotoxins in Flint’s drinking water supply. As many as twelve thousand children were exposed to the contaminated water, with the potential for long-term health problems. The percentage of children with elevated lead levels in Flint increased from 2.5 percent in 2013 to as much as 5 percent in 2015 (CDC 2016). LeeAnne Walters, a parent living on the south side of Flint, and Dr. Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech professor of civil and environmental engineering, demonstrated that the city had allowed dangerous levels of lead and other toxic substances in drinking water supplies for a year and a half. Several scientific studies proved lead contamination was present in the Flint River water supply at about seven times the legal limit, sometimes spiking to levels equivalent to toxic waste. Finally, after much government resistance, a federal state of emergency was declared in January 2016. Four government officials resigned over the mishandling of the crisis, and one Michigan Department of Environmental Quality staff member was fired. There have been fifteen criminal cases filed against Michigan officials. It is not surprising local, state, and federal officials were slow to respond to the Flint water crisis given the fact that Flint is 57 percent black, 37 percent white, 4 percent Latino, and 4 percent mixed race. More than 41 percent of Flint’s residents live below the poverty level, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Without the intervention of citizen whistleblowers, it is unknown how long it would have taken Michigan and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to respond to the water crisis. The governor’s instinctual lack of concern underscores the disparate treatment minorities and the poor receive in the face of environmental catastrophes. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT Unequal environmental protection and the existence of national sacrifice zones have given rise to the national environmental justice (EJ) movement, whose ideology is based on a civil rights analysis of environmental decision-making. This environmental, economic, and social justice uprising has redefined environment to embrace all the habitats where adults and children live, work, play, and go to school. It adds a justice and equity perspective to environmental protection that helps empower residents to build healthy communities and engage in development initiatives that will increase the environmental sustainability of neighborhoods, and not just those in the suburbs. THE ROLE OF THE EPA IN PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE According to the EPA (n.d.), the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), created in 1992, coordinates the EPA’s efforts to address the needs of vulnerable populations by decreasing environmental burdens, increasing environmental benefits, and working with stakeholders to build healthy, sustainable communities. The office provides financial and technical assistance to communities working constructively and collaboratively to address EJ issues.



National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 447

OEJ also works with local, state, and federal governments; tribal governments; community organizations; businesses and industry; and academia to establish partnerships seeking to achieve protection from environmental and health hazards for all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income (EPA n.d.). It is unknown why the EPA’s OEJ was not directly involved in the Flint water catastrophe. John Munro See also: Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986); Executive Order 12898 (1994); Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination (2016); Lead Prohibited in Automobile Gasoline Additive (1986); Love Canal, New York (1976); Times Beach, Missouri (1982); Toxic-Free Legacy (TFL) Coalition; Water Contamination (Surface); WE ACT for Environmental Justice; Workplace Lead Poisoning in Bayway, New Jersey (1924).

Further Reading

Bullard, Robert D. 2011. “Book Review of Sacrifice Zones: The Front Lines of Toxic Chemical Exposure in the United States.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119(6): A266. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pmc​/­articles​ /­PMC3114843. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016. “Blood Lead Levels among Children Aged Less Than 6 Years—Flint Michigan, 2013–2016.” Morbidly and Mortality Weekly Report 65(25). Accessed October 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​ /­m mwr​/­volumes​/­65​/­wr​/­m m6525e1​.­htm. Lerner, Steve. 2010. Sacrifice Zones: The Front Lines of Toxic Chemical Exposure in the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McQuaid, John. 2016. “Without These Whistleblowers, We May Never Have Known the Full Extent of the Flint Water Crisis.” Smithsonian Magazine, December 2016. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­w ww​.­smithsonianmag​.­com​/­innovation​/­whistleblowers​ -­m arc​ -­e dwards​ -­a nd​ -­l eeanne​ -­w alters​ -­w inner​ -­s mithsonians​ -­s ocial​ -­p rogress​ -­ingenuity​-­award​-­180961125. Roake, Jessica. 2010. “Think Globally, Act Locally: Steve Lerner, ‘Sacrifice Zones,’ at Politics and Prose.” Washington Post, September 22, 2010. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­washingtonpost​.­com​/­express​/­w p​/­2010​/­09​/­23​/­steve​-­lerner​-­book​ -­sacrifice​-­zones. Shepard, Peggy. 2016. “Building Justice: NYC’s Sacrifice Zones and the Environmental Legacy of Racial Injustice.” City Limits, October 10, 2016. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­citylimits​.­org​/­2016​/­10​/­10​/ ­building​-­justice​-­nycs​-­sacrifice​-­zones​-­and​ -­the​-­environmental​-­legacy​-­of​-­racial​-­injustice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. Office of Environmental Justice in Action. Accessed October 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​ /­2017​- ­09​/­documents​/­epa​_office​_of​_environmental​_ justice​_factsheet​.­pdf.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was created in 1970 under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to protect worker safety and health. Since 1973, it has worked under the U.S. Department of Health

448 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

and Human Services (HHS) as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), providing research and information to workers through reports and programs, promoting safe workplaces, and monitoring the health and safety of first responders. The organization focuses on hazards and exposures, chemicals, emergency preparedness and response, safety and prevention, and disease and injuries in occupations and industries. Through its Health Hazard Evaluation Program, it works with workers and unions to identify workplace health hazards and recommend injury-reduction strategies that can be implemented to prevent further risks. Its mission is to develop new knowledge in the field and transfer that knowledge into practice (NIOSH 2018). The organization does a significant part of its work through committees. Five federal advisory committees provide advice and guidance: (1) the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act to advise the U.S. Department of Labor and HHS about occupational safety and health programs and policies; (2) the Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, created by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 to advise HHS and the CDC on mining safety health and health research; (3) the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, created by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise HHS on worker compensation issues; (4) the Board of Scientific Counselors, which advises on occupational safety and health research and on workers’ needs in the workplace for prevention with the applicability and research findings; and (5) the Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee as part of the World Trade Center Health Program, created by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 to provide advice on determining eligibility criteria for responder and survivor membership. In 1975, NIOSH began publishing Current Intelligence Bulletins. These bulletins provide information on toxic chemicals in the workplace and have helped reduce exposures to many occupational chemicals, such as vinyl chloride, lead, asbestos, trichloroethylene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and many others. It also collects data on workplace injuries and fatalities. In 2008, NIOSH, with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Hearing Conservation Association, created a joint effort, called the Alliance, to help workers and small businesses protect worker health and safety by providing information, guidance, and access to training resources. The Alliance is particularly interested in exposure to noise and chemical ototoxic agents (chemicals that affect hearing). One of the standards in worker safety associated with toxic chemicals is the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, which is used widely by workers, employers, and health professionals. The guide highlights industrial hygiene issues for chemicals. Another accepted standard is the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, which is a collection of sampling methods and analysis of toxic chemicals in the workplace as well as in workers’ blood and urine. The organization provides scientific recommendations for best methods and practices in measuring workplace hazards. Kelly A. Tzoumis



National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) 449

See also: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2018. “About NIOSH.” Last updated August 6, 2018. Accessed September 19, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​ /­niosh​/­about​/­default​.­html.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) investigates the interplay among environmental exposures, human biology, genetics, and common diseases to help prevent disease and improve human health. Established in 1966, NIEHS is a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The primary research-related divisions within NIEHS include the Intramural Research Division and the National Toxicology Division, which brought together a collaboration of scientists at NIEHS from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Center for Toxicological Research. The studies conducted at NIEHS are often long term and high risk in nature and involve unique components, such as epidemiological studies of environmentally associated diseases, toxicological testing of environmental substances, and intervention and prevention studies to reduce the effects of exposures to hazardous environments. NIEHS also supports and conducts clinical studies to determine how exposure to chemicals or other agents in the environment may influence a variety of diseases. Owing to a congressional mandate to locate an environmental health sciences center at least fifty miles away from the Washington–Baltimore corridor, NIEHS is located in Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. NIEHS’s early research in identifying and quantifying chemical hazards in the environment was highly influential in eventually restricting the use of chemical pesticides. The first congressionally mandated National Toxicology Program Report on Carcinogens was published in 1980 and included twenty-six substances known, or reasonably anticipated, to cause cancer in humans. In 1987, what is now the Superfund Research Program was established at NIEHS, under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, to support research on human health effects of hazardous substances and cleanup of hazardous waste sites. By the 1990s, scientists affiliated with the NIEHS had discovered a breast and ovarian cancer gene, identified a prostate cancer suppressor gene, cloned DNA in yeast cells, linked a combination of two pesticides to parkinsonian symptoms, and unraveled the effects of the protein beta-amyloid peptide on brain signaling in Alzheimer’s disease. In 1994, Martin Rodbell, an NIEHS scientist emeritus and former scientific director, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

450

National Laboratories

for his team’s discovery of G-proteins and their role in signal transduction through cell walls. In recent years, the NIEHS has increased its support of collaborative efforts between NIEHS scientists and communities. In 2008, the NIEHS developed the Partnerships for Environmental Public Health (PEPH) program, which provides opportunities for scientists, community members, educators, health-care providers, public health officials, and policy makers to work together in all stages of research, including evaluation of research discoveries. The NIEHS maintains an extensive “Brochures and Fact Sheets” webpage to disseminate this information to the public. In the wake of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the NIEHS and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) established the National Institutes of Health Disaster Research Response (DR2) program to aid in the collection of human data during disasters. The NIEHS has also conducted tabletop disaster response exercises in communities around the country to help train for disaster events. Robert L. Perry See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); National Library of Medicine (NLM); National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Further Reading

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 2016. “Celebrating 50 Years of Environmental Health Research at NIH: NIEHS History and Milestones.” Accessed July 16, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­about​/­anniversary​/ ­historical​_ overview​ _ of ​ _ the ​ _ national ​ _ institute ​ _ of ​ _ environmental ​ _ health ​ _ sciences​ _19662016​_508​.­pdf. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 2018. “About NIEHS.” Accessed July 16, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­about.

National Laboratories In the United States, seventeen national laboratories provide scientific research, both basic and applied, in diverse areas. The national laboratories are the top scientific research facilities in the country and have a historical reputation of providing major contributions for both the government and industry. The national laboratory system in the United States assembles multidisciplinary teams to address scientific research in ways that both universities and the private-sector industrial labs cannot implement. They collaborate with 450 academic institutions in the United States and Canada and have over 2,000 strategic projects with nonfederal organizations. They have commercialized over 570 technologies and have over 6,000 technology licenses. These laboratories were originally established at locations that were used for research associated with World War II. Today, some of the labs are still located where the early scientific and production work was performed across the United



National Laboratories 451

States during the war, such as at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Ames, Argonne, Pacific Northwest, and Lawrence Livermore. The laboratories are managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and most of them are affiliated with universities. Over time, the federal government has expanded the labs’ missions to include important scientific challenges facing the nation. Today, the DOE oversees the laboratory system while separate management and operation contractors operate the facilities, whereas most federal government laboratories in the United States are government-owned, government-operated facilities. This includes laboratories associated with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By contrast, only the National Energy Technology Laboratory is a government-owned, government-operated lab. The other sixteen labs are government-owned, contractor-operated facilities. This management model began when the military built Los Alamos for research on the secret Manhattan Project for creating nuclear fission for radioactive weapons. They hired the University of California to operate the laboratory under the leadership of Professor Robert Oppenheimer. This model of operation continues today. National labs support the DOE, which is focused on science and technology based on four principal national missions: clean energy innovation, scientific leadership and discovery, nuclear security, and environmental stewardship of the nuclear weapons complex. DOE has divided up the management of the national laboratories into several areas. The DOE Office of Science manages the ten science-focused labs, and the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration manages three security labs. The applied energy offices within the DOE manage the three energy technology labs, and the DOE Office of Environmental Management manages an environmental laboratory. The labs comprise over forty-seven hundred buildings located on 813,000 acres. Scientists at these facilities lead scientific innovations that range from climate change to finding the top quark. These labs seek the birth of galaxies and explore the creation of nuclear fusion energy. The focus of the labs is on providing basic research for technology transfer for large-scale complex research and development challenges. Some recent major contributions of the labs include advanced computing by providing the fastest super computers in the world at a quadrillion operations per second. In collaboration with the NIH, the national laboratories began work on the Human Genome Project as an international effort in 1990. They developed the early Vela satellites launched in 1963 to detect nuclear detonation as well as the support for space exploration, with fuel and radioisotope thermoelectric generators that produce energy for spacecrafts, such as the Cassini. The surface of the moon was mapped using the camera equipment with three-dimensional technology developed at the labs. They also pioneered nuclear submarines, and in the field of nuclear medicine, they developed radioisotopes to diagnose and treat disease and target cancer tumors while avoiding healthy surrounding tissues. The labs also work on small-scale projects that directly impact industry. For instance,

452

National Laboratories

the substitution of a tin alloy for lead in solder was produced at the labs and is now used by over sixty companies worldwide. Many metallurgical advances have been effectively developed and transferred to the marketplace. For instance, high-pressure gas atomization made possible the production of titanium and other metals used in manufacturing. The Chevy Volt, an affordable electric car, uses advanced cathode technology developed by the labs. The Maglev trains in Japan and China use technology developed by the Brookhaven National Laboratory that is based on the force of magnets, levitating trains in driverless, fast transit. The labs have also made significant contributions to wind and solar energy technology, photovoltaics, and energy storage for transportation; plus, they have looked into the past at the bones of dinosaurs and other ancient artifacts. The national laboratories are the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ames Laboratory, Iowa Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Illinois Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pennsylvania and Oregon National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Washington State Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, New Jersey Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico Savannah River National Laboratory, South Carolina SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, California Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Virginia

According to the Annual Report on the State of the DOE National Laboratories (DOE 2017), the labs contribute to scientific knowledge by collectively publishing eleven thousand scholarly articles annually, in addition to having 115 Nobel laureates associated with the labs. They also significantly contribute to the economies of the cities where they are located, particularly in the science, technology, and engineering fields, because the labs employ over fifty-seven thousand people, with over twenty thousand of those being scientists and engineers. They employ a significant number of students and host thousands of visiting scholars every year. The operating costs of the labs is $13.8 billion (based on 2015 fiscal year estimates), with the majority of the budget spent between the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration and the Office of Science labs.



National Library of Medicine (NLM) 453

From the legacy of World War II, along with the weapons buildup during the Cold War, decades of weapons production and energy research left major environmental contamination across the national lab complexes. DOE’s Office of Environmental Management has been working on the remediation. Some of the most significant contamination is located at the legacy sites from nuclear weapons discovery, testing, and development that took place at the labs. The pollutants include a vast array of traditional contamination seen in industry, such as heavy metals and organic and inorganic toxic chemicals. What is unique about the DOE legacy waste is that some of it includes high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes from its nuclear weapons production areas. Areas such as those located at the Oak Ridge National Lab, the Pacific Northwest National Lab, and the Savannah River National Laboratory have some of the most complex radioactive contamination in the country: DOE manages one of the largest groundwater and soil remediation efforts in the world. The inventory at the DOE sites includes 6.5 trillion liters of contaminated groundwater, an amount equal to about four times the daily water consumption, and 40 million cubic meters of soil and debris contaminated with radionuclides, metals, and organics. (DOE 2017, 37)

This work has been in remediation for decades with the assistance of the states and the EPA. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); National Library of Medicine (NLM).

Further Reading

Ambrose, Mitch. 2017. “In Farewell Speech, Moniz Unveils National Labs Report and Scientific Integrity Policy.” FYI: Science Policy News from AIP, no. 6. American Institute of Physics, January 13, 2017. Accessed May 4, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­aip​.­org​ /­f yi​/­2017​/­f arewell​- ­s peech​-­moniz​- ­u nveils​- ­n ational​-­l abs​- ­r eport​- ­a nd​- ­s cientific​ -­integrity​-­policy. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2017. Annual Report on the State of the DOE National Laboratories. January 2017. Accessed May 4, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­energy​.­gov​ /­downloads​/­annual​-­report​-­state​-­doe​-­national​-­laboratories. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). n.d.-a. “DOE History.” Accessed May 4, 2018. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­e nergy​.­gov​ /­m anagement ​ /­office​ -­m anagement ​ /­o perational​ -­m anagement​ /­history. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). n.d.-b. “National Laboratories.” Accessed May 4, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­energy​.­gov​/­national​-­laboratories.

National Library of Medicine (NLM) The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The NLM was founded in 1836 as a collection of medical books and journals in

454

National Library of Medicine (NLM)

the office of the U.S. Army surgeon general. In 1956, Congress transferred the library to the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and named it the National Library of Medicine. Since 1962, it has been located on the campus of the NIH in Bethesda, Maryland. The NLM is the world’s largest biomedical library, and it maintains both a print collection and electronic information resources on a wide range of topics for consumers and health professionals. The NLM also supports and conducts research, development, and training in biomedical informatics and health information technology. In terms of organization, the NLM has six major divisions: Extramural Programs; Library Operations; Specialized Information Systems (SIS); the Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications; the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI); and the Office of Computer and Communications Systems (OCCS). The Division of Extramural Programs is responsible for providing grants to organizations and individuals for applying computers and telecommunications for improving storage, retrieval, access, and use of biomedical information. Within the Division of Library Operations is the National Information Center on Health Services Research and Healthcare Technology (NICHSR); the National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM), which is a network of nearly six thousand health and public libraries across the United States; the Unified Medical Language System, which integrates and distributes key terminology, classification, and coding standards; Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), which offers a controlled medical vocabulary presented in a hierarchical structure that enhances specified searching within databases; MedlinePlus, which provides information about diseases, conditions, and wellness issues for the public’s use; and DailyMed, which provides information on marketed drugs. The Division of Specialized Information Services (SIS) creates information resources and services in toxicology, environmental health, chemistry, and HIV/ AIDS. Housed within the SIS is the Outreach and Special Populations Branch (OSPB), which seeks to improve access to quality and accurate health information by underserved and special populations, and the Toxicology and Environmental Health Information Program, which produces TOXNET, a collection of toxicology and environmental health databases. TOXNET includes the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), a database of potentially hazardous chemicals, TOXLINE (containing references to the world’s toxicology literature), and ChemIDplus (a chemical dictionary and structure database). The SIS also houses TOXMAP, a resource that uses maps of the United States to show the amount and location of certain toxic chemicals released into the environment; WISER, a system designed to assist first responders in hazardous material incidents; Haz-Map, which links jobs and hazardous tasks with occupational diseases and their symptoms; DIRLINE, a directory of organizations and other resources in health and biomedicine; and Health Hotlines, a database of health-related organizations operating toll-free telephone services. The Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications performs research in developing next-generation electronic health records to facilitate patient-centered care and advance clinical decision support systems. It also conducts and supports



National Toxicology Program (NTP) 455

research in natural language processing, developing advanced computer technologies in the area of biomedical information, and developing and advancing infrastructure capabilities, such as high-speed networks, nomadic computing, network management, and improvement in the quality of service, security, and data privacy. The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) conducts research on biomedical problems at the molecular level using mathematical and computational methods. It also maintains collaborations with several NIH institutes, academia, industry, and other governmental agencies. The Office of Computer and Communications Systems (OCCS) is responsible for providing cost-effective computing and networking services, technical advice, and collaboration in informational sciences in support of the research and management programs offered through the NLM. Robert L. Perry See also: National Toxicology Program (NTP); Toxic and Hazardous Substances.

Further Reading

National Institutes of Health (NIH). n.d.-a. “A Brief History of NLM.” Accessed July 19, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­about​/ ­briefhistory​.­html. National Institutes of Health (NIH). n.d.-b. “National Library of Medicine.” Accessed July 19, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­nih​.­gov​/­about​-­nih​/­what​-­we​-­do​/­nih​-­almanac​/­national​ -­library​-­medicine​-­nlm.

National Toxicology Program (NTP) The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is an interagency program that was established in 1978 to coordinate toxicology research and testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The role of the NTP is to strengthen the science base in toxicology, develop and validate improved testing methods, and provide information about potentially toxic chemicals to health regulatory and research agencies, scientific and medical communities, and the public (NTP 2019e). The NTP’s administrative headquarters is at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and is composed of and supported by three agencies with the HHS: the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH); and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (NTP 2019f). In general terms, the NTP conducts studies assessing cancer health effects and noncancer health effects (NTP 2019b). In recent years, the NTP completed a carcinogenicity study concerning hexavalent chromium. The study’s results were cited in the initial statement to adopt a maximum contaminant level for hexavalent chromium in drinking water in California (NTP 2019c). Another recently completed NTP study was the West Virginia chemical spill research program, which was done in the wake of the January 2014 spillage of approximately ten thousand gallons of chemicals into the Elk River in West

456

National Toxicology Program (NTP)

Virginia—a municipal water source that served about three hundred thousand people in the Charleston area. The primary spilled agent was 4-methylcyclohexaneme­thanol (MCHM), and the chemicals dipropylene glycol phenyl ether (DiPPh) and propylene glycol phenyl ether (PPH) were also present in smaller amounts. While the NTP studies focused on determining the adequacy of the drinking water screening levels based on the recommended limits by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the time of the spill, the results indicated that exposure to MCHM at or below the screening level was not likely to be associated with any known health effects (NTP 2019g). Current areas of research for the NTP include studies to determine the impact of bisphenol A (BPA) on development and reproduction; studies to identify any potential harm from short- and long-term exposure to botanical, or herbal, dietary supplements; studies to assess the genotoxicity and oxidative stress-inducing properties of commonly used herbicides containing glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations; studies to identify potential harm from exposure to medicines and therapeutics; studies on how exposure to mold may cause disease; studies concerned with the potential toxicity of nanoscale materials and how and where these materials interact with the body; studies concerning the potential toxicity of individual polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) and PAC mixtures; and studies to determine the toxicity of sulfolane, a solvent widely used in natural gas and petroleum refining (NTP 2019d). One of the largest and most complex studies ever conducted by the NTP concerns cell phone usage. Given that cell phones are currently used by 95 percent of American adults and that little is known about potential health effects of long-term exposure to cell phone radiofrequency radiation, the FDA nominated the NTP to conduct the study. In its partial findings report, NTP researchers found links between cell phones and cancers in their study of laboratory rats. Specifically, the NTP found that the hyperplastic lesions and glial cell neoplasms of the heart and brain observed in male rats are “considered likely the result of whole-body exposures to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR” (NTP 2019a). Robert L. Perry See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

Further Reading

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018a. “Areas of Research.” Accessed July 16, 2018. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­results​/­areas​/­index​.­html. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018b. “Cell Phones.” Accessed July 16, 2018. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­results​/­areas​/­cellphones​/­index​.­html. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018c. “Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD Rats (Whole Body Exposure).” Accessed July 16, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­biorxiv​.­org​/­content​/­early​/­2018​/­02​/­01​/­055699​.­f ull​.­pdf+­html. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2019a. “Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation.” Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­whatwestudy​/­topics​/­cellphones​ /­index​.­html​?­utm​_source​= ​­direct​&­utm​_medium​= ​­prod​&­utm​_campaign​= ​­ntpgolinks​ &­utm​_term​= ​­cellphone.



Native American Impacts 457

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2019b. “Health Effects Assessments.” Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­whatwestudy​/­assessments​/­index​.­html. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2019c. “Hexavalent Chromium.” Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­whatwestudy​/­topics​/ ­hexchrom​/­index​.­html​ ?­utm​_ source​= ​­direct​&­utm​_ medium​= ​­prod​& ­utm​_campaign​= ​­ntpgolinks​&­utm​_ term​= ​­hexchrom. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2019d. “Highlighted Research Topics.” Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­whatwestudy​/­topics​/­index​.­html. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2019e. “History and Milestones.” Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­whoweare​/ ­history​/­index​.­html. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2019f. “Organization.” Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­whoweare​/­organization​/­index​.­html. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2019g. “West Virginia Chemical Spill.” Accessed December 23, 2019. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­whatwestudy​/­topics​/­w vspill​/­index​ .­html​? ­utm​_ source​= ​­direct​& ­utm​_ medium​= ​­prod​& ­utm​_ campaign​= ​­ntpgolinks​ &­utm​_term​= ​­wvspill.

Native American Impacts Although exposure to environmental risks can be attributed to such factors as age, gender, or socioeconomic status, it is often race that is one of the most important indicators of environmental inequality. Generally speaking, when compared with non-Hispanic whites, American Indians/Alaska Natives have a higher prevalence of birth defects and infant, neonatal, and postneonatal mortality. Many ailments can be connected to diet and lifestyle choices; however, native tribes across the American West, in particular, have been and continue to be subjected to significant amounts of radioactive and otherwise hazardous waste as a result of living near nuclear test sites, uranium mines, power plants, and toxic waste dumps and from performing small-scale jewelry and motor vehicle repairs (Vickery and Hunter 2016). In the Navajo Nation, for instance, the infant mortality rate is 8.5 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births among all races in the U.S. population. Postnatal mortality rates for Navajo infants are 2.1 times higher than the U.S. rate (Hunter et al. 2015). In addition, Native Americans, relative to other racial and ethnic groups, are more likely to live in close proximity to Superfund sites. One of the important factors concerning Native Americans is that the experience of American Indians has often been more extreme than that of other ethnic minorities in the United States, in that Native Americans were subjected to not only systematic efforts by the U.S. government to decimate them but have also often been subject to the federal government’s plenary authority that can be exercised at any time over tribal governments, resources, and land rights (Teodoro et al. 2018). In theory, at least, tribal governments can establish environmental regulations on their respective lands, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to enforce those regulations. However, tribes may approve environmentally harmful development opportunities, which are especially attractive owing to the high poverty and unemployment rates

458

Native American Impacts

typical on reservations. Those who seek to site hazardous facilities on tribal lands can bypass state regulators and deal directly with the tribes whose minority elites often act more in line with corporate interests than with tribal members’ interests (Taylor 2014). Many health issues among Native Americans are related to policies pursued by the federal government, which some have termed the “ecocide of Native America” and “nuclear colonialism” (Hooks and Smith 2004). When uranium and vanadium mining outfits began operations on Navajo lands in the 1940s, miners were not told of exposure risks related to breathing carcinogenic radon gas. By the mid-1950s, Navajo miners were being diagnosed with lung cancer, which was a relatively rare disease in this largely nonsmoking population. A study in 1984, decades after their exposure ended, found that standardized mortality ratios and relative risks for lung cancer and other respiratory problems were still nearly four times higher in Navajo miners than in nonminers. Still later studies found that health problems from uranium mines were not limited to the miners who worked in them but also extended to those exposed through drinking water or who had lived near a mine or had consumed contaminated livestock (Arnold 2014). Exacerbating the health issues related to uranium mining is the fact that reservations often become the permanent storage sites of high-level nuclear waste (HLW). Native American miners were rarely able to address these issues because they were prohibited by the Bureau of Indian Affairs from joining or forming unions. For many Native American communities, whose diet and economy, as well as culture, are based on fishing, the accumulative effects of toxic chemicals found in fish and other aquatic animals (including arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, fungicides, cadmium, lead, and mercury) have been particularly problematic. Although consumption of aquatic animals lessened in the wake of several governmental advisories in the 1980s, several health issues among Native Americans remain (Lynch and Stretesky 2014). In recent decades, an increasing number of Native Americans have been exposed to toxic chemicals related to oil and gas extraction and the burning of coal in electrical plants located near reservation lands. The chemicals used in oil and gas extraction have contaminated water sources on these lands, and extraction has depleted water tables. Although Native Americans receive royalties from the extractive industries, they still suffer from continued toxic exposure (Lynch and Stretesky 2014). Robert L. Perry See also: Arsenic (As); Cadmium (Cd); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Groundwater Contamination; Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg); Mining Wastes; Pesticides; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

Arnold, Carrie. 2014. “Once upon a Mine: The Legacy of Uranium on the Navajo Nation.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122(2): A44–A49. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1289​/­ehp​ .­122​-­A44. Hooks, Gregory, and Chad L. Smith. 2004. “The Treadmill of Destruction: National Sacrifice Areas and Native Americans.” American Sociological Review 69(4): 558–575.



Natural Gas 459

Hunter, Candis M., et al. 2015. “The Navajo Birth Cohort Study.” Journal of Environmental Health 78(2): 42–45. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. 2014. “Native Americans, Environmental Harms, and Justice.” In American Indians at Risk, Vol. 1, edited by Jeffrey Ian Ross. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood. Taylor, Dorceta E. 2014. Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility. New York: New York University Press. Teodoro, Manuel P., Mellie Haider, and David Switzer. 2018. “U.S. Environmental Policy Implementation on Tribal Lands: Trust, Neglect, and Justice.” Policy Studies Journal 46(1): 37–59. Vickery, Jamie, and Lori M. Hunter. 2016. “Native Americans: Where in Environmental Justice Research?” Society & Natural Resources 29(1): 36–52.

Natural Gas Natural gas is a source of energy used in the United States and around the world. It is created through natural processes deep below the surface of the earth. Chemically, it is called methane and is the simplest form of hydrocarbon, having one carbon atom. Natural gas also contains low concentrations of other chemicals, such as a variety of other hydrocarbons and compounds. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017), as of January 1, 2016, there are “approximately 6,879 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves on Earth.” Most of the natural gas consumed in the United States is produced domestically. A smaller amount is imported from Canada and Mexico via natural gas pipelines; a small amount is also imported as liquefied natural gas (LNG). Natural gas was formed from the decomposition of plants and animals millions of years ago, which occurred in layers far below the earth’s surface, sometimes commingled with sand and silt. From years of pressure and heat, these materials transformed into fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, and petroleum oil. There are different types of natural gas classifications based on where the gas is located under the surface. Generally, after natural gas forms, it can migrate into the areas between layers of rock. When it occupies the small spaces within some formations of shale, sandstone, and other types of sedimentary rock, it is referred to as shale gas. Another type of natural gas is known as coal bed methane, which is captured during coal mining. This type can be easily added to the supply of methane in pipelines. When the natural gas is extracted from a well it is called wet natural gas. This type contains a variety of liquid hydrocarbons and nonhydrocarbon gases. After the methane is isolated from these other gases, usually at a processing facility, the natural gas remaining is the useful fuel and is called dry natural gas, which is ready for market use. Natural gas is usually transported through pipelines to companies for sales to consumers. Another source of methane gas is biogas. This form of natural gas naturally forms in landfills or can be created in energy plants with large digesters to simulate the decomposition process. Large landfills can produce a significant amount of methane gas at certain times in their life span to generate energy. As a result, technology can be used to capture this naturally occurring gas from the decomposing

460

Natural Gas

process in the landfill to then generate energy for other uses. The barrier to using methane gas as a fuel with this approach is that, over time, the landfill does not consistently produce methane. Since the 1990s, the industry has used a unique type of drilling to access the natural gas trapped in horizontal layers below the surface. This is called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Fracking involves drilling at least a mile below the surface and then redirecting the drilling path horizontally to establish a pipe for extraction. This allows one drilling site to reach a number of sites for wells. After the well is drilled, it is then secured with cement. The horizontal pipe serves to pump a mixture of water, some sand, and a small amount of chemical additives through small holes in the pipe at very high pressure to create fractures in the layer so that the gas can release through the created openings. The chemical additives reduce friction and prevent pipe corrosion. Natural gas is an important component of the United States’ independence from other fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. With the invention of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology, the United States has begun to extract some of its largest reserves of natural gas. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017) estimated in 2017 that “total natural gas production in the United States from 2012 to 2040 will be over 50 percent of the energy supply with shale gas source being the leading contributor.” Due to the pandemic of 2020–21, natural gas prices are being impacted by increasing supply from decreased demand and the provision of affordable oil being supplied by Middle East from a breakdown of international diplomacy on pricing. Although fracking is occurring, there is significant controversy about the benefits and costs. It has certainly provided an affordable source of energy in the United States that has kept oil and gasoline prices lower, which has economically benefited consumers and provided jobs and revenue for a number of states across the nation. As of 2015, twenty-one states are fracking for natural gas; however, not all states support fracking. In 2014, Governor Cuomo of the State of New York banned fracking. His decision was based on concern over risks of water and air pollution and the unknown climate change impacts of extracting natural gas. The legislature in the Maryland passed a moratorium on fracking in 2015. In 2017, the state banned fracking completely due to concerns about environmental pollution to both water and air. Fracking is widely opposed by environmental advocacy groups because of safety concerns for public health and the environment. One focus of the opposition is that the additives and mixture of other chemicals used in fracking are often toxic. The industry has put together a database of these chemicals that can be found online in the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry (FracFocus 3.0), which informs regulators and the public about what is being used. These chemicals are often considered trade secrets by the fracking companies, which prevents them from disclosing the full composition of toxins used or by-products of fracking extraction. This registry has come under close scrutiny by both environmental groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Kelly A. Tzoumis



Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 461

See also: Fox, Josh (1972–); FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry; Steingraber, Sandra (1959–).

Further Reading

American Petroleum Institute (API). 2017. “What Is Fracking?” Accessed September 18, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­what​-­is​-­f racking​.­com​/­what​-­is​-­hydraulic​-­f racturing. Biello, David. 2011. “Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas Pollutes Water Wells.” Scientific American, May 9, 2011. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­scientificamerican​ .­com​/­article​/­fracking​-­for​-­natural​-­gas​-­pollutes​-­water​-­wells. Henry, Devin. 2017. “Maryland Governor Signs Fracking Ban into Law.” The Hill, April 4, 2017. Accessed September 19, 2017. ­http://​­thehill​.­com​/­policy​/­energy​-­environment​ /­327266​-­maryland​-­governor​-­signs​-­fracking​-­ban​-­into​-­law. Hirji, Zahra, and Lisa Song. 2015. “Map: The Fracking Boom, State by State.” Inside Climate News, January 20, 2015. Accessed September 19, 2017. ­https://​­insideclimatenews​ .­org​/­news​/­20150120​/­map​-­fracking​-­boom​-­state​-­state. Kaplan, Thomas. 2014. “Citing Health Risks, Cuomo Bans Fracking in New York State.” New York Times, December 17, 2014. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­nytimes​.­c om​/­2014​/­12​/­18​/­nyregion​/­cuomo​-­t o​-­ban​-­f racking​-­i n​-­new​-­york​- ­state​ -­citing​-­health​-­risks​.­html. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2017. “Natural Gas Explained.” Last updated October 25, 2017. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­eia​.­gov​/­energyexplained​ /­index​.­cfm​?­page​= ​­natural​_ gas​_home. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Development.” Last updated September 14, 2018. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­uog. “What Is Fracking and Why Is It Controversial?” 2015. BBC News, December 16, 2015. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­bbc​.­com​/­news​/­uk​-­14432401.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Founded in 1970, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a nonprofit organization whose experts use research and science to advocate for laws and policies related to environmental change. The NRDC had its beginnings in 1969, when two groups of lawyers approached the Ford Foundation with the idea of establishing a nonprofit law firm whose sole purpose would be environmental protection. In February of the following year, the NRDC was established with support from the foundation. The NRDC’s political strategies have remained consistent in that it uses in-house scientific experts and lawyers to litigate against public entities and private corporations to force implementation, compliance, and enforcement of environmental laws. In more recent years, the NRDC has developed the Center for Market Innovation (CMI), wherein the council’s experts collaborate with private- and public-sector leaders to adopt more efficient investment models. In its earlier years, the NRDC found success in a number of areas, including its proposal for the collaborative Hood River Conservation Project, its helping to write the national appliance efficiency standards and building standards for California, its work with Soviet scientists in third-world

462

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

development projects, its opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and its efforts to press the federal government to adopt the first ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants. Many consider the NRDC’s efforts to staunch the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as one of its greatest successes. In 1978, the NRDC helped to publicize the findings of two prominent atmospheric scientists whose work showed that CFCs could weaken the ozone layer. Following the publication, the NRDC pursued federal and state bans on CFC aerosols. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would ban most aerosols using CFCs in 1978, they were still being used in refrigeration and industrial applications. With increased litigation pressure, the NRDC and EPA settled a lawsuit with an agreement on a Stratospheric Ozone ­P rotection Plan that set a schedule for completing a risk assessment and building consensus on further action among businesses, environmental ­organizations, and governments. By September 1987, the United States and twenty-three other countries had agreed to cut CFC production 50 percent over ten years,  and by 1992, eighty-seven countries had agreed to ban CFC production by 1996. The NRDC’s more recent campaign efforts address climate change by bringing cases against the federal government to limit carbon pollution from cars and power plants and oil drilling in Alaska. It also seeks a reduction of harmful chemicals in food, the prevention of overfishing, the protection of coastal communities from offshore drilling, clean water supplies, and wildlife protection. In recent years, the NRDC has also worked with an increasingly diverse set of partners, including leaders of low-income communities and communities of color, religious groups, ranchers, and brewers. The NRDC also collaborates with a broad range of international partners. The NRDC’s current membership is over three million members and online activists, with about five hundred lawyers, scientists, and policy advocates. The NRDC operates as a 501(c)(3) organization, but it is also affiliated with the separate NRDC Action Fund, which operates as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization with fewer legal limitations and restrictions. Robert L. Perry See also: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change.

Further Reading

Allen, Paul J. 1990. “Natural Resources Defense Council.” Environment 32(10): 2–4. Hirst, Eric. 1989. “The Hood River Conservation Project: A Unique Research and Demonstration Effort.” Energy and Buildings 13(3): 3–9. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2007. “Happy Birthday to the Ozone Later.” Accessed June 15, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­n rdc​.­org​/­experts​/­david​-­doniger​ /­happy​-­birthday​-­ozone​-­layer. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2018. “How We Work.” Accessed June 15, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­n rdc​.­org​/­node​/­157​# ­partnerships.



Nerve Agents 463

Nerve Agents Neurotoxic chemicals directly impact the nervous system, and when used in warfare, they are called nerve agents. Nerve agents are chemically similar to organophosphorus compounds (organic compounds containing phosphorous). They are stable in air and water, highly toxic, and can be fatal whether absorbed through the skin, inhaled, or ingested. Neurotoxic chemicals were developed decades ago, and they have been used in warfare and conflicts. They were used by Iraq against Iran, and, more recently, they were used in Syria. They have also been used by terrorists in a variety of locations. Countries participating in the UN Chemical Weapons Convention treaty have agreed to destroy stockpiles of aging chemical weapons; however, there have been recent uses of these chemicals by countries such as Syria, with devastating effects. Neurotoxic chemicals are some of the most toxic and deadliest chemicals known to humans, and they have devastating health impacts. None of these chemicals occur naturally. All of them were created in a laboratory, but making nerve agents is a simple chemical process using inexpensive materials that are widely available. Their classifications are G and V agents. The predominant G agents are GB (sarin), GA (tabun), and GD (soman), and the main V agent is VX. Each nerve agent category has its own chemical profile. G agents are clear, tasteless, and colorless liquids that dissolve readily in water and most organic chemicals. GB agents are odorless, GAs have a fruity odor, and GDs have a slight camphor scent. These chemicals evaporate in air. GB is the most volatile of all the categories. Unlike the G agents, VX is a clear and odorless amber-colored liquid that is oily. Like G chemicals, VX chemicals readily dissolve in water, and they are soluble in all solvents. They are the least volatile of the nerve agents. Nerve agents are so deadly because there are many pathways whereby these chemicals can reach the human body and cause harm. The primary way is inhalation. Nerve agents are frequently used as vapors, which causes an immediate reaction in the respiratory system. Because several of the nerve agents do not have a scent, people do not detect exposure. Liquid forms are readily absorbed through exposed skin and eye contact. For VX chemicals, one drop on skin can be fatal. Chemical nerve agents are rarely ingested. If the chemical does enter the gastrointestinal tract, it will be highly toxic and fatal. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF NERVE AGENTS Nerve agents were discovered in the process of creating insecticides. Scientists found that the insecticide chemical produced was exceptionally potent and could be used in warfare. Each type of nerve agent was discovered at a different time and in separate experiments. Germany created both GA and GB but never used them during World War II. GA was the first nerve agent, created in 1936. A couple years later, GB was created, and then GD in 1944. It was not until the 1950s that VX was created by a British chemist. Today, some of the same chemical

464

Nerve Agents

compounds are used in agriculture and medicines, but in different concentrations, and they are not considered toxic. Tabun (GA) is a colorless liquid with no taste that bears a mild fruity smell. It is most likely to be used to poison drinking water or food. As a vapor, it can be inhaled. This chemical takes time for the body to process it, so repeated exposure can produce cumulative toxicity. Tabun was one of the first nerve agents developed. It was first created as an insecticide in Germany in 1934 by scientist Gerhard Schrader. There is some indication that the nerve agent was used during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Soman (GD) is also a colorless liquid with no taste, but it smells similar to rotten fruit or mothballs. When heated, it vaporizes. It was also created as an insecticide in Germany, in 1944. It poisons water and food and can be inhaled. Adverse reactions to soman vapor occur within seconds after exposure, and the reactions to the liquid form are within minutes to a couple hours. This chemical evaporates easily from a liquid into a vapor, more so than VX but less so than sarin (GB). VX is considered by some health professionals to be the deadliest of all the nerve agents; scientists estimate that VX is ten times more toxic than sarin. It is an oily liquid that is odorless and bears no taste. It was created in Great Britain in the early 1950s with the intent of being a chemical warfare agent. It also may have been used in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Sarin (GB) is a nerve agent that has been used on several occasions since World War II. It is a colorless, odorless liquid with no taste, but it readily evaporates into vapor, which is how it has been delivered. Germany created it in 1938 as an insecticide. In 1995, sarin gas was used in a terrorist attack on a subway in Tokyo. In 2013, it was used again, causing the deaths of at least a thousand men, women, and children in Syria. It is suspected that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack. This attack was the most extreme use of nerve agents since 1988, when the Iraq government used it to kill thousands of its own civilians. Syria joined the UN’s Chemical Weapons Convention and agreed to the removal of its 2.8 million pounds of toxic weapons; however, in April 2017, reports indicated that Syria again used both sarin and chlorine gas on its people. In response, the United States launched more than fifty cruise missiles at a Syrian air base. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Insecticides; Neurological Toxicity; Pesticides.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2014. “Nerve Agents (GA, GB, GD, VX).” Toxic Substances Portal, October 21, 2014. Accessed September 22, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­m mg​/­m mg​.­asp​?­id​= ​­523​&­tid​= ​­93. Amarasingam, Amarnath. 2017. “A History of Sarin as a Weapon.” The Atlantic, April 5, 2017. Accessed September 22, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­theatlantic​.­com​/­international​ /­archive​/­2017​/­04​/­sarin​-­syria​-­assad​-­chemical​-­nazi​/­522039. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2015. “Sarin (GB).” Last updated November 18, 2015. Accessed September 22, 2017. ­https://​­emergency​.­cdc​.­gov​ /­agent​/­sarin​/ ­basics​/­facts​.­asp.



Neurological Toxicity 465

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. n.d. “Nerve Agents.” Accessed September 22, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­opcw​.­org​/­about​-­chemical​-­weapons​/­t ypes​-­of​ -­chemical​-­agent​/­nerve​-­agents. Samuelson, Kate. 2017. “What to Know about Sarin, the Deadly Nerve Gas Likely Used in Syria.” Time, April 6, 2017. Accessed September 22, 2017. ­http://​­time​.­com​ /­4728846​/­sarin​-­nerve​-­gas​-­syria.

Neurological Toxicity Neurological toxicity, sometimes referred to as neurotoxicity, is the adverse impact of a substance on the human nervous system. This is a broad definition because the nervous system and its functions are broad. The nervous system is a complex network of neurons and nerve cells spread throughout the body that coordinate information and body functions. It is the central control for processing the human senses and pain as well as metabolic and cognitive functions of the body, and so it is responsible for communicating external and environmental interactions to internal organs. It is composed of the central nervous system, which includes the brain and spinal cord, and the peripheral nervous system, which includes a network of nerve cells that extend throughout the body. Neurotoxins from any source can disrupt or harm any part of the nervous system. Neurotoxins are often thought of as only industrial chemicals, but naturally occurring neurotoxins exist in a variety of ecosystem species. The black widow spider, funnel-web spider, and armed (armadeira) spider are some of the spiders whose bites can range from irritating to deadly, with health impacts that include skin rashes, severe pain, breathing difficulties, body temperature irregularities, and nausea and vomiting. Cobras, coral snakes, and sea snakes are some of the many snakes producing neurotoxins that cause pain and neuromuscular damage. Another naturally occurring neurotoxin is a protein produced by the bacteria Clostridium botulinum, which can be found in the soil and improperly stored foods. It can cause paralysis and muscle dysfunction. SURPRISING BUT COMMON SOURCES OF NEUROTOXINS Several neurotoxins are found in food. Acrylamide is in food heated at high temperatures. This chemical directly impacts the brain and the central nervous system and can be found in potato chips, french fries, cigarette smoke, and coffee. A common but overlooked neurotoxin is drinking alcohol. When consumed in high amounts, it impairs the nervous system. Domoic acid is dangerous to human health in very small quantities and is found in shellfish; when improperly prepared, it can permanently damage memory. Neurotoxins are found in both prescription and illicit drugs. Methamphetamine is highly addictive and a strong stimulant on the central nervous system. In small doses, it is used by prescription to treat attention disorders but is also used illicitly at higher doses for recreation. The neurological toxic property of the prescription drug haloperidol treats schizophrenia and controls motor and speech tics in people with Tourette’s syndrome.

466

Neurological Toxicity

Neurological toxins found in other common sources are fluoride, an additive to toothpaste and drinking water that is a neurological toxin at high concentrations; pesticides using organophosphates, such as insecticides, herbicides, and nerve agents like those used in chemical warfare; and methylmercury, found in many fish, which bioaccumulates in predatory animals such as sharks and swordfish. Other well-known neurological toxins include carbon disulfide, ethylene oxide, and lead. Lead is of particular concern because humans have had wide exposure it. Lead was used as an additive in many household paints and gasoline until the 1980s. It is particularly problematic because it interferes with the development of young brains. One major concern is that the lead in contaminated drinking water impacts the central nervous system of adults and developing children. Occupations using these chemicals are likely routes of exposure. Probably most surprising is quinolinic acid. It is called an endogenous neurotoxin (originating inside the body) because it is found naturally in trace concentrations in human brains and cerebrospinal fluid; however, it is associated with a variety of neurological diseases and psychiatric disorders, such as associated neurocognitive disorders, depressive disorders, and schizophrenia.

HEALTH IMPACTS FROM NEUROLOGICAL TOXICITY Neurological toxins can alter the activity of the nervous system by disrupting or killing nerves. Nerves are the primary mechanism that coordinates and processes information to and from the brain and throughout the rest of the nervous system. By impacting the central nervous system, these chemicals can induce a variety of cognitive and coordination disabilities. Memory, intelligence, dementia, and epilepsy are all linked to exposure. Neurotoxins can also impact the peripheral nervous system with damage or disease that disrupts coordination and muscle movement, organ function, sensations, or gland regulations. Symptoms of neurological toxicity include headaches or migraines, memory disorders, confusion, mood and behavioral changes, language or sleep dysfunction, depression, numbness or lack of sensations, and decreases in motor function. Additional problems can manifest with the liver, kidney, sinuses and lungs and as chemical sensitivities and fibromyalgia. Extreme neurological toxicity can result in brain damage or death. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Cadmium (Cd); Formaldehyde (CH2O); Insecticides; Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Neurological (Nervous System).” Toxic Substances Portal, March 3, 2011. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxorganlisting​.­asp​?­sysid​= ​­18. Hamblin, James. 2014. “The Toxins That Threaten Our Brains.” The Atlantic, March 18, 2014. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­theatlantic​.­com​/ ­health​/­archive​/­2014​ /­03​/­the​-­toxins​-­that​-­threaten​-­our​-­brains​/­284466.



Nickel (Ni) 467

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Guidance for Hazard Determination.” Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­dsg​/ ­hazcom​ /­ghd053107​.­html.

Nickel (Ni) Nickel is a hard, silvery-white heavy metal that is abundant in nature and commonly found in soil. It is emitted from volcanoes and is found in meteorites and on the ocean floor. Nickel forms alloys when combined with other metals, such as iron, copper, chromium, and zinc. These alloys are used to make coins, jewelry, and items such as valves and heat exchangers. Because of its noncorrosive properties, most nickel is used to make stainless steel. The aerospace industry is a leading consumer of nickel-based superalloys, and electric power generating stations use the alloys in turbines. Nickel can combine with other elements, such as chlorine, sulfur, and oxygen, to form nickel compounds, many of which readily dissolve in water and appear green. Nickel compounds are used in nickel plating, ceramic colors, batteries, and as catalysts that boost rates of chemical reactions. Most of the nickel on Earth is believed to be concentrated in the planet’s core. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2017, 144), the United States has only one active nickel mine, Eagle Mine in Michigan, which is underground. The mine has been exporting to smelters in Canada and overseas since April 2014. In the United States, top nickel consumption is in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Illinois, New York, and North Carolina. Nickel is imported into the United States from Canada and Russia, with a significant amount coming from recycled nickel-containing alloys. Nickel may be released into the air by large furnaces used to make alloys or from power plants and trash incinerators. Nickel can also be released in industrial wastewater. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2017), the most common harmful health effect of nickel in humans is allergic reaction. An estimated 10–20 percent of the population is sensitive to nickel. The most serious risk comes from nickel dust via inhalation in industrial workplaces, resulting in chronic bronchitis, reduced lung function, and cancer of the lung and nasal sinus. Oral human exposure to high levels of soluble nickel compounds through the environment is extremely unlikely, and people have only rarely been exposed to high levels of nickel in food or water. Nickel metal is a reasonably anticipated carcinogen. Nickel compounds are known human carcinogens. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); Heavy Metals; Known to Be a Human Carcinogen.

468

No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Nickel.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­44. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017. “Nickel.” Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​­minerals​.­usgs​.­gov​/­minerals​/­pubs​ /­commodity​/­nickel​/­mcs​-­2017​-­nicke​.­pdf.

No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is the measure of a chemical’s highest concentration or amount that causes no harm to humans; in other words, it is considered the highest dose of a chemical that does not produce toxic effects. This includes no impacts to human growth and development, reproduction, or life span. This is often established using laboratory animal tests with the results then being extrapolated to humans. According to Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA 2018), an independent scientific research and educational nonprofit organization, NOAEL is an exposure level at which there are no statistically or biologically significant increases in the frequency or severity of adverse effects. NOAEL is considered the highest exposure without an adverse effect. NOAELs are developed for the most harmful human health impacts in the most sensitive species of experimental animal. As a result, NOAEL becomes the highest dietary level of a substance at which no adverse effects were observed in studies. It is calculated in milligrams of substance per kilogram of body weight per day. To ensure the NOAEL is a conservatively safe number, it is then divided by what is considered a public health safety factor, which is around one hundred and sometimes up to one thousand. NOAELs require a series of toxicity tests to establish the acceptable daily intake (ADI) so that all routes to human exposure from food chemical contaminants are considered. This includes scenarios of long-term exposure, fetal exposure, and exposure over the growth of person from childhood into adulthood. During testing, NOAELs are highly dependent on the time between doses. The ADI is then calculated from the lowest NOAEL in the most sensitive test and the most sensitive species that includes these scenarios of exposure. NOAELs are used as an input when calculating ADI and tolerable daily intake values. A related term, lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL), is the lowest dose at which there is a toxic impact. Both NOAELs and LOAELs can be used to examine beneficial outcomes of chemicals and do not directly measure toxicity to human health. Both of these estimates assist in measuring risk assessments performed for public and environmental health. They are also used in estimating not only exposures to pollutants but also medicine undergoing development. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the methods for establishing NOAELs and LOAELs. NOAELs do not have a consistent standard and so have been criticized as being a nonclinical risk assessment rather than a scientific standard; however, this



Nonstick Teflon Cooking Pan Coatings 469

inconsistent standard is partly based on the determination of what is an adverse effect because scientists do not have a precise standard for adverse impact. The measure varies with duration and dose interpretation without a link to risk interpretations. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAEL).

Further Reading

Dorato, M. A., and J. A. Engelhardt. 2005. “The No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level in Drug Safety Evaluations: Uses, Issues, and Definition(S).” Regulatory Toxicology Pharmacology 42(3): 265–274. Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA). 2018. “NOAEL.” Accessed October 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­tera​.­org​/­iter​/­glossary​.­html.

Nonstick Teflon Cooking Pan Coatings Teflon is the brand name for cookware created in 1938 by DuPont (now DowDuPont) and is now part of the Chemours Company (Chemours 2019). Teflon is a synthetic chemical that is nonreactive, nonstick, and frictionless. Teflon coatings are used in paints, fabrics, carpets, home furnishings, clothing, and other products. Chemours Company was created in 2013 when DuPont separated its fluoroproducts manufacturing into a separate organization. GenX is a trade name for technology that is used to manufacture some nonstick coatings without the chemical known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). PFOA, a persistent organic pollutant (POP), has been found in surface water, groundwater, drinking water, rainwater, and air emissions according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2018a). GenX chemicals are used as substitutes for PFOA in Teflon. Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) is a replacement chemical for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and is currently under investigation by the EPA for health risk studies. Teflon is now made with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). It has recently received attention from advocacy groups because PFOA is used to manufacture PTFE. Today, Chemours claims that its nonstick cookware and bakeware are made without PFOA (Chemours 2019). The EPA (2018b) solicited public comments on GenX chemicals in early 2019 in regard to a toxicity assessment for investigating their health risks. The agency is developing a collective management plan for these fluorochemicals. Some states, such as Maine, are now testing for PFOA, PFOS, and other fluorinated chemicals. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWP), a nonprofit advocacy group, GenX chemicals were introduced as a safer substitute for PFOA and PFOS, but these chemicals pose a similar risk (Formuzis 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: DowDupont, Inc.; Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS); Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

470

Nuclear Weapons Facilities

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2018. “Toxicological Profile for Perfluoralkyls.” Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxprofiles​ /­t p​.­asp​?­id​= ​­1117​&­tid​= ​­237. American Cancer Society. 2016. “Teflon and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA).” January 5, 2016. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​/­cancer​/­cancer​-­causes​/­teflon​ -­and​-­perfluorooctanoic​-­acid​-­pfoa​.­html. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017. “Perfluorooctanic Acid (PFOA) Factsheet.” April 17, 2017. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​ / ­biomonitoring​/ ­PFOA​_FactSheet​.­html. Chemours. 2019. “Teflon.” Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­chemours​.­com​/­Teflon​/­en​ _US​/­index​.­html​#. Formuzis, Alex. 2018. “EPA: GenX Nearly as Toxic as Notorious Non-Stick Chemicals It Replaced.” Environmental Working Group, November 14, 2018. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ewg​.­org​/­release​/­epa​-­genx​-­nearly​-­toxic​-­notorious​-­non​ -­stick​-­chemicals​-­it​-­replaced. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2019. “PFOA and PFOS.” Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www1​.­maine​.­gov​/­dep​/­spills​/­topics​/­pfas​/­index​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018a. “Basic Information on PFAS.” December 6, 2018. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­e pa​.­gov​/­pfas​/ ­basic​ -­i nformation​-­pfas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018b. “GenX and PFBS Draft Toxicity Assessment.” December 28, 2018. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­pfas​/­genx​-­and​-­pfbs​-­draft​-­toxicity​-­assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS.” February 13, 2019. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​ .­gov​/­g round​-­water​-­a nd​- ­d rinking​-­water​/­d rinking​-­water​-­health​-­a dvisories​-­pfoa​ -­and​-­pfos.

Nuclear Weapons Facilities The United States has a legacy of contaminants that have been created from the use, management, and research on nuclear weapons. Both the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have roles in the operation and function of nuclear weapons facilities that form the nuclear weapons complex. DOD designs and operates the missiles and aircraft associated with nuclear weapons. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversees the research, development, testing, and acquisition programs that produce, maintain, and sustain the nuclear warheads; it is associated as a quasi-independent agency under the DOE. This complex has contamination that ranges from heavy metals and volatile organic contamination in surface water, groundwater, and soils to radioactive elements that are long-lasting pollution. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service (Woolf and Werner 2018, 1), The nuclear weapons complex consists primarily of nine government-owned, contractor-operated sites in seven states, and a Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear reactor used to produce tritium for nuclear weapons. Facilities at the current nine



Nuclear Weapons Facilities 471 sites include three laboratories, five component production plants, one assembly and disassembly site, a geologic waste repository, and one testing facility that now conducts research but was previously the location for underground nuclear tests.

The complex began with the establishment of the Manhattan Engineering District in 1942, which was established during World War II for the development of nuclear weapons, and then grew in size and complexity after the war. The complex that exists today primarily evolved from this legacy of the war and has remained in its current configuration since the 1990s. The fuel for nuclear weapons is no longer produced in the United States because fuel is harvested from the former weapons that are now retired. This fuel of highly enriched uranium and plutonium lasts for many years, so harvesting the fuel from former weapons is enough to maintain a supply for future weapons. Since 1992, the United States has a moratorium on explosive nuclear testing and has not designed nor produced a new nuclear warhead. Several of the former production facilities are now focused on research in support of the nuclear weapons Stockpile Stewardship Program. Several nuclear weapons facilities have contamination that has cost millions to billions of dollars for remediation. The Waste Isolation Pilot Project is a disposal facility near Carlsbad, New Mexico, that is used to store plutonium-bearing wastes from the warhead operations generated from the nuclear weapons complex. Two other facilities also store waste from the dismantlement of retired weapons. These facilities are the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, and Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These sites have the plutonium and highly enriched uranium that exists outside of weapons. These facilities have incurred a range of contamination from the legacy of the creation of the nuclear weapon and the post–World War II research and development of these weapons. Some of the most contaminated sites in the United States and most complex remediation projects, lasting decades, are located at these sites. The most contaminated sites remain under the management of the DOE and are slowly being remediated over time because of the complexity involved. States and the DOE have established agreements for the cleanup of these sites. In addition to the environmental contamination threats these facilities pose, there are also serious impacts to worker safety. Accidents at these facilities can have impacts to worker safety as described in a recent exposure report in Scientific American (Malone et al. 2017) and the communities living near these facilities (“US Nuclear Sites” 2017). A separate agency was created for the oversight of these facilities. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) was created as an independent oversight organization within the executive branch by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 1988 out of growing concern for the public and workers at defense nuclear facilities, which are managed by DOE. Congress wanted to create this oversight group separate from the DOE to ensure both the public and workers were adequately protected. The DNFSB provides the DOE with analysis, advice, and recommendations. Kelly A. Tzoumis

472

Nuclear Weapons Facilities

See also: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB); Plutonium (Pu); Transuranic (TRU) Waste; Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS); Uranium.

Further Reading

Malone, P., P. Cary, and R. Smith. 2017. “Nuclear Weapons Site Alarms Shut Off, Scientists Inhale Uranium.” Scientific American, June 17, 2017. Accessed January 23, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­scientificamerican​.­com​/­article​/­nuclear​-­weapons​-­site​-­alarms​-­shut​-­off​ -­scientists​-­inhale​-­uranium. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2015. “The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Major Facilities.” December 12, 2015. Accessed January 23, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ucsusa​ .­org​/­nuclear​-­weapons​/­us​-­nuclear​-­weapons​-­policy​/­us​-­nuclear​-­weapons​-­facilities​ .­html​#.­XEnilVxKiUk. “Why US Nuclear Sites Are a Ticking Time Bomb.” 2017. Nature 545(May 17, 2017): 266. Accessed January 23, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nature​.­com​/­news​/­why​-­us​-­nuclear​-­sites​ -­are​-­a​-­ticking​-­time​-­bomb​-­1​.­21998. Woolf, A., and J. Werner. 2018. The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Overview of Department of Energy Sites. Congressional Research Service, September 6, 2018. R45306. Accessed January 23, 2019. ­https://​­fas​.­org​/­sgp​/­crs​/­nuke​/ ­R45306​.­pdf.

O Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act). The initial mission of the agency from the legislation was to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance. In practice, this means that the agency makes rules and regulations protecting workers from toxic chemicals and deadly safety hazards at work, ensuring that vulnerable workers in high-risk jobs have access to critical information and education about job hazards, and providing employers with compliance assistance to promote best practices. OSHA is part of the U.S. Department of Labor, and is administered by the assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, who in turn answers to the secretary of labor—a member of the presidential cabinet. OSHA regulates most private-sector employers and their workers as well as some public-sector employers in all fifty states and in most U.S. territories and jurisdictions under federal authority. Under the OSH Act, states are encouraged to develop and operate their own job safety and health programs. OSHA approves and monitors all state plans and provides as much as 50 percent of the funding for each program. State-run safety and health programs must be at least as effective as the federal OSHA program. In terms of protection for federal workers, OSHA regulations apply to all federal agencies. Although OSHA does not fine federal agencies, it does monitor these agencies and conducts federal workplace inspections in response to workers’ reports of hazards. Federal agencies must have a safety and health program that meets the same standards as private employers. Under OSHA regulations, employers have the responsibility to provide a safe workplace. Among other things, this means that employers must prominently display the official OSHA Job Safety and Health poster, which describes rights and responsibilities under the OSH Act. Employers must also inform workers about chemical hazards through training, labels, alarms, color-coded systems, chemical information sheets, and other methods; provide safety training to workers; keep accurate records of work-related injuries and illnesses; perform tests in the workplace, such as air sampling, that are required by some OSHA standards; provide required personal protective equipment (PPE) at no cost to workers; provide hearing exams or other medical tests required by OSHA standards; and post OSHA citations and injury and illness data where workers can see them. OSHA provides

474 Oil

the hazardous communication standards for all material safety data sheets (MSDS), which are now titled safety data sheets (SDS). The SDS identify the chemicals and any hazards, and they provide information on composition and ingredients. OSHA requires that all chemical manufacturers complete SDS for each hazardous substance. OSHA also supplies significant employee and occupational health information in regard to potential exposures to toxic and hazardous substances. OSHA carries out its enforcement activities through its ten regional offices and ninety area offices. The regional offices are located in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle. In the public’s view, OSHA has too often been driven by numbers and rules and not by smart enforcement and results. Businesses have often complained about overzealous enforcement and burdensome rules, which tend to lower wages and harm economic progress and job creation. Business managers have argued that many safety problems would have been addressed and resolved on their own. However, researchers have found that, compared with uninspected firms, the companies subject to random inspections showed a 9.4 percent decrease in injury rates. In addition, researchers have found no evidence (within the margin of error) of any cost to businesses that had been inspected. The decrease in injuries led to a 26 percent reduction in costs from medical expenses and lost wages, translating to an average of $350,000 per company. In the end, researchers found that OSHA regulations save money (Blanding 2012). Robert L. Perry See also: Safety Data Sheets (SDS); Workplace and Occupational Exposure.

Further Reading

Blanding, Michael. 2012. “OSHA Inspections: Protecting Employees or Killing Jobs?” Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School. Accessed on July 12, 2018. ­https://​­hbswk​.­hbs​.­e du​/­item​/­osha​-­i nspections​-­protecting​- ­e mployees​- ­or​-­k illing​ -­jobs. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2016. “All about OSHA.” Accessed on July 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/ ­Publications​/­all​_about​_OSHA​ .­pdf. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2018. “About OSHA.” Accessed on July 12, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­about​.­html.

Oil The term oil usually refers to a broad range of hydrocarbon-based substances and refined petroleum products (such as gasoline, diesel, kerosene, engine oil, and jet fuel), each of which has a different chemical composition. Without doubt, oil is an integral part of the world’s economy: it accounts for about one-third of energy consumption. In 2013, daily consumption of oil was about eighty-seven million barrels per day (Prince 2015). In terms of toxicity, anthropogenically generated hydrocarbons are a source of such chemicals as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes as well as some

Oil 475

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds, of which the EPA has listed sixteen PAH compounds on their priority pollutant list (Forth et al. 2016) A major part of the oil pollution problem results from the fact that the major oil-producing countries are not the major oil consumers. Massive movements of oil must be made from areas of high production to those of high consumption (Thapa, Kumar KC, and Ghimire 2012). Although natural seeps are a major source of oil pollution in the world’s oceans, much of the toxicity related to oil can be traced to wells drilled under the ocean as well as from spills from ocean vessels. Although tanker accidents are less common, they can be quite large and damaging. The 2010 blowout from the Deepwater Horizon well is emblematic of the problem. In that instance, released oil exposed and affected several different habitats over an extended period. Oil booms and skimming can be effective processes in dealing with oil spills, but cleanup can be hampered when equipment is not close at hand or by the weather (Prince 2015). While public attention often focuses on maritime oil spills, soil contamination from oil spills remains a serious hazard to human health. Such spills often induce changes in the physical condition and biological activity of the soil (Caravaca and Roldán 2003). Oil spills may also cause organic pollution of groundwater, which limits its use; economic loss; environmental problems; and the decrease of the agricultural productivity of the soil. The most noticeable sources of contamination are releases from manufacturing and refining installations, particularly when storage tanks leak or rupture. One of the greatest concerns with these spills are the mutagenic, carcinogenic, and toxic characteristics that may occur. In the last few decades, more attention has been paid to the problems related to motor oil dumping. When oil is used as an automotive lubricant, it may pick up a number of additional components from engine wear, including heavy metals, such as lead, chromium, and cadmium, and other materials, such as naphthalene, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and sulfur—all of which can contaminate subsurface soil and groundwater (Singh, Srivastava, and John 2009). Although much attention is often paid to the effects of petroleum products on the environment, nonpetroleum oils can have both immediate and long-term adverse effects on the environment and be dangerous or even deadly to wildlife. Nonpetroleum oils can deplete the available oxygen needed by aquatic organisms, foul aquatic life, and coat the fur and feathers of wildlife. For example, when a bird’s plumage is coated with nonpetroleum oil, its feathers lose their insulating properties, placing it at risk of freezing to death. Birds can also smother their embryos through the transfer of nonpetroleum oil from the parents’ plumage to the eggs (EPA n.d.). Robert L. Perry See also: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010); Exxon Mobil Corporation; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989); Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990).

Further Reading

Caravaca, F., and A. Roldán. 2003. “Assessing Changes in Physical and Biological Properties in a Soil Contaminated by Oil Sludges under Semiarid Mediterranean Conditions.” Geoderma 117: 53–61.

476

Oil Pollution Act (OPA)

Forth, Heather P., Carys L. Mitchelmore, Jeffrey M. Morris, and Joshua Lipton. 2016. “Characterization of Oil and Water Accommodated Fractions Used to Conduct Aquatic Toxicity Testing in Support of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Natural Resource Damage Assessment.” Environmental Chemistry 36(6): 1450–1459. Prince, Roger C. 2015. “Oil Spill Dispersants: Boon or Bane?” Environmental Science & Technology 49: 6376–6384. Accessed June 27, 2019. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1021​/­acs​.­est​ .­5b00961. Singh, S. K., R. K. Srivastava, and Siby John. 2009. “Studies on Soil Contamination due to Used Motor Oil and Its Remediation.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 46(9): 1077–1083. Accessed June 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­researchgate​.­net​/­publication​ /­233689870​_ Studies​_on​_ soil​_contamination​_due​_to​_used​_ motor​_oil​_ and​_its​ _remediation. Thapa, Bijay, Ajay Kumar KC, and Anish Ghimire. 2012. “A Review on Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminants in Soil.” Kathmandu University Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology 8(1): 164–170. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. “Non-Petroleum Oils.” Accessed June 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­emergency​-­response​/­non​-­petroleum​-­oils.

Oil Pollution Act (OPA)(1990) The 1990 Oil Pollution Control Act, Public Law 101-380 (OPA 1990) was a landmark effort to regulate pollution related to the transportation of oil over U.S. territorial waters. Congress passed the OPA in 1990 in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The OPA amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and outlines how companies are required to prevent, respond to, and pay for oil spills. Shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989, the 987-foot tank vessel Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef, near Valdez, Alaska, spilling somewhere between eleven and thirty-two million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound. Up until that point, this was the largest environmental disaster in American history, until surpassed by the explosion and subsequent wellhead leak of the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Images from the Prince William Sound of oil-soaked migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, hundreds of sea otters, harbor porpoises, sea lions, and several varieties of whales would shock the nation; however, there were other ecological events that occurred during the summer of 1989. Between June 23 and 24, the T/V World Prodigy spilled 290,000 gallons of oil in Newport, Rhode Island; the T/V Presidente Rivera emptied 307,000 gallons of oil into the Delaware River; and a barge in the Texas Houston Ship Channel released 239,000 gallons of oil there. Between the summers of 1989 and 1990, a series of ship collisions, groundings, and pipeline leaks spilled an additional 8 million gallons along the U.S. coastline. Prior to the Exxon Valdez incident, there were several federal and state statutes, as well as international conventions, that dealt with oil spills, including the Federal Water Quality Improvement Act in 1970; the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (in particular, Section 311, which covered both oil pollution and pollution by hazardous substances); the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (1973); the Deepwater Port Act (DPA)of 1974; and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which was first established in 1968. In essence,



Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 477

these statutes meant that there was an ineffective patchwork to deal with large-scale oil spills. Questions such as whether a federal oil spill law should limit a state’s liability to impose stricture requirements or whether oil-carrying vessels should be required to have double hulls were not addressed. Following the Exxon Valdez incident, Congress attempted to pass a comprehensive oil spill bill that would create a uniform national program. Because oil cannot be completely removed from the ocean, the idea was to enact legislation that would minimize oil spillage and prevent environmental damage. However, many of these attempts were often blocked in the U.S. Senate. One previous attempt to enact a comprehensive oil pollution liability and compensation act came with the enactment of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund), which originally covered only hazardous substances and excluded oil and other forms of petroleum. The petroleum exclusion of section 9601(33) of CERCLA was reinforced in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and confirmed by the EPA. One of the major problems with previous legislative actions such as this was that they did not adequately address oil spill liability and compensation (Donaldson 1992). OPA was intended to change that. With the signing of the OPA on August 18, 1990, Congress consolidated existing federal oil spill laws under one program and expand the existing liability provisions within the CWA. As well, the OPA, in conjunction with CERCLA, provided an organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants and required preparation of spill prevention and response plans by coastal facilities, vessels, and certain geographic regions. With the passage of the OPA, there were several restrictions placed on companies that shipped oil into the United States, even when the ships sailed under foreign flags—which was especially important in that more than 90 percent of tankers calling on U.S. ports are foreign-owned. One of the major restrictions was that the OPA broadened the scope of damages (i.e., costs) for which a responsible party would be liable. Prior to the OPA, the CWA had provided that when a spill or discharge occurred, a vessel owner or operator was liable to the United States up to the greater of $125 per gross ton or $125,000 for an inland oil barge and $150 per gross ton or $250,000 against other vessels (Edelman 1990). Under the OPA, U.S. tank vessels, offshore facilities, and certain onshore facilities must present a plan to prevent a possible oil spill, and they must also produce a detailed containment and cleanup plan to the relevant federal agency in case of any oil spill emergency. Further, a responsible party will be liable for all cleanup costs incurred, not only by a government entity but also by a private party. The OPA significantly increased the range of liable damages to include injury to natural resources, loss of personal property (and resultant economic losses), loss of subsistence use of natural resources, lost revenues resulting from destruction of property or natural resource injury, lost profits resulting from property loss or natural resource injury, and costs of providing extra public services during or after spill response (Lungren 2010). At least initially, the OPA brought an end to the

478

Oil Pollution Act (OPA)

continuing debate between the House and Senate regarding preemption of state oil spill cleanup and compensation statutes. What this meant was that states were now allowed to impose additional liability or requirements with respect to the discharge or threat of discharge of oil in their respective states. Under the OPA, the states’ authority to establish and maintain oil spill funds was preserved, and states could also require anyone to contribute to their funds (Donaldson 1992). A related issue in the OPA was the question of spill response authority. Generally speaking, the OPA authorizes the president to put cleanup efforts entirely under federal jurisdiction or to require that the responsible party initiate the cleanup. More specifically, under the OPA, oil spill response authority is determined by the location of the spill: The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has response authority in coastal waters, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) covers inland oil spills. It also meant that the USCG, as the primary response authority in coastal waters, has the ultimate authority to ensure that an oil spill is effectively removed and that actions are taken to prevent further discharge from the source. During response operations, the USCG coordinates the efforts of federal, state, and private parties, and the USCG’s response efforts are supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA), Office of Response and Restoration. The USCG is also permitted under the OPA to implement inducements for potential polluters, including the waiver of penalties and reduction in regulatory burdens for responsible vessel owners. Another mandate of the OPA required operating tank barges and newly built tankers to have double hulls. Prior to the Exxon Valdez spill, tankers were becoming larger and lighter, and cargo spaces within these ships became fewer and larger. The thinner-skinned vessels were much more susceptible to corrosion. While this reduced the construction costs of large tankers, it also increased the risk of greater pollution in the event of an accident. The technology required to build tankers with double hulls was certainly in existence; however, even though there was strong evidence that double hulls could largely prevent some oil spills, the Coast Guard, encouraged by tanker industry representatives, had repeatedly refused to institute this requirement. At the time of the incident, only about one in six tankers had double hulls; the Exxon Valdez did not have such a hull (Alcock 1992). Within ten years of the OPA’s passage, the market for tankers witnessed a gradual but significant change. As the cost of oil transport fell to a small fraction of the delivered price, some oil companies began to retreat from the tanker business. Others, including seven of the major oil companies, cut their company fleets in half, and the companies’ share of the international fleet trading to the United States began to fall (COPA 1998). Perhaps one of the most important parts of the OPA was the creation of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which was meant to compensate oil spill victims. Prior to the passage of the OPA, damage recovery for private parties was very difficult. As part of this effort, in 1991, the USCG created the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) to manage the trust fund. The fund may be used for several purposes, including payment of costs for responding to and removing oil spills; payment of the costs incurred by the federal and state



Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 479

trustees of natural resources for assessing the injuries to natural resources caused by an oil spill and developing and implementing the plans to restore or replace the injured natural resources; payment of parties’ claims for uncompensated removal costs and for uncompensated damages (e.g., financial losses of fishermen, hotels, and beachfront businesses); payment for the net loss of government revenue and for increased public services by a state or its political subdivisions; and payment of federal administrative and operational costs, including research and development (Lungren 2010). In 1996, Congress required responsible parties to make interim short-term damage payments representing less than the full amount of the claims to expedite payment of claims. However, this apparently did not improve claims processing enough, so Congress added a loan program in 2004, whereby the OSLTF would be allowed to award low-interest loans to a fisherman or aquaculture producer claimant with pending claims against responsible parties or where the responsible party fails to make interim payments. The immediate response from oil companies to OPA’s implementation was, predictably, largely scornful. Industry officials were quick to warn that the new law would threaten imported oil supplies to the United States, and they predicted that the possibility of open-ended claims would scare away legitimate companies unwilling to risk their assets each time they shipped a load of oil to the United States. Industry officials also warned that large companies would restructure operations in an effort to shield assets. Many companies also reorganized their corporate structures in an effort to protect their parent companies from the reaches of the OPA and its potential for unlimited liability (Morgan 2011). At the second decade of the twenty-first century, many of oil companies’ predictions have not come to pass. In particular, importation of foreign oil was not greatly reduced. In fact, the United States has become a net exporter of petroleum products, which has meant increasing controversy not only with onshore oil transportation (e.g., the Trans-Canada and Dakota Access Pipelines) but also with changes to the U.S. oil industry during the past fifteen years, which have mainly been due to increased natural gas production through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking (Kaufhardt and Korte 2017). According to the EPA (2020), the OPA assisted with the prevention and response to catastrophic oil spills. Although the EPA is responsible for oil spills associated with inland waters, it is the Coast Guard that is the responsible agency for spills in ports and coastal waters. The Coast Guard is also required to publish regulations for oil tankers. The OPA also requires the creation of area contingency plans to prepare for responses to oil spills. Robert L. Perry See also: Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986); Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989).

Further Reading

Alcock, Tammy M. 1992. “Ecology Tankers and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: A History of Efforts to Require Double Hulls on Oil Tankers.” Ecology Law Quarterly 19(1): 98–145.

480

Oven Cleaners

Carey, Kevin M. 1991. “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990: A Solution or a Problem?” Theses and Major Papers, Paper 205. Accessed May 21, 2019. ­https://​­digitalcommons​.­uri​ .­edu​/­ma​_etds​/­205. Committee on Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (COPA). 1998. “Economic Impact of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 on the International Tanker Fleet.” In Double-Hull Tanker Legislation: An Assessment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 65–96. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Accessed May 21, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nap​.­edu​/­read​ /­5798​/­chapter​/­6. Donaldson, Michael P. 1992. “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990: Reaction and Response.” Villanova Environmental Law Journal 3(2): 283–321. Accessed May 21, 2019. ­https://​­digitalcommons​.­law​.­villanova​.­edu​/­elj​/­vol3​/­iss2​/­2. Edelman, Paul S. 1990. “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990.” Pace Environmental Law Review 8(1): 1–22. Accessed May 21, 2019. h­ ttp://​­digitalcommons​.­pace​.­edu​/­pelr. Kaufhardt, Sara, and Brett Korte. 2017. “The Evolution and Future of the Oil Pollution Act.” Environmental Law Institute, July 26, 2017. Accessed May 21, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­eli​.­org​/­vibrant​-­environment​-­blog​/­evolution​-­and​-­f uture​-­oil​-­pollution​-­act. Lungren, David. 2010. “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990.” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Press Release, May 6, 2010. Accessed May 21, 2019. ­h tt ps://​­w w w​. ­e pw​. ­s enate​. ­g ov​/ ­p ublic​/ ­i ndex​. ­c fm ​/ ­p ress​- ­r eleases​- ­a ll​? ­I D ​= ​ ­6f96861a​-­802a​-­23ad​- ­4179​- ­093b6facf5a5​&­Issue​_id​= . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Response and Restoration. 2015. “It Took More Than the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill to Pass the Historic Oil Pollution Act of 1990.” Accessed May 21, 2019. ­https://​­response​ .­restoration​.­noaa​.­gov​/­oil​-­and​- ­chemical​-­spills​/­significant​-­i ncidents​/­exxon​-­valdez​ -­oil​-­spill​/­it​-­took​-­more​-­exxon​-­valdez​-­oil​-­s. Ramseur, Jonathan L. 2017. “Oil Spills: Background and Governance.” Congressional Research Service, September 15, 2017. RL33705. Accessed May 21, 2019. ­https://​ ­fas​.­org​/­sgp​/­crs​/­misc​/ ­R L33705​.­pdf. Schnapf, Larry. 2010. “Oil Pollution Control Act: An Overview for the Business Lawyer.” Accessed May 21, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­environmental​-­law​.­net​/­w p​-­content​/­uploads​ /­2011​/­08​/­OPA​- ­Overview​-­for​-­Business​-­Lawyersapr2010​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. “Summary of Oil Pollution Act.” Accessed February 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­laws​-­regulations​/­summary​-­oil​ -­pollution​-­act.

Oven Cleaners Exposure to toxic chemicals often occurs in the home, as people typically spend most of their time at home. The chemicals found in homes, particularly in household cleaning products—soaps, detergents, bleaching agents, polishes, and bathroom, glass, and drain cleaners—are an all-too-common problems. They are typically the most toxic products found in the home (OCA n.d.). Cleaning agents, whether inhaled, touched, or ingested, vary in the types of hazards they pose: some cause immediate hazards, while others are associated with long-term effects. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) administers regulatory oversight of household chemicals; however, depending on the chemicals in question, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) may also have regulatory oversight as well. Multiple



Oven Cleaners 481

regulations govern controlled chemical substances, and these regulations identify individual hazardous substances or the product into which its ingredients are placed. The agencies typically control these chemicals by requiring labeling or testing before they enter the marketplace. As for oven cleaners, in particular, they commonly contain sodium or potassium hydroxide to hydrolyze fatty material and surfactants to aid water in removing grease. These cleaning products are typically available in various forms, including gels, liquids, aerosol sprays, trigger sprays, pastes, and pads. The more immediate dangers that oven cleaners present are injuries from their coming into contact with skin, which include severe pain at the site of contact, liquefactive burns, and necrosis (i.e., the unprogrammed death of cells at the point of contact). In addition, some of the more common toxic compounds found in oven cleaners include ethanolamine, which can cause eye damage and severe skin burns and can irritate allergies; morpholine, which not only irritates allergies and skin but can also irritate the respiratory system and damage vision; and liquefied and sweetened petroleum gases, which may cause cancer. Many oven cleaners also contain butoxydiglycol, which can affect the respiratory system and may cause cancer and reproductive effects (Accidentally Green 2013). Another compound often found in oven cleaners is diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DEGBE), which is often used in brake fluid, hair coloring, and floor sealer. Breathing DEGBE vapors while consuming excessive alcohol can lead to kidney and liver problems. Oven cleaners may also contain diethanolamine, a foaming agent that, while not technically a volatile organic compound (VOC), has been shown to limit brain development in the fetuses of pregnant laboratory mice (Di Justo 2008). Of the twelve oven cleaners tested by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), nine products received an F grade, and three received a D (EWG n.d.). One common problem with oven cleaners is that although they may generally be “safe” in their initial use, hazards can develop with continued use. Once foam dries on oven walls, it can lead to higher concentrations of sodium hydroxide, which, with repeated exposure on the skin and enough time, can even get to the bone (Young 1999). Fortunately, most household users of oven cleaners follow the safety standards printed on product labels in that they wear protective gloves. However, even this has its dangers: after wiping the foam from the oven walls, a few particles of foam can still get inside the gloves, which can lead to skin and underlying tissue damage (Young 1999). In recent years, particularly in Europe, several types of ovens have been coated with a heat- and acid-resistant enamel. During cleaning, the temperature of the oven is increased to around five hundred degrees Celsius for one to two hours. This process decomposes food spills by gaseous degradation and oxidation, turning the grease and food residues to ash, which can then be easily removed. The drawback of this oven technology is the high energy use during the cleaning cycle. The downside of the catalytic self-cleaning oven is that the porous surface tends to clog over time and become less efficient (Devey 2015). Robert L. Perry

482

Overburdened Community

See also: Household Cleaners; Household Exposure.

Further Reading

Accidentally Green. 2013. “Why Are Oven Cleaners So Toxic?” Accessed October 30, 2019. ­https://​­accidentallygreen​.­com​/­why​-­are​-­oven​-­cleaners​-­so​-­toxic. Devey, Mark. 2015. “Cleaner, Greener Ovens.” Materials World 23(7): 48–49. Di Justo, Patrick. 2008. “Not for Use on Pregnant Rodents.” Wired 16(6): 40. Environmental Working Group (EWG). n.d. “Oven Cleaner.” Accessed October 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ewg​.­org​/­g uides​/­subcategories​/­39​- ­OvenCleaner​?­page​= ​­1. Organic Consumers Association (OCA). n.d. “How Toxic Are Your Household Cleaning Supplies?” Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­organicconsumers​.­org​/­news​ /­how​-­toxic​-­are​-­your​-­household​-­cleaning​-­supplies. Young, Jay A. 1999. “Hazardous Oven Cleaners.” Chemical Health and Safety 16(6): 4.

Overburdened Community The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first used the term of an “overburdened community” in its Environmental Justice Plan 2014 (EPA 2011, 1). This term was defined in a footnote on the first page of the plan and then was integrated as a theme in its strategic plans for achieving environmental justice (EJ). An overburdened community is closely related to communities that experience EJ issues and health risks. President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 (1994, 7629), which specifically outlines an EJ community as “minority, low-income, tribal and indigenous populations or communities in the US that potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risks due to exposures or cumulative impacts or greater vulnerability to environmental hazards.” These disproportionate impacts can accumulate in a community, making it more vulnerable to health and environmental risks and causing it to become “overburdened.” However, there are no definitive measures that the EPA produces to define “disproportionate” or “overburdened.” The purpose of the EPA EJ Plan 2014 (2011) was to protect the environment and health of the most vulnerable communities that are overburdened with risks from contamination. “This increased vulnerability may be attributable to an accumulation of both negative and lack of positive environmental, health, economic, or social conditions within these populations or communities” (EPA 2011). The EPA referred to engaging overburdened communities in meaningful participation before pollution permits were approved by the agency as a “promising practice” (Forrest 2014). The EPA defines “environmental justice” as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (EPA 2011, 3). The EPA is also required to comply with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Executive Order 12898 (1994).



Ozone Hole 483

Further Reading

Executive Order 12898. 1994. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register 59(32): 7629. Forest, Carol. 2014. “Engaging Overburden Communities in Permitting Actions: US Environmental Protections Agency’s ‘Promising Practices’ to Promote Environmental Justice.” Environmental Quality Management 23(2): 77–95. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Plan EJ 2014. Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Justice. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “What Is the Definition of an Overburdened Community?” Accessed March 30, 2019. ­https://​­compliancegov​.­zendesk​ .­c om​/ ­h c​/­e n​- ­u s​/­a rticles​/ ­211430208​-­W hat​-­i s​- ­t he​- ­d efinition​- ­of​- ­overburdened​ -­community​-­that​-­is​-­relevant​-­for​-­EPA​-­Actions​-­and​-­Promising​-­Practices​-.

Ozone Hole A layer of stratospheric ozone blankets the earth and serves as a natural protective covering by preventing the sun’s radiation from reaching the surface of the planet. Scientists have studied stratospheric ozone since the 1830s and had some early conclusions about its protective properties for the planet. It was not until the 1980s that scientists discovered a literal hole in the stratospheric layer, which is located in the Southern Hemisphere surrounding the continent of Antarctica and parts of South America. This was one of the few international environmental problems that mobilized nations into almost universal cooperation. The science was clear: because of the known impacts from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation, predictions of serious consequences to both human health and the environment were going to happen. Ozone is a colorless gas made up of three oxygen molecules that are chemically very active. Ozone reacts with chemicals containing chlorine and bromine that cause it to be destroyed at a rapid rate, leaving behind a void, or hole. Ozone in the stratosphere is the result of a balance between the sunlight that creates ozone and the chemical reactions that destroy it. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2016), ozone is more rapidly destroyed than created, with one chlorine atom destroying over one hundred thousand ozone molecules before it is removed from the stratosphere. The predicted consequences of an ozone hole are increased skin cancer, disrupted oceans and aquatic life, and a rise in cataracts from the excessive exposure to ultraviolet light. Several chemicals have been classified as ozone-depleting substances. They are stable over time, and when they break down chemically, chlorine or bromine is released, which then reacts with the ozone to create a hole. However, not all chlorine and bromine deplete ozone; for example, researchers found that the chlorine in swimming pools does not. The ozone-depleting chemicals include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons, halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, hydrobromofluorocarbons, chlorobromomethane, and methyl chloroform. In 1987, an international treaty, the Montreal Protocol, began to phase out these ozone-depleting substances, which were primarily used in refrigeration,

484

Ozone Hole

air conditioning, aerosols such as hair spray and deodorants, and fire extinguishers and as propellants and solvents. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) takes annual measurements of the ozone hole. Scientists estimate that if the Montreal Protocol had never been implemented, the hole would have grown 40 percent by 2013. Instead, the hole is shrinking and is predicted to close by 2050 (Blakemore 2016). The international cooperation that healed the ozone hole is considered one of the few successful endeavors in environmental international policy. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change; Montreal Protocol.

Further Reading

Blakemore, Erin. 2016. “The Ozone Hole Was Super Scary, So What Happened to It?” Smithsonian, January 13, 2016. Accessed August 22, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­smithsonianmag​ .­com​/­science​-­nature​/­ozone​-­hole​-­was​-­super​-­scary​-­what​-­happened​-­it​-­180957775. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2018. “NASA Ozone Watch.” Last updated September 27, 2018. Accessed August 22, 2017. ­https://​­ozonewatch​ .­gsfc​.­nasa​.­gov. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Health and Environmental Effects of Ozone Layer Depletion.” Last updated December 28, 2016. Accessed August 22, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­ozone​-­layer​-­protection​/ ­health​-­and​-­environmental​ -­effects​-­ozone​-­layer​-­depletion​.

P Paper Industry Throughout the world, pulp and paper mills are a major source of industrial pollution. The products these mills manufacture include paper rolls and reams, printing and writing paper, newsprint, packaging material, and personal care products. Although the industry is declining due to foreign competition (at least for the United States) and to consumers using more digital products, the paper manufacturing sector is still large, accounting for $43.8 billion in revenue and $2.1 billion in profit for the 132 paper businesses operating in the United States (as of 2017), which is the second-largest paper producer in the world after China (IBISWorld 2017). In terms of environmental concerns, a major issue is that vast stretches of forest are required to produce paper. The paper processing industry remains a major water and air polluter, primarily through its pulping and bleaching processes. Both processes are energy intensive and typically consume huge volumes of fresh water and large quantities of chemicals such as sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfide, bisulfites, elemental chlorine or chlorine dioxide, calcium oxide, and hydrochloric acid. In the boreal latitudes, excluding Russia, the activity related to the pulping process is the most prominent industrial activity disturbing aquatic ecosystems (Ratia, Vuori, and Oikari 2011). Pulping is the process wherein raw material is mechanically or chemically treated to remove lignin (an oxygen-containing organic substance that, with cellulose, forms the chief constituent of wood). The removal of lignin improves the papermaking properties of fiber. This liquid mixture of pulping residue (known as “black liquor”) produces toxic chemicals from the kraft process, including hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan—both of which are listed as hazardous chemicals by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Sumathi and Hung 2004). Until the invention of recovery boilers in the twentieth century, the black liquor was usually released into waterways. About one-third of all pulping mills in the United States produce six million pounds per day of black liquor each (NETL 2019). In several countries, these industrial effluents are released into the environment without any prior treatment. During the multistage bleaching process, the pulp is processed further to whiten and brighten it. The amount of bleaching required depends on the type of paper being processed. For some applications, such as office paper, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the brightness of the paper is important; thus, more bleaching is required (Manda, Blok, and Patel 2012). Among the compounds typically used during the bleaching process, there are several dioxins

486

Paper Industry

that have been identified as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) that decrease the levels and activity of the estrogen hormone, which reduces the reproductive efficiency in higher organisms (Sumathi and Hung 2004). Both the pulping and bleaching processes involve major air emissions of fine and coarse particulates from recovery furnaces and burners, including sulfur oxides (SOx) from sulfite mills, reduced sulfur gases and associated odor problems from kraft pulping and chemical recovery operations, volatile organic compounds (VOC) from wood chip digestion, spent liquor evaporation and bleaching, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (Sumathi and Hung 2004). Some greenhouse gases (GHGs) are produced in the pulping process, including carbon dioxide (CO2) and small amounts of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) (Bander and Jozewicz 2017). Heavy metals have also been found in some mill effluent. Some studies have found accumulations of heavy metals in crop fields irrigated with paper mill effluent, with copper seeming to be the main contributor (Devi et al. 2009). There are also significant amounts of solid waste effluents from pulp and paper mills, including bark, reject fibers, lime mud, boiler and furnace ash, wood sterols, resin acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and the alkyl derivates of all of these. To a great extent, the levels of toxicity depend on the raw material and particular process used at each mill (Manda, Blok, and Patel 2012; Sumathi and Hung 2004). An additional issue related to pulp and paper mill effluent is the high number of coliforms. Escherichia coli (E. coli) and other coliforms can be found naturally in soil, bark, and both healthy and decaying wood. Coliforms are a concern because they are used to assess potential human health risks in recreational waters. Such coliforms grow in paper mill process streams as a result of high temperatures, high carbohydrate levels, low dissolved oxygen levels, and low fixed nitrogen levels. On a positive note, however, studies have reported that the strains of E. coli tested from pulp and paper mill water with no known sewage inputs found nontoxigenic strains of harmless serotypes (Long et al. 2012). One result of the decline in the demand for paper is that over the past few decades, the pulp and paper industry has reduced its environmental impact. For one thing, the industry has increased its use of recycled paper, which has lessened the demand for raw wood product. The amount of paper recovered for recycling increased some 70 percent between 1990 and 2013 (Bander and Jozewicz 2017). More companies are engaging in reforestation efforts and have turned to using more “natural” paper products that do not use chemical bleaches and dyes. As of 2016, 67.2 percent of all U.S. paper was recovered to be used for future paper products (IBISWorld 2017). Another development is that many mills have become more energy efficient owing to their switching to cleaner fuels. This change in fuel use has meant that air pollutant emissions have been considerably reduced. For example, in 2012, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were over 25 percent lower than in 2008, and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions were 12 percent lower in 2012. GHG emissions for the combination of pulp and paper mills decreased nearly 23 percent between 2000 and 2012. In addition, several boilers—which produce the majority of GHG



Paper Industry 487

emissions—are being designed to accommodate various fuels, which provides the advantage of satisfying energy demands with low-cost, locally available fuels (Bander and Jozewicz 2017). Other alternative pulping techniques that industry now uses to reduce pollution include organic solvent pulping, biopulping, the use of elemental chlorine free (ECF) and total chlorine free (TCF) bleaching, biobleaching, better use of membrane technology, increased use of anaerobic treatment processes, and the increased use of different biological processes, including the use of aerated lagoons (Sumathi and Hung 2004). However, several environmental concerns remain. Although there are fewer effluents being released into watercourses—because of less paper production and more efficient wastewater treatment techniques—many of the pollutants remain in the sediments and are available to several aquatic species, particularly bottom-feeding fish (Ratia, Vuori, and Oikari 2011). This may become more problematic as increased storm activity related to global warming increases throughout this century. Robert L. Perry See also: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Bander, Gurbakhash, and Wojciech Jozewicz. 2017. “Universal Industrial Sectors Integrated Solutions Module for the Pulp and Paper Industry.” Nordic Pulp & Paper Research Journal 32(3): 375–385. Accessed June 25, 2020 ­https://​­www​.­degruyter​ .­com​/­view​/­journals​/­npprj​/­32​/­3​/­article​-­p375​.­xml. Devi, Ningombam Linthoingambi, Ishwar Chandra Yadav, Q. I. Shihua, Surendra Singh, and S. L Belagali. 2009. “Physicochemical Characteristics of Paper Industry Effluents—A Case Study of South India Paper Mill (SIPM).” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 177: 23–33. IBISWorld. 2017. “Paper Jam: Foreign Competition and Declining Demand for Paper Will Plague Industry Mills.” Paper Mills in the US. Wisconsin Public Radio. Accessed June 24, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­w pr​.­org​/­sites​/­default​/­files​/­32212​%­20Paper​%­20Mills​ %­20in​%­20the​%­20US​%­20Industry​%­20Report​.­pdf. Long, Sharon C., Jamie R. Stietz, Jeremy Olstadt, Curtis J. Hedman, and Jeanine D. Plummer. 2012. “Characterization of Paper Mill Effluent Using Indicators and Source Tracking Methods.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 104(3): E150–E161. Manda, B. M. Krishna, Kornelis Blok, and Martin K. Patel. 2012. “Innovations in Papermaking: An LCA of Printing and Writing Paper from Conventional and High Yield Pulp.” Science of the Total Environment 439: 307–320. National Energy Technology Library (NETL). 2019. “Black Liquor Gasification.” Accessed June 24, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­netl​.­doe​.­gov​/­research​/­Coal​/­energy​-­systems​/­gasification​ /­gasifipedia​/ ­blackliquor. Ratia, Heli, Kari-Matti Vuori, and Aimo Oikari. 2011. “Caddis Larvae (Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae) Indicate Delaying Recovery of a Watercourse Polluted by Pulp and Paper Industry.” Ecological Indicators 15: 217–226. Sumathi, Suresh, and Yung-Tse Hung. 2004. “Treatment of Pulp and Paper Mill Wastes.” In Handbook of Industrial and Hazardous Wastes Treatments, edited by Lawrence K. Wang, Yung-Tse Hung, Howard H. Lo, and Constantine Yapijakis, 469– 514. New York: Dekker Press.

488 Parabens

Parabens Parabens are a general classification of compounds that are used in pharmaceutical and cosmetic products and in the food industry as a preservative since the 1950s. These chemicals prevent bacteria and mold in these products. This allows products to last for months or years, preserving the life span of the products. Humans are exposed to parabens through dermal exposure or ingestion of the chemical. There is concern by many in the public about the widespread use of these chemicals as preservatives and the presence in the environment and human bodies (Kristof 2018). One of the primary concerns about parabens is that they are suspected to mimic natural hormones such as estrogen. The link of estrogen disruptors to developmental problems as well as breast cancer is one of the common concerns with this group of chemicals. The parabens used in cosmetics are primarily methylparaben, propylparaben, butylparaben, and ethylparaben. Cosmetic products usually include a combination of these chemicals to prevent a broad range of bacteria. These include makeup, moisturizers, hair care, and shaving creams. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate parabens but treats these chemicals similar to other cosmetic ingredients. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a nonprofit advocacy group, is concerned about the endocrine disruption activity of parabens in personal care products and cosmetics. In 2012, the FDA reviewed the safety of parabens used in cosmetics and found that the chemical was safe as a preservative. Many cosmetic producers and other companies using parabens have advertised “paraben-free” products as a result of public concern about these chemicals. In food, parabens are used in soft drinks, processed fish, pickles, frozen dairy products, certain flavored syrups, beer, sauces, and some desserts. These include some of the popular children’s brands for snacks, cookies, baked goods, muffins, tortillas, cakes, and trail mixes. The Environmental Working Group (EWG), an advocacy nonprofit group, has complied a “dirty dozen” guide to food additives (EWG 2014). The group found a number of preservatives, including parabens, that were in food as preservatives that most people were not aware of. For instance, propylparaben is used as a preservative in foods such as tortillas and muffins and in food dyes. It is one of the parabens that can be used as a direct ingredient or be present as a result of contamination during food processing and packaging. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Endocrine Disruptors.

Further Reading

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. 2019. “Parabens.” Accessed April 2, 2019. ­http://​­www​ .­safecosmetics​.­org​/­get​-­the​-­facts​/­chemicals​-­of​-­concern​/­parabens. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017. “Paraben Factsheet.” April 7, 2017. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/ ­biomonitoring​/ ­Parabens​_FactSheet​.­html. Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2014. “ EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Additives.” Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ewg​.­org​/­research​/­ewg​-­s​-­dirty​-­dozen​ -­g uide​-­food​-­additives.



Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate

489

Kristof, Nicholas. 2018. “What Poisons Are in Your Body?” New York Times, February 23, 2018. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­interactive​/­2018​/­02​ /­23​/­opinion​/­columnists​/­poisons​-­in​-­our​-­bodies​.­html. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. “Parabens in Cosmetics.” February 22, 2018. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­fda​.­gov​/­cosmetics​/­productsingredients​ /­ingredients​/­ucm128042​.­htm​#­what​_are​_ parabens.

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are fluorinated compounds that are not produced in nature. These chemicals are used in industry as repellants for water or oil, and the chemicals do not decompose or break down easily. Because of these characteristics, they have been used in industrial processes as well as consumer items such as carpets and fabrics, clothing, and fire protection foams. PFOS and PFOA chemicals are persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the environment because the chemicals do not easily break down. They are widely distributed across the environment in soil, air, and groundwater and are readily absorbed after inhalation or oral exposure into the bloodstream of humans because they are not metabolized inside the body. These chemicals are used for their repellant properties. For instance, they are used to make coatings on items that are both waterproof and breathable. PFOA and PFOS are used on electrical casings, fire resistant tubing, plumbing tapes, nonstick cookware, packaging, and leather products. These chemicals are widely used as industrial coatings, emulsifiers, and surfactants. PFOS were voluntarily phased out by the chemical manufacturers in the United States by 2002. Eight major chemical manufacturers of PFOS and PFOA agreed to phase out production by 2015. However, the chemicals remain in the environment from past uses, and there is potential of entry from imported goods. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2017) reports that PFOS has been detected in surface waters and sediment from production facilities as well as wastewater treatment plants in many cities. The chemicals have also been detected in oceans and the Arctic, which indicates that they are capable of long-distance transport (EPA 2017). In early 2019, the EPA established health advisories for PFOA and PFOS at seventy parts per trillion (EPA 2019). PFOS has been determined to accumulate in fish, whereas PFOA bioaccumulates in humans but not fish. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2018) has reported that these chemicals are in humans’ blood at higher concentrations for workers at these facilities and for residents who live nearby. The chemicals have been found in drinking water supplies and household dusts. They have also been found in breast milk and umbilical cord blood (ATSDR 2018). The American Cancer Society (2016) claims that studies show that these chemicals are in human blood worldwide. Both chemicals have been associated with high cholesterol and adverse reproductive and developmental impacts in humans. PFOA is used in making Teflon, a

490

Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate

common household coating. According to ATSDR (2018), health impacts can include thyroid disease, developmental effects, infertility, low infant birth weight, and high blood pressure. The EPA has concluded that there is suggestive evidence of the carcinogenic potential of PFOA and PFOS in humans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO), has classified PFOA as possibly carcinogenic to humans (ATSDR 2018). Major chemical manufacturers of these chemicals voluntarily committed to reduce factory emissions and product content levels of PFOA by 95 percent by the year 2010 and to eliminate PFOA from emissions and product contents by the end of 2015. The companies have submitted annual reports on their progress to the EPA, and the latest reports indicated a large reduction in the use of these chemicals. The decreasing demand for PFOA has also led to many companies phasing out production. There are new products that have emerged onto the markets that claim to be PFOA-free. For instance, cookware products are being marketed as not containing this chemical. The Environmental Working Group (EWP), a nonprofit advocacy group, has a tap water database that allows consumers to type in their zip code to check on these chemicals in their drinking water. This group reports on the state of American drinking water by aggregating data from almost fifty thousand public water utilities across the United States. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Nonstick Teflon Cooking Pan Coatings; Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2018. “Toxicological Profile for Perfluoralkyls.” Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxprofiles​ /­t p​.­asp​?­id​= ​­1117​&­tid​= ​­237. American Cancer Society. 2016. “Teflon and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA).” January 5, 2016. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​/­cancer​/­cancer​-­causes​/­teflon​ -­and​-­perfluorooctanoic​-­acid​-­pfoa​.­html. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017. “Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Factsheet.” April 17, 2017. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­biomonitoring​ /­PFOA​_FactSheet​.­html. Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2019. “EWG’s Tap Water Database.” Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ewg​.­org​/­tapwater​/­reviewed​-­pfcs​.­php. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Technical Factsheet—Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS).” December 5, 2017. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­fedfac​/­technical​-­fact​-­sheet​-­perfluorooctane​ -­sulfonate​-­pfos​-­and​-­perfluorooctanoic​-­acid​-­pfoa​-­0. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Basic Information on PFAS.” December 6, 2018. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­pfas​/ ­basic​ -­information​-­pfas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS.” February 13, 2019. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​ .­gov​/­g round​-­water​-­a nd​- ­d rinking​-­water​/­d rinking​-­water​-­health​-­a dvisories​-­pfoa​ -­and​-­pfos.



Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals 491

Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals generally resist degradation under natural conditions, easily accumulate in fatty tissue, biomagnify (increase concentration) through the food chain, and may cause detrimental health effects in humans and animals (EPA 2012). PBTs are industry-synthesized chemicals or unintentionally produced by-products. A great concern is that PBTs can transfer among different phases (air, water, sediment, and biosphere) and across boundaries of regions, countries, and even continents. Some PBTs are able to pass from mother to fetus, extending the hazards to future generations (EPA 2012). Some are carcinogenic, hepatotoxic (causing liver damage), or endocrine disrupting and may cause reproductive and developmental problems. The United States is one of the few countries that did not join the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Instead, in 1997, the United States and Canada signed the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) to eliminate the pollution from PBTs and protect the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem (EPA n.d.). PBTs are classified into level I and level II substances. Level I substances include mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and furans, benzo[a] pyrene, hexachlorobenzene, alkyl-lead, octachlorostyrene, and the pesticides mirex, dieldrin, aldrin, chlordane, and toxaphene. Level II substances include cadmium and cadmium compounds; 1,4-dichlorobenzene; 3,3’-dichlorobenzidine; dinitropyrene; endrin; heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide; hexachlorobutadiene and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene; hexachlorocyclohexane; 4,4’-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline); pentachlorobenzene; pentachlorophenol; tetrachlorobenzene (1,2,3,4and 1,2,4,5-); tributyltin; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), including but not limited to anthracene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[ghi]perylene, perylene, and phenanthrene. Some of these substances are also included in the annexes of the Stockholm Convention. Level I substances have demonstrated, or have the potential to cause, adverse effects to humans and the environment that require immediate action. Level II substances have the potential to significantly affect the Great Lakes ecosystem. There are sixteen PBT chemicals and five PBT chemical compound categories that are subject to Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting, meaning industries are required to report annually the quantities of these chemicals managed or released to the environment (EPA 2017b). PBTs are also required to be screened in the New Chemical Program under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA), which acts as a gatekeeper for new chemicals (EPA 2017a). Many chemicals that are not in the current EPA list of PBTs may also have PBT potential. Examples include polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs), and dechlorane plus (DP). PBTs are considered man-made because they are either synthesized or produced by industries or they enter the eco-environment due to human activities. For example, PCBs and many chlorinated organic pesticides were industrially produced chemicals. The majority of PAHs and dioxins found in the environment

492

Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals

are unintentionally released during various man-made combustions of fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum-derived fuels and solid wastes, although they are also released during natural combustions such as volcanic eruptions and wild fires. The persistence of a chemical refers to its long lifetime in the ecosystem. It stems from the resistance of molecules to degradation reactions, which transform them into less harmful or benign substances. For example, PCBs are still ubiquitous in the global environment, even after their production and uses ceased in the late 1970s. Once in the environment, persistent chemicals may transport with air, water, or migrating animals over long distances. Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane, which is a by-product of lindane production, has been found in the waters of cold, large, and oligotrophic lakes and the atmosphere of the Arctic and Antarctic, where lindane has never been applied. Bioaccumulation is a process by which chemicals in the abiotic environment (such as air, water, and soil) enter biota (animals, plants, and humans) in which they accumulate because intake is faster than execration and metabolism. For example, concentrations of PCBs in fish are often much higher than their concentrations in the water in which the fish swim, and older people often have more PCBs in their blood. Bioconcentration is similar to bioaccumulation but excludes dietary uptake. Another related concept is biomagnification, a phenomenon whereby the concentration becomes higher in biota of higher nutritional levels. Large fish eat small fish, and this results in the biomagnification of these chemicals in the top of food chain. In the Great Lakes, the average concentration of a brominated flame retardant chemical known as BDE-47 was fourteen nanograms per gram wet weight in lake trout, eighteen nanograms per gram wet weight in the eggs of herring gulls, and thirty-nine nanograms per gram wet weight in the eggs of bald eagles, clearly much higher than the concentrations in the bottom organisms. The EPA came out with a fish consumption advisory to eliminate human exposure to PCBs and mercury through ingestion and suggested people consume less lipid-rich fish (EPA 2013). PBT concentrations in humans have been linked with several adverse effects, such as neural disorders, reproductive and developmental problems, birth defects, immune system disturbance, liver disease, and cancer (Commission for Environmental Cooperation n.d.). The harms caused by PBTs do not only affect humans; individual animals and the entire food chain may be affected. PBTs have affected the biodiversity in North America. The populations of peregrine falcons, eagles, and other top predators declined in the 1970s, but they recovered when some interventions on PBTs were implemented (Commission for Environmental Cooperation n.d.). Other chronic effects were found in animals, such as thyroid dysfunction, decreased fertility, birth deformities, and endocrine disruption (European Environmental Bureau 2014). For a while, the EPA offered a web-based program called PBT Profiler to assess persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity using a multimedia model to estimate chemical distribution in water, soil, sediment, and air (EPA 2012). It estimated persistence based on chemicals’ half-lives (the time it takes a chemical to degrade to half its original concentration) in air, water, soil, and sediment—the longer the half-lives, the higher the persistence. The cutoff value between nonpersistence and



Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) 493

persistence was two months (or six months between persistence and high persistence) in water, soil, and sediment and two days in air. The bioaccumulation potential was estimated based on the bioconcentration factor (the ratio of the chemical concentration in an aquatic organism over its concentration in water) in fish, with the cutoff value of one thousand between bioaccumulative and nonbioaccumulative (or five thousand between bioaccumulative and highly bioaccumulative). For toxicity, the PBT Profiler estimated using fish chronic value (ChV; the lowest long-term exposure concentrations to see a toxic effect). The cutoff value between not toxic and toxic was 10 milligrams per liter (or 0.1 milligram per liter between toxic and highly toxic chronic)—the lower the concentrations, the higher the toxicity. Jiehong Guo See also: Dioxins; Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); Pesticides; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Further Reading

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. n.d. “Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Substances.” Accessed September 21, 2017. ­http://​­www3​.­cec​.­org​/­islandora​/­en​/­item​/­992​ -­north​-­american​-­mosaic​-­overview​-­key​-­environmental​-­issues​-­en​.­pdf. European Environmental Bureau. 2014. “PBT and vPvB Substances.” February 2014. Accessed June 25, 2020. ­https://​­risctox​.­istas​.­net​/­en​/­index​.­asp​?­idpagina​= ​­613. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. “Estimating Persistence, Bioaccumulation, and Toxicity Using the PBT Profiler.” In the Sustainable Futures/P2 Framework Manual 2012. EPA-748-B12-001, 7-1–7-10. 2012. Accessed October 11, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2015​- ­05​/­documents​/­07​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. 2011 National Listing of Fish Advisories. EPA-820-F-13-058, December 2013. Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed June 25, 2020. ­https://​­19january2017snapshot​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2015​ -­06​/­documents​/­technical​-­factsheet​-­2011​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017a. “Basic Information for the Review of New Chemicals.” Reviewing New Chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Last updated May 18, 2017. Accessed September 24, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­reviewing​-­new​-­chemicals​-­u nder​-­toxic​-­substances​-­control​-­act​-­tsca​ / ­basic​-­information​-­review​-­new. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017b. “Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals Covered by the TRI Program.” Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. Last updated February 7, 2017. Accessed September 24, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­epa​.­gov​/­toxics​-­release​-­inventory​-­tri​-­program​/­persistent​-­bioaccumulative​-­toxic​-­pbt​ -­chemicals​-­covered​-­tri. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. “The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.” Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­archive​.­epa​.­gov​/­greatlakes​/­p2​/­web​/­pdf​ /­bnssign​.­pdf.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) The term persistent organic pollutants (POPs) refers to organic compounds that are present as contaminants and remain in the environment for a long period of time. POPs can undergo long-range transport across continents, accumulate in animals and human, and exert toxic effects, such as causing cancer.

494

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is an international treaty to protect humans and the ecosystem from potentially detrimental effects of POPs (UNEP 2017). It initially identified twelve POPs, which are often called the “dirty dozen”: aldrin, endrin, dieldrin, chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), toxaphene, mirex, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and dibenzofurans (dioxins and furans). Since then, sixteen more have been added. A number of these POPs are families of many individual compounds. Countries and parties that have ratified the convention must take measures to eliminate the chemicals included in Annex A, restrict the production and use of chemicals in Annex B, and reduce unintentional releases of chemicals in Annex C. Additional chemicals or chemical groups have been proposed for listing in the future. Environmental persistence of organic compounds largely originates from their molecular composition and structure. The chemical bonds between atoms in the molecules of POPs are not easy to break under ambient conditions. For instance, most halogen atoms (fluorine, chlorine, and bromine) form relatively strong single covalent bonds with carbon. All the “dirty dozen” and many of the newly added POPs on the Stockholm Convention’s list contain halogens. The abundance of halogens on earth and the special physicochemical properties of halogen-containing compounds contribute to the large-volume commercial production of halogenated organics. However, the stability of these compounds that made them useful also renders them undesirably long lifetimes in the environment. Environmental fate assessment is an area of environmental chemistry that includes the evaluation of persistence. Persistence of a chemical to specific degradation reactions can be assessed by conducting laboratory experiments under controlled conditions. The data are then used to derive the chemical’s half-life (t1/2), which is the time needed for concentration of the chemical of interest to decline to 50 percent of the initial concentration. For example, scientists investigate and compare how fast various POPs “disappear” when they are exposed to UV light or being utilized by microorganisms. On the other hand, many long-term environmental surveillance and monitoring programs measure concentrations over decades and thus provide time trends of changes that reflect the persistence of chemical pollutants in the matrices (air, water, soil, etc.). Overall environmental persistence must take into account continued or future emissions, distribution (partitioning among matrices), and transport (moving from one location to another), in addition to quantitatively describing various degradation processes due to chemical, photochemical, and biological reactions. Various computer models have been developed to assist such assessment. An Li See also: Dioxins; Halogens; Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS); Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Toxaphene (C10H10Cl8).

Further Reading

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 2017. “Stockholm Convention.” Accessed September 17, 2017. h­ ttp://​­chm​.­pops​.­int.



Pesticide Action Network (PAN) 495

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) The Pesticide Action Network (PAN), founded in 1982, is a network of consumer, labor, health, environment, and agriculture groups linked into an international citizens’ action network. PAN’s major efforts are directed toward stopping the global proliferation of pesticides and the use of genetically modified foods, defending basic rights to health and environmental quality, and supporting the transition to a just and viable food system. One of PAN’s first international campaign efforts was its publication of the “dirty dozen,” a list of agricultural products with the highest amount of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). PAN was also instrumental in developing the concept of prior informed consent (PIC) with respect to pesticide exports, wherein companies who wish to export chemicals must provide information on how to safely store, transport, use, and dispose of hazardous chemicals. The PIC Treaty, and the related Rotterdam Convention, helped stem the tide of banned chemical “dumping.” PAN operates in more than ninety countries, and it has five independent regional centers throughout the world: Africa, Asia/Pacific, Latin America, Europe, and North America. Owing to its structure as a network of grassroots organizations, PAN does not have a central office. PAN North America (PANNA) includes member organizations from the United States and Canada and is headquartered in Berkeley, California. Much of PANNA’s work is coordinated through its website (­www​.­panna​.­org) and its online GroundTruth Blog. PANNA also maintains an extensive online resource library and newsletter. In 2011, PANNA and the Center for Biological Diversity filed what was one of the most comprehensive legal actions ever brought under the Endangered Species Act against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its alleged failure to consult with federal wildlife agencies regarding the impacts of hundreds of pesticides that were deemed harmful to over two hundred endangered species. However, the case was later dismissed by a federal judge. In recent years, PANNA has been active in promoting agroecological farming and has supported collaborative efforts among researchers, farmers, indigenous communities, and historically marginalized groups. PANNA strongly supports “food democracy” and is generally not a supporter of free trade, arguing that trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and former Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) do not protect workers’ rights, local communities, or the environment. PANNA is currently active in four campaigns. In the first, Healthy Kids, PANNA reviewed recent scientific studies on the impacts of pesticides on children’s health. In the second campaign, Fair Harvest, PANNA supports stronger national efforts to protect farmworkers on the job. PANNA developed the Equitable Food Initiative to partner with “growers and retailers to create a more transparent food chain, safer food and healthier places to work.” With its third campaign, Save Our Bees, PANNA has worked to support pollinator protection policies across the country. In particular, it has pushed the EPA to stiffen its rules on the use of neonicotinoids. In its fourth campaign, Stop Drift, PANNA monitors

496 Pesticides

local, state, and national data concerning pesticide drift incidents and damages. Its work often focused on the major pesticide and biotech companies: Monsanto (now merged with Bayer), Bayer, DowDuPont (now Dow and DuPont), BASF, and Syngenta. Robert L. Perry See also: DowDuPont, Inc.; Insecticides; Monsanto Company; Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); Pesticides.

Further Reading

Global Pesticide Campaigner. 2002. “Pesticide Action Network’s First 20 Years: An Interview with Monica Moore.” Global Pesticide Campaigner 12(1): 18. Pesticide Action Network International (PAN). 2018. “About.” Accessed October 7, 2018. ­http://​­pan​-­international​.­org. Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). 2018. “About Us.” Accessed October 7, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­panna​.­org.

Pesticides There are approximately one thousand active ingredients found in nearly eighteen thousand products used for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating pests in the United States. In California—one of the few states that collect pesticide data—researchers found that, between 1991 and 2000, nearly two billion pounds of chemicals were used in that state (Ettinger 2011). Pesticide products include herbicides, disinfectants, pheromones, insect repellants, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, rodenticides, and growth regulators. These products typically consist of one of more active ingredients that are mixed with inert ingredients, such as common food commodities (e.g., certain edible oils, spices, herbs), and some natural materials (e.g., beeswax, cellulose), which serve as carriers or solvents and help the pesticide destroy the target pest (Cohen 2004.) Currently, the United States is the world’s second-largest user of pesticides, after China. The number of pesticides in the United States has not appreciably decreased in the last twenty-five years, and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the last ten years (Donley 2019). Pesticide use largely increased as a result of World War II. During the war, research efforts geared toward increasing the food supply were stepped-up. There was also the need to protect soldiers from pest-borne diseases such as malaria and typhus. As a result, research in chemical warfare led to the discovery of several chemicals that were lethal to insects. In the immediate post–World II era, as farm populations dwindled and farm sizes increased, pesticide use became more common. Pesticide usage was often viewed as a way to solve major agricultural problems of the day, particularly in terms of dealing with bugs, beetles, worms, and weevils. Among the more popular pesticides was the chlorinated hydrocarbon known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), whose use had become a major factor in Southern cotton production. Given that pesticides were seen as a major factor in the U.S. economy, there was not much questioning of their safe use. Congressional members from farm

Pesticides 497

bloc states were largely supported by fellow members as well as a contented public (Finegan 1989). However, as new pests appeared, and chemical pesticides became even more commonly used in the United States, public attitudes toward pesticide use changed, and Congress sought to regulate synthetic pesticides, which were not necessarily covered under one of the first regulatory actions concerning pesticides: the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) of 1938. The potential risks of chlorinated hydrocarbons and organophosphate insecticides were of increasing concern. It was generally recognized, however, that organophosphates typically broke down into relatively harmless components over the course of a few weeks, while chlorinated hydrocarbons accumulated in the bodies of humans and wildlife (Davis 2014). By the 1950s, as public concern over possible risks of insecticide-tainted food supplies increased, Congress passed two amendments to the FD&C Act: the Miller Amendment (which eventually became part of the Pesticide Residues Amendments of 1954), which granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to set tolerances for each pesticide and crop, and, the Delaney Clause, enacted in 1958, which prohibits the addition of any chemical that has been shown to cause cancer in humans or animals to the human food supply. By the 1960s, public concern over the environment was growing, and the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, which detailed pesticide-related threats to falcons, bald eagles, ospreys, pelicans, and other wildlife, brought important attention to the burgeoning environmental movement. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy ordered a review of pesticide policy by his Science Advisory Committee, whose eventual report recommended reduced use of persistent chemicals. Several scientific reports supported the critics of pesticides, and by the mid-1960s, environmental groups such as the Environment Defense Fund (EDF), the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) were targeting the courts (Nownes 1991; Flippen 1997). One of the major problems of the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was that the law required labels to explain proper usage, but there was really no means provided for enforcement. The law primarily focused on safety within the setting of single-crop fields. Little attention was paid to the potentially harmful effects on nontarget plants and animals or the effects of pesticide drift into other fields, forests, or water supplies. Nor was their much attention paid to the effects (both long- and short-term) on humans other than through direct exposure through food ingestion. FIFRA also prescribed criminal penalties for violations related to the registration requirement but lacked any safety requirement. Although FIFRA allowed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to cancel the use of an unsafe pesticide, it also allowed for an extended appeals process during which the questionable chemical remained on the market. Overall, the major problem with FIFRA was that the relationship between the USDA and pesticide manufacturers remained closed. The original assumption in the act was that the USDA would institute all actions under FIFRA, with the manufacturer as the only respondent (Large 1973). In essence, FIFRA failed to allow for outside consumer input.

498 Pesticides

Despite some of the stringent rules in FIFRA, relative to other agricultural powers, including China, the European Union, and Brazil, the United States still lags when it comes to banning or phasing out pesticides that the others have identified as too harmful for use (Donley 2019). According to the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), today’s conventional farmers are often trapped in a “pesticide treadmill”; once persistent organochlorine pesticides such as DDT were phased out for their health and environmental harms, a new fast-acting generation of organophosphates was phased in. With the further introduction of more genetically engineered crops to market, the pesticide treadmill will continue (PAN 2019). Some of the most common pesticides still used in the United States are glyphosate (better known as Roundup), which is used on genetically modified (GM) soy, corn, canola, and cotton and has been linked to birth defects, neurological disorders, fertility issues, and cancer; the weed killer atrazine, which has been linked to an increased risk of birth defects, infertility, and possibly cancer; chlorpyrifos, which is applied to cotton, almonds, oranges, apples, and corn crops and has been linked to respiratory paralysis and an increased risk of children being born with lower IQs and the potential for ADHD; the herbicide metolachlor, which has been recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as cancer causing; and the fumigant and pesticide metam sodium, which is applied to potatoes and has side effects that include nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, thyroid damage, hormone disruption, and birth defects (Ettinger 2011). In the last few years, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto (the manufacturer of Roundup) by victims who accuse the firm of downplaying the lethal risks of the weed killer. According to their claims, many professionals who have been exposed to the toxic effects of this product, such as farmers, gardeners, and agricultural laborers, later suffered from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma— a potentially fatal type of cancer (Drugwatcher 2019). One plaintiff received a jury award of $78.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages (Gori 2019). Robert L. Perry See also: Carson, Rachel (1907–1964); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938); Monsanto Company; Pesticide Action Network (PAN); Sierra Club.

Further Reading

Cohen, Stuart Z. 2004. “The Special Case of Pesticides: Science and Regulation.” Environmental Claims Journal 16(1): 55–68. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1080​/­10406020490452409. Davis, F. R. 2014. Banned: A History of Pesticides and the Science of Toxicology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Donley, Nathan. 2019. “The USA Lags behind Other Agricultural Nations in Banning Harmful Pesticides.” Environmental Health 18: 44. Accessed June 10, 2019. ­https://​ ­ehjournal​.­biomedcentral​.­com​/­articles​/­10​.­1186​/­s12940​- ­019​- ­0488​- ­0. Drugwatcher. 2019. “RoundUp, Lawsuits and Cancer.” Accessed July 30, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­drugwatcher​.­org​/­roundup​-­glyphosate​-­lawsuit. Ettinger, Jill. 2011. “Invisible Monsters: 5 of the Most Common Pesticides & Their Impact on Your Health.” Organic Authority. Accessed July 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­o rganicauthority​. ­c om​/ ­h ealth​/ ­i nvisible​- ­m onsters​-­5 ​- ­of​- ­t he​- ­m ost​- ­c ommon​ -­pesticides​-­a​-­their​-­impact​-­on​-­your​-­health.



Petroleum Industry 499

Finegan, Pamela A. 1989. “FIFRA Lite: A Regulatory Solution or Part of the Pesticide Problem?” Pace Environmental Law Review 6(2): 615–641. Flippen, J. Brooks. 1997. “Pests, Pollution, and Politics: The Nixon Administration’s Pesticide Policy.” Agricultural History 71(4): 442–456. Gori, Randy L. 2019. “Roundup Lawsuits.” Consumer Safety Organization. Accessed July 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­consumersafety​.­org​/­product​-­lawsuits​/­roundup. Large, Mary J. 1973. “The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972: A Compromise Approach.” Ecology Law Quarterly 3(2): 277–310. Nownes, Anthony J. 1991. “Interest Groups and the Regulation of Pesticides: Congress, Coalitions and Closure.” Policy Sciences 24: 1–18. Pesticide Action Network (PAN). 2019. “The Pesticide Treadmill.” Accessed July 30, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­panna​.­org​/­gmos​-­pesticides​-­profit​/­pesticide​-­t readmill.

Petroleum Industry The petroleum industry is comprised of public and private entities engaged in the discovery of new petroleum supplies, the transport of the commodity to and from refineries, and the distribution of multiple petroleum products to domestic and international consumers. Most of the world’s oil is controlled by governments worldwide and not private corporations. Well over half of the world’s confirmed oil reserves are under the control of governments in the Middle East. Petroleum is a hydrocarbon (composed of carbon and hydrogen) with other substances, such as sulfur, present in different quantities. In its natural form, petroleum is usually referred to as crude oil, and it can be clear, green, or black and either thin like gasoline or thick like tar. The preferred and more expensive form of petroleum has very little sulfur—“sweet” petroleum or crude—and petroleum with high levels of sulfur is referred to as “sour” crude. Petroleum is usually in the form of a mixture of different hydrocarbons. The most prolific hydrocarbons in petroleum are alkanes, also known as paraffins. The remaining part of petroleum is made of aromatic hydrocarbons and cycloalkanes. The types of alkanes present determine the primary uses of petroleum. Most gasoline is refined from oil with pentane and octane alkanes. Petroleum and the use of petroleum in internal combustion engines and at electricity-producing, utility-owned plants are major sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause climate change. Climate change cannot be mitigated without a significant decline in the use of carbon-based resources such as petroleum. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS Some of the environmental statutes that help regulate the U.S. petroleum industry to protect against environmental contamination and human health hazards include the following: • • •

Clean Air Act (CAA) Clean Water Act (CWA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

500

• • • • • •

Petroleum Industry

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Oil Pollution Act Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans

Acid Rain Contamination related to petroleum comes from both the refining process and the burning of petroleum-based fuels. The most common form of contamination is from nitrogen in the form of N2. When nitrogen is burned at a high temperature, it produces nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide. Both compounds contribute to the formation of nitric acid (NHO3), which is a basic element of acid rain. Refining petroleum in the Midwest has been responsible for acid raid in the Northeast. Soot and Smoke When low-grade petroleum is converted to diesel fuel, it is also responsible for producing high levels of soot and smoke, which contain particulates. Soot is composed of large amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are confirmed mutagens and carcinogens. Particulates of various sizes are also formed and are a cause of lung-related illnesses. Greenhouse Gas Production (CO2) through Transportation Petroleum is a major contributor to worldwide and U.S. GHG production, particularly through the global operation of internal combustion engines in cars and trucks. In 2015, 6,587 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CDE) were produced in the United States. Of that total, 25 percent was from transportation, 29 percent was related to utility electricity production, 21 percent was from industry, 2 percent was from residential and commercial uses, and 9 percent was from agriculture (EPA 2018). OCEAN AND LAND ACCIDENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A major cause of petroleum-created environmental impacts is due to accidents involving underwater drilling or the transport of petroleum through tankers and pipelines. In 1969, an oil rig accident sent at least twenty-one thousand gallons of crude oil into the coastal waters off Santa Barbara, California, creating a slick thirty-five



Petroleum Industry 501

miles along the California coast and killing thousands of birds, fish, and sea mammals. The cause of the accident was found to be inadequate safety precautions taken by Unocal, now known as Union Oil. The rig explosion was so powerful it cracked the seafloor in multiple places, and crude oil flowed out of the ruptures at the rate of one thousand gallons per hour for a month before it slowed. By that time, many of Santa Barbara’s beaches were covered by a thick, black tar-like substance. It was the worst oil spill in the nation’s history, until it was dwarfed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill twenty years later. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Santa Barbara oil spill was especially significant because it helped ignite the environmental movement of the late twentieth century and changed the exploration for gas forever (Mai-Duc 2015). Environmentalists and students across the country quickly mobilized to enact extensive environmental protections at both the federal and state levels of government and bans against coastal oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is currently attempting to remove the coastal protections that have been in place for at least thirty years. The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989, when the supertanker ran aground in Alaska’s Prince William Sound, an area of unique and abundant natural resources. Despite efforts to stabilize the vehicle and prevent further oil spillage, more than 250,000 barrels (11 million gallons) of oil were lost to the environment. Exxon spent over $4.3 billion as a result of the accident, including compensatory payments, cleanup payments, settlements, and fines. The company voluntarily compensated more than eleven thousand Alaska residents within a year of the spill (NOAA 2018). The most recent and serious petroleum catastrophe occurred off the coast of Louisiana. An explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed eleven workers on April 20, 2010. The rig, owned by Transocean Ltd., and licensed to British Petroleum (BP), was drilling forty-two miles southeast of Venice, Louisiana, in five thousand feet of water. The well had reached thirteen thousand feet under the seabed. On April 22, the rig, valued at more than $560 million, sunk, and an oil slick formed. It is estimated that 4.9 million barrels (over 130 million gallons) entered the Gulf of Mexico, making it the largest accidental oil spill in history (Safety4Sea 2018). BP experienced repeated technical failures in attempting to cap the undersea flow of petroleum. The Gulf of Mexico and the State of Louisiana are still experiencing serious environmental impacts from this drilling accident that are affecting fish and animals within the gulf and its extensive wetlands. Local economies have also experienced financial impacts. BP is aggressively fighting the fines associated with the spill imposed by the U.S. government while financing a public relations campaign targeted at the American public that portrays BP’s unique commitment to the environment. Not all accidents involve offshore drilling. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), despite the assurances of TransCanada that the controversial Keystone Pipeline is an extremely safe mode for moving petroleum from Alberta, Canada, to as far south as the Gulf of Mexico (1,136 miles), a serious spill recently occurred. On November 16, 2017, the TransCanada pipeline ruptured

502 Phthalates

near Amherst, South Dakota, leaking two hundred thousand gallons of oil, about five thousand barrels (Denchak 2017). The response was rapid, and the spill was contained. Nevertheless, this unexpected leak has undercut the credibility of TransCanada and accentuated the concerns of pipeline protestors from the Standing Rock Reservation that spans North and South Dakota. Members of the reservation continue to vociferously protest the pipeline and its potential impact on local and regional groundwater supplies. A number of local farmers have also joined in the protest against the pipeline. John Munro See also: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010); Exxon Mobil Corporation; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989); Gasoline; Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change; Oil; Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974).

Further Reading

Denchak, Melissa. 2017. “What Is the Keystone Pipeline?” Natural Defense Resource Council Guide, April 7, 2017. Accessed October 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­n rdc​.­org​ /­stories​/­what​-­keystone​-­pipeline. Hazardous Substance Research Centers. 2003. “Environmental Impact of the Petroleum Industry.” Environmental Update #12. June 2003. ­https://​­cfpub​.­epa​.­gov​/­ncer​_ abstracts​/­index​.­cfm​/­f useaction​/­display​.­files​/­fileID​/­14522. Mai-Duc, Christine. 2015. “The 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill That Changes Oil and Gas Exploration Forever.” LA Times, May 20, 2015. Accessed October 21, 2018. ­http://​ ­w ww​.­latimes​.­com​/ ­local​/ ­lanow​/ ­la​-­me​-­l n​-­santa​-­barbara​- ­oil​-­spill​-­1969​-­20150520​ -­htmlstory​.­html. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2018. “Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.” Office of Response and Restoration.” Updated October 19, 2018. Accessed October 21, 2018. ­https://​­response​.­restoration​.­noaa​.­gov​/­oil​-­and​-­chemical​-­spills​ /­significant​-­incidents​/­exxon​-­valdez​-­oil​-­spill. Safety4Sea. 2018. “Learn from the Past: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.” Causalities, April 20, 2018. Accessed October 21, 2018. ­https://​­safety4sea​.­com​/­cm​-­learn​-­f rom​-­the​ -­past​-­deepwater​-­horizon​-­oil​-­spill. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Last updated October 9, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­epa​.­gov​/­ghgemissions​/­sources​-­greenhouse​-­gas​-­emissions.

Phthalates Phthalates are colorless chemical compounds that have no scent. They are a group that is often used as plasticizers, which means that when added to plastics, phthalates make the plastic more malleable, flexible, or soft so that it is less prone to fracture or crack. These chemicals have primarily been used to make polyvinyl chloride and are in many consumer and commercial products in homes, hospitals, cars, and businesses. Phthalates are categorized into two major groups based on the number of carbon atoms in the compound. High phthalates contain seven to thirteen carbon atoms and are used to make wires and cables, flooring, wall coverings, self-adhesive

Phthalates 503

films, and synthetic leathers, and they are used in certain fabrics and roofing materials. Low phthalates contain less than seven carbon atoms and are used in medical devices, adhesives, and inks. These chemicals make products more durable and able to resist wear under extreme weathering conditions. Phthalates are used in a variety of ways and are found in such products as detergents, plastic-coated clothing (raincoats, umbrellas), shower curtains, vinyl flooring, wallpaper, vinyl miniblinds, flexible plastic and vinyl children’s toys, food packaging, plastic wrap, garden hoses, containers for blood products, medical tubing, and adhesives. These chemicals became controversial as people became concerned about their presence in cosmetics, including perfumes and nail polishes, and personal care products such as shampoos, hairsprays, skin creams, and soaps. In 1999, at the request of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), manufacturers eliminated these chemicals in baby products such as rattles, teethers, and other oral/chewing baby products. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found evidence of widespread phthalate exposure in the U.S. population. Moreover, adult women have higher levels of exposure than men based on their use of personal care products and cosmetics. People become exposed to phthalates through inhalation and ingestion. One source is the ingestion of foods contaminated by packaging. Cosmetics and personal care products are a major source of ingestion, especially among young girls, teens, and females who more frequently use phthalate-containing shampoos, soaps, and nail polishes. There are risks to workers and homeowners from the inhalation of dust from newly installed vinyl floors; to medical patients from devices for dialysis, blood packaging, and tubes used for transfusions; and to children through playing with soft plastic toys containing the chemical. This is a concern because phthalates are suspected endocrine disruptors; however, according to the American Chemical Council (2017), “Phthalates have been thoroughly studied and reviewed by a number of government scientific agencies and regulatory bodies worldwide. These agencies concluded that phthalates used in commercial products do not pose a risk to human health at typical exposure levels.” One form of phthalate, di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, is considered “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This chemical was used in medical tubing and feeding devices; however, there is limited evidence of a relationship between exposure to the chemical and cancer in humans. Several other phthalate compounds classified by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) are considered of minimal concern regarding reproductive health. The NTP has concluded that high levels of one phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate, may adversely affect human reproduction and development, but the health effects from exposure to low levels of phthalates are unknown. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Campaign for Safe Cosmetics; Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938).

504

Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)

Further Reading

American Chemistry Council. 2017. “Phthalates.” Accessed September 28, 2017. ­https://​ ­phthalates​.­americanchemistry​.­com. BabyCenter. 2018. “Phthalates: What You Need to Know.” Last updated August 2018. Accessed September 28, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­babycenter​.­com​/­0​_ phthalates​-­what​ -­you​-­need​-­to​-­k now​_3647067​.­bc. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017. “Phthalates Factsheet.” Last updated April 7, 2017. Accessed September 28, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­biomonitoring​ /­phthalates​_factsheet​.­html.

Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) The Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) is a Washington, DC–based group of physicians and health professionals who advocate for climate solutions and a nuclear weapons–free world. PSR advocates for energy, environmental health, and nuclear weapons policies at the local, federal, and international levels. PSR was created in 1961 by a group of pediatricians and dentists who had been studying the presence of the radioactive strontium-90 in the human body. In 1963, PSR’s founding members, Drs. Victor Sidel, Jack Geiger, and Bernard Lown, published a series of articles in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the consequences of low-yield nuclear weapons. The publications activated health professionals across the United States for nuclear disarmament and spurred the formation of PSR chapters across the country. PSR now has twenty-three chapters in seventeen states and a student chapter in Washington, DC. In 1980, a group of doctors from PSR joined with Soviet counterparts to form the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). This group had organized to conduct research on data collected by Japanese colleagues who had studied the effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The group’s doctors warned that nuclear war would be the final epidemic and that there would be no cure and no meaningful medical response. The IPPNW was awarded the UNESCO Peace Education Prize in 1984 and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. PSR remains the U.S. affiliate of the IPPNW. In 1992, PSR expanded its original focus on nuclear weapons to include environmental health issues such as global climate change, the proliferation of toxics, and ­pollution​.­In 2017, PSR’s partner, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), won the Nobel Peace Prize for raising awareness on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. In its current campaign concerning nuclear weapons abolition, PSR repeatedly warns that the U.S. efforts to develop low-yield weapons on the grounds that are “more usable” in military scenarios is not only morally abhorrent but also a dire threat to global health and that their use will have devastating climatic impacts and humanitarian consequences. In PSR’s environmental campaign, the group is currently working toward increasing public awareness of the adverse impacts of fracked gas on health as well as trying to strengthen efforts to ban fracking and reject proposed pipelines, compressor stations, liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, and gas-fired

Phytoremediation 505

power plants. PSR also intends to continue to press the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to release information on the health effects of fracking chemicals and is also actively involved in educating health professionals about the consequences of climate change. Through PSR’s national office in Washington, DC, it engages health professionals in raising the “health voice” on climate- and health-related policies. In terms of resources available to PSR members and the public, PSR maintains an active web page (­www​.­psr​.­org) with press releases, reports, open letters to government agencies, and webinar training. Each April, Dr. Bob Dodge, a PSR-LA board member, publishes the “Nuclear Weapons Community Cost Calculator.” PSR also maintains an active YouTube channel (­https://​­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­user​ /­PSRNational). Robert L. Perry See also: Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change; Natural Gas.

Further Reading

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). n.d. “IPPNW: A Brief History.” Accessed July 23, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­ippnw​.­org​/ ­history​.­html. Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR). n.d. “Our Impact.” Accessed July 23, 2018. ­https://​­w ww​.­psr​.­org​/­issues​/­our​-­impact.

Phytoremediation Phytoremediation is a technique to remove pollutants using plants or other organic living organisms, such as microorganisms. Most of the time, this technique involves in situ (meaning in place) treatment of the contamination with plants. It has been used on soils, groundwater, surface water, sludges, and sediments. These plants have been used in the remediation of trinitrotoluene (TNT explosives) in soil. It is considered a low-cost, natural process that is most useful at sites with near-surface contaminants that are accessible and with low concentrations of contaminants. It has been used with a wide range of pollutants. This method of remediation is considered more cost-effective than conventional ones like pump and treat. Phytoremediation times are dependent on the concentration of contaminants, the depth of the pollution location, the growing season of the region, and the plant’s growing time. This approach has the secondary benefit of reducing the risk of erosion or migration of the pollutants. In phytoremediation approaches, plants can be used to remove contaminants. Plants store the pollutant in the roots, stems, or leaves. In the root zone, some plants transform the chemicals to less toxic chemicals. Plants can also convert the pollutants to vapors and release the nontoxic product into the air. Microbes on the roots of plants, such as bacteria, can be used to biodegrade the pollutants to a nontoxic substance. When phytoremediation is used to remove such contaminants as metals or other toxic chemicals from soil, it is referred to as phytoextraction. When the plants are used to detoxify or degrade the pollutant, it is referred to as phytodegradation. When the plant immobilizes the pollutant, it is called

506 Phytoremediation

phytostabilization. The plant can also transform the pollutant and then release it into the atmosphere, which is called phytovolatization. Most uses of phytoremediation have occurred as phytoextraction, where vegetation is planted in a contaminated site. After the treatment is complete, the plants are harvested, processed, and disposed of, depending on the type of pollutant. This approach has been used to remediate pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), heavy metals, solvents, oil, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and other leachates that can be taken into the plant structure. Because the process of phytoremediation involves the absorption of the contaminants into the roots of the plant, trees are used for deeper layers of contamination from the surface. This can be combined with the pump-and-treat technology by having plants grown on the residual sludge from the remediation process. Picking the correct plant for use in the phytoremediation is essential to this approach. Plants can include trees, shrubs, grasses, and simple ornamental plants. Factors such as plant accumulation, meaning the storage of pollutants in roots, stem, or leaf, are critical for effectiveness. This is measured as an accumulation factor for plants. A plant with a high accumulation factor may be used in phytoextraction, whereas a plant with a lower accumulation factor would be more appropriate for phytostabilization (Hammond and Wilkson 2012). Also, native plants are usually preferred for phytoremediation over nonnatives. These plants will require less maintenance and protect the native plant ecosystem rather than introducing nonnative species into the site. According to the Landscape Architects Network, founded in 2008 as a social network for landscape architects internationally, several plants can be recommended for use in phytoremediation processes. Based on their review of the research, plants like Indian mustard can assist with the removal of cadmium, lead, selenium, zinc, mercury, and copper. It was also effective in the removal of radioactive cesium from the Chernobyl site. Trees such as willow and poplar are also highly recommended for sites with deeper contamination below the surface. Sunflowers can also be effective (Boi 2015). Phytoremediation has been suggested for use with ornamental plants to enhance the aesthetics in addition to their remediation benefits. Ornamentals are particularly useful as a phytoremediation plant because of the fast growth and would not be confused as being edible. These plants can be used in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Phytoremediation has an additional economic benefit when used with metals, as it can be harvested from the plant for other commercial sales and uses (Nakbanpote et al. 2016). Most people do not recognize a phytoremediation process that occurs in nature. Wetlands are a common example of the phytoremediation process that occurs in both marine and freshwater aquatic ecosystems. These areas are referred to as the “kidneys” of the ecosystem because they filter toxic chemicals in the water before it reaches a major water body. They also serve as flood control near coastal areas by storing water and providing a protective erosion barrier to storms. Wetlands have been used in acid mines for the treatment of toxic drainage according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2015). Phytoremediation is often a preferred approach because it reduces the labor, costs, and emissions associated with more sophisticated technological approaches. It has been used at several



Plutonium (Pu) 507

Superfund sites for the cleanup of soils. It is also an accepted remediation option worldwide. The International Journal of Phytoremediation publishes current research on this topic. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Heavy Metals; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Pump and Treat.

Further Reading

Boi, Jay. 2015. “5 Best Plants for Phytoremediation.” Blog, November 30, 2015. Land8: Landscape Architect Network. ­https://​­land8​.­com​/­5​-­best​-­plants​-­for​-­phytoremediation. Efretuei, Arit. 2016. “Phytoremediation.” November 14, 2016. Permaculture Research Institute. Accessed September 25, 2018. ­https://​­permaculturenews​.­org​/­2016​/­11​/­14​ /­phytoremediation. Hammond, Corin, and Sarah Wilkson. 2012. “Phytoremediation.” Superfund Research Program. University of Arizona. Accessed September 25, 2018. ­https://​­superfund​ .­arizona​.­edu ​/­info​-­material​/­information​-­sheets​/­english ​/­phytoremediation. Nakbanpote, W., O. Meesungnoen, and M. N. V. Prasad. 2016. “Potential of Ornamental Plants for Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals and Income Generation.” In Bioremediation and Bioeconomy, edited by M. N. V. Prasad, 179–217. Waltham, MA: Elsevier Inc. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2018. “Phytoremediation: An Environmentally Sound Technology for Pollution Prevention, Control and Remediation.” Newsletter. Freshwater Management Series No. 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. “A Citizen’s Guide to Phytoremediation.” Factsheet. EPA 542-F-12-016. September 2012. Accessed September 25, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2015​- ­04​/­documents​/­a ​_citizens​_ guide​_to​_ phytoremediation​.­pdf.

Plutonium (Pu) Plutonium (Pu) is a silvery-gray solid metal that becomes yellowish when exposed to air. Naturally occurring in trace amounts, though not in Earth’s crust, most plutonium in the environment originated as the by-product of nuclear weapons testing or nuclear reactor accidents. It is a radioactive element created from uranium that is primarily produced in nuclear reactors. It is primarily generated as either for the production of the nuclear weapons as fuel or in commercial nuclear power operations. Over one-third of the energy from nuclear power plants is produced by plutonium. Plutonium is used to produce radioisotopes (radioactive isotopes) in research and in radionuclide batteries for pacemakers. It is a main power source for deep space missions by NASA. Plutonium has fifteen known isotopes and is created from the uranium isotope known as 238U. The most common plutonium isotopes are 238Pu and 239Pu. The lighter 238Pu produces sufficient energy to be a heat source for satellites, and 239Pu is used to make fuel for nuclear weapons. Both isotopes are by-products of nuclear reactor operations and nuclear bomb explosions. Plutonium has a long half-life, which is best described as the time it takes for the radioactivity of a specified isotope to fall to half its original amount. For 238Pu,

508

Plutonium (Pu)

this is 87.7 years, 240 Pu is 6,564 years, 239Pu is 24,110 years, and 242 Pu is 374,000 years. According to the World Nuclear Organization (2017), there are tonnes (metric tons) of plutonium in our biosphere, a legacy of atmospheric weapons testing from the 1950s and 1960s. This element is most dangerous to public health when inhaled because the respiratory system cannot clear it, so the plutonium remains in the lungs, where it destroys lung cells and causes scarring and cancer. Plutonium can travel from the lungs to the kidneys, liver, spleen, and bones with potentially fatal results. Ingestion from contaminated food or water poses less of a threat than inhalation because the stomach does not easily absorb the element and it is transported out of the body through feces. Plutonium is an important energy source in nuclear power plants. It can generate almost eight million kilowatt-hours of electricity from one kilogram of 239Pu. In commercial power plants and research applications, plutonium exists as plutonium oxide (PuO2), a stable ceramic material with extremely low solubility in water and a high melting point. Two nuclear bombs were used during World War II in the war against Japan. The first was a uranium-fueled bomb called Little Boy used on Hiroshima. The second nuclear bomb, called Fat Man, was fueled by plutonium and used on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. With the equivalent explosive force of twenty-one thousand tons of TNT, the power of the plutonium bomb was ten times that of Little Boy. In the race for nuclear weapon fuel, the U.S. federal government built the Hanford Facility outside Richland, Washington, and during the postwar period, it was used it to produce plutonium. The facility is now managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and has been the focus of significant nuclear waste cleanup and concern for exposure to employees. In 2017, Hanford’s Plutonium Finishing Plant was demolished. In January 2018, a release to employees and the environment was reported. According to local reporter Susannah Frame (2018), a Hanford worker who inhaled plutonium, along with thirty-one other workers, tested positive for the element. An investigation revealed the demolition site as the source of exposure. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW); Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW); Transuranic (TRU) Waste.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Plutonium.” Toxic Substances Portal, March 3, 2011. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­119. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2014. “Radioisotope Brief: Plutonium.” Last updated October 16, 2014. Accessed February 21, 2018. ­https://​­emergency​.­cdc​ .­gov​/­radiation​/­isotopes​/­plutonium​.­asp. Frame, Susannah. 2018. “‘It Was Complete Chaos’ Says Hanford Worker Who Inhaled Plutonium.” K-5 News, February 13, 2018. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­http://​­www​ .­k ing5​.­com​/­a rticle​/­news​/ ­local​/ ­hanford​/ ­hanford​-­worker​-­who​-­i nhaled​-­plutonium​ -­im​-­scared​-­this​-­is​-­criminal​/­281​-­517526634.



Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) 509

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). “Plutonium, CID=23940.” PubChem Database. Accessed February 21, 2018. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​ /­compound​/ ­Plutonium. World Nuclear Association. 2017. “Plutonium.” Last updated October 2017. Accessed February 12, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­world​-­nuclear​.­org​/­information​-­library​/­nuclear​-­f uel​ -­cycle​/­f uel​-­recycling​/­plutonium​.­aspx.

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)(1990) Pollution prevention (P2) involves reducing or eliminating waste at the source, whether by modifying production processes, promoting the use of nontoxic or less toxic substances, implementing conservation techniques, or reusing materials rather than introducing them to the waste stream. The national policy on P2 was passed in 1990 with the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). The intent of the PPA was to prevent or limit the creation of pollution. Prior to the PPA, environmental legislation typically focused on treating pollution after it had been created. This was often referred to as the “end of pipe” treatment of pollution. Introduced on October 25, 1990, in the 101st Congress, the PPA put forth the idea that hazardous or toxic pollution can be more effectively and economically controlled and the environment protected more fully if the pollution never occurs. Under the PPA, there was a hierarchy created of environmental protection. The most desirable approach was that pollution should be prevented as a priority. Then, as a second priority, it should be reduced at the source. Both reuse and recycling are preferred over treatment of waste. Disposal or other release into the environment should be considered only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner. As such, the PPA targets the reduction of pollutants before they have been created, with a focus on industry, government, and the public reducing the amount of pollution at the source wherever possible. The goal of the PPA was source reduction. Source reduction is defined by the PPA as those practices that aid in the reduction or elimination of toxic or hazardous substances, pollutants, or other contaminants at the source. In general, the PPA aims to prevent or significantly reduce these substances from entering the waste stream or being released to the natural environment. Source reduction practices can aid significantly in the protection of both human health and the health of the natural environment. With the 1990 PPA, the United States established a new national policy goal for environmental protection. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was tasked with advancing this goal—the EPA implements the law and policies associated with the PPA. Since the promulgation of the policy in 1990, the EPA continues to progress this policy through collaborative efforts between government agencies, rule development, program development (e.g., Toxics Release Inventory [TRI] Program for measuring P2), permitting, and enforcement. Additionally, the EPA supports state technical assistance programs through grants and promotes P2 education, outreach, and awareness programs.

510

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)

SOURCE REDUCTION Source reduction is an important component of the concept of P2. It is fundamentally different, and more desirable, than waste management and pollution control. Prohibiting and reducing pollution at the source is more desirable than finding ways to treat or dispose of pollutants and hazards after they have been created. Because of the focus on environmental regulations for treatment, disposal, and remediation, there has been less focus on source reduction. The PPA was a policy approach to address this prevention of pollution rather than the management of it. The EPA is authorized to carry out the requirements of the PPA. It is required to establish a source reduction clearinghouse that collects and disseminates information and to provide for financial assistance to the states. It is also required to develop a strategy to promote source reduction. The PPA requires the EPA to establish a source reduction clearinghouse to compile information, including a computer database that contains information on management, technical, and operational approaches to source reduction. The EPA uses the clearinghouse to serve as a center for source reduction technology transfer. It collects information that is reported by the states receiving grants on the operation and success of their source reduction programs. The clearinghouse information must also be available to the public. Under the PPA, the EPA gives matching grants to states for programs to promote the use of source reduction techniques by businesses and includes evaluation criteria for providing grant funds to states. The PPA also mandates that federal funds provided to states for source reduction are limited to 50 percent of the funds made available to a state in each year of participation in the grant program. One of the most important roles for the EPA is the development and implementation of a strategy to promote source reduction. As part of the strategy, the EPA must establish standard methods of measurement of source reduction. It also considers the effect of existing and proposed environmental programs on source reduction efforts. The EPA coordinates source reduction activities with other federal government agencies. As part of this effort, the EPA develops improved methods of coordinating, streamlining, and assuring public access to data collected under federal environmental statutes. The EPA reports biennially to Congress, detailing the actions taken to implement the PPA and its source reduction strategies. The EPA must also identify those industries and pollutants that require priority assistance in multimedia source reduction, make recommendations as to incentives needed to encourage investment and research and development in source reduction, and evaluate the cost and technical feasibility by industry of the source reduction processes.

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES: PPA REQUIREMENTS It is important to note that the PPA specifically outlines requirements for industrial facilities. The PPA dictates that owners or operators of facilities, required to file annual toxic chemical release forms under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), include with each such filing a toxic chemical



Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) 511

source reduction and recycling report. These reports are used to inform government officials as well as the public about waste management, on- and off-site discharges, and waste transfers. The data provided in these reports is incorporated into the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)—an information clearinghouse for learning about the P2 activities of industrial and federal facilities. The data reported in the TRI is open and accessible to the public. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT P2 may be encouraged or mandated. The EPA or state environmental agencies are responsible for garnering industry compliance with the PPA and P2 activities. The most common vehicles for regulatory compliance of the PPA or P2 rules include providing technical assistance, inspections (including multimedia inspections), enforcement, permits, rules, and legislation. For example, state regulatory agencies may offer technical compliance assistance. This assistance helps industries determine, develop, promote, or maintain sound environmental practices. Technical assistance may include meetings, site visits, training for on-site personnel, or providing educational or reference materials to assist facility managers in assessing production processes. Technical assistance can also be provided to help industries prepare and implement P2 plans for their businesses. Conversely, P2 practices can be mandated via enforcement. If an industry has violated the PPA, it may be able to offset state and federal penalties by voluntarily agreeing to perform a P2-centric project or a P2 supplemental environmental project (SEP). A P2 SEP allows the violator to improve processes and promote environmentally sound practices to reduce or eliminate risk to human health and the natural environment. Industries may choose to make improvements in waste generation, air emission minimization, water conservation, or other environmentally friendly projects.

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND SOURCE REDUCTION STRATEGIES P2 strategies can include anything that promotes environmentally friendly processes or reduces the amount of pollutants that enter the waste stream from the source. P2 strategies apply to potential and actual pollutant sources and are not limited to industry. P2 reduction strategies apply to business, consumer, agricultural, and industrial sectors, to name a few. Simply, anyone can implement a P2 strategy. Homeowners can turn out the lights when leaving the room and switch to using eco-friendly household cleaners; an industrial facility can recycle wastes rather than disposing of them; and a farmer can use environmentally friendly pesticides instead of more toxic alternatives. Source reduction strategies have both economic and environmental benefits. On one hand, implementing these strategies can reduce costs from the disposal, management, and remediation of waste by eliminating the source of the substance.

512

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Conversely, they protect the environment by focusing on conservation and the use of less toxic chemicals. As such, industry is especially encouraged to implement cost-effective changes in their operations, production and manufacturing, and raw materials consumption to achieve P2 priorities. According to the EPA (2017b), the PPA has been funded in 2017 with $9.38 million in grants for two-year assistance grants. These grants not only include recipients such as state governments but also colleges, universities, federally recognized tribes, and intertribal consortia. An average of forty grants are issued per year. Bridgette Bush-Gibson See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990); Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

Further Reading

Bearden, David M., Claudia Copeland, Linda Luther, James E. McCarthy, Linda-Jo Schierow, and Mary Tiemann. 2011. “Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statues Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.” Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. ­https://​­www​.­hsdl​.­org​/?­view​&­did​= ​­718719. Browner, Carol M. 1993. “Pollution Prevention Policy Statement: New Directions for Environmental Protection.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Last updated April 17, 2017. ­https://​­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­p2​/­pollution​-­prevention​-­policy​-­statement. Burnett, Miles L. 1998. “The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990: A Policy Whose Time Has Come or Symbolic Legislation?” Environmental Management 22(2): 213–224. Johnson, Stephen M. 1992. “From Reaction to Proaction: The 1990 Pollution Prevention Act.” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 17(1): 153–204. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017a. “EPA Definition of ‘Pollution Prevention’ Memorandum.” Pollution Prevention (P2). Last updated March 30, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­p2​/­epa​-­definition​-­pollution​-­prevention​-­memorandum. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017b. “Pollution Prevention Law and Policies.” Pollution Prevention (P2). Last updated September 7, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​ .­gov​/­p2​/­pollution​-­prevention​-­law​-­and​-­policies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Pollution Prevention Case Studies.” Pollution Prevention (P2). Last updated September 13, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­p2​/­pollution​-­prevention​-­case​-­studies.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were among the chemicals that were produced in large volumes by industries in the past. Because PCBs are highly resistant to degradation, they are still among the most widespread pollutants in the environment. PCBs are toxic in many ways. PCBs were first synthesized before 1890. In the United States, commercial production of PCBs started in 1910 by the Anniston Ordnance Company (Anniston, Alabama), whose name was changed in 1930 to the Swann Chemical Company. In 1935, Swann was purchased by Monsanto Industrial Chemical Company (St.  Louis, Missouri), which made PCBs in its facilities in Sauget, Illinois, and Anniston, Alabama, under the trade name Aroclor. PCBs and PCB-rich products



Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 513

were also manufactured by a number of other companies in the United States as well as in Japan and European countries. There is no known significant natural source of PCBs. There are 209 individual PCB congeners, which are different in the number and the positions of chlorine atoms in the molecules. Commercial PCB products were mixtures of many PCB congeners. There were more than a dozen different Aroclors produced by Monsanto. Most were used as insulating fluid in electrical equipment, such as transformers and capacitors. PCBs were also used as hydraulic and heat transfer fluids, lubricants, plasticizers, and additives to petroleum and pesticides as well as paints, inks, and other products. The main reasons for using PCBs were because PCBs do not burn (low flammability) in accidental fires, although they look like oil; they do not conduct electricity (high dielectric constant); and they are very stable and do not break down easily. The production of PCBs in the United States ceased in the late 1970s, after more than 635,000 tonnes (metric tons) had been produced over about five decades. The worldwide production volume was estimated to be 1.5 million tonnes. A significant portion of the PCB products that had been produced may have remained in use. The disposal of PCB-containing wastes is costly and under strict government regulations. PCBs are highly resistant to natural degradations by sunlight, chemical agents, and microorganisms in the environment. Even though the production stopped almost forty years ago, PCBs are still ubiquitous in the environment. They have been constantly detected in air, water, soils, sediments, and vegetation. In the Great Lakes region, for example, the air still contained 60–1300 ng/m3 (nanograms/cubic meters) of PCBs in 2003 (Sun et al. 2006), and lake trout from Lake Michigan still contained 900 ng PCBs per gram tissue in 2009 (Carlson et  al. 2006). A total of about 500 tonnes of PCBs may reside in the sediment of the Great Lakes (Li et al. 2017). Because of PCB contamination, more than eight million lake acres were under fish consumption advisories issued by the government in 2011 (EPA 2013). In addition to environmental persistence and bioaccumulation, PCBs are capable of long-range transport in the atmosphere. They have been found to move with air from source regions to remote areas where PCBs have never been made or used. PCBs have been detected in polar bears and penguins and in humans living in the Arctic region. PCB concentrations in the global environment have been declining over the past decades. The health effects of PCBs have been intensively investigated. Even during the early days of PCB production in the mid-1930s, serious health problems appeared, and deaths occurred among workers in PCB manufacturing plants (Fox River Watch n.d.). One of the earliest studies reported that “the chlorinated diphenyl [which is the same as biphenyl] is certainly capable of doing harm in very low concentrations and is probably the most dangerous [of the chlorinated hydrocarbons studied]” (Drinker et al. 1937, 296). In 1964, Dr. Sören Jensen, of Sweden, found widespread contamination of the wildlife and humans by PCBs (Jensen 1972). In Kyushu, Japan and Taiwan, China, tens of thousands of people were poisoned when their cooking oils were accidentally mixed with PCBs, and hundreds died; children born during the episodes exhibited various birth defects and intellectual problems (Hsu et al. 1985). In the United States, a 1990 study in Michigan

514

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

involving pregnant women linked eating fish from Lake Michigan to the PCB levels in the umbilical cord serum of their newborns and showed that the PCB levels in cord serum negatively correlated with the children’s verbal and memory test scores at age four (Jacobson et al. 1990). PCBs mainly enter the human body through eating contaminated food, particularly dairy products, fish, and fatty meat, as well as breathing contaminated air. The concentration of a single PCB, 2,2,’4,4,’5,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl (PCB# 153), in the serum of people living in the United States averaged 20 ng per gram of lipid from 1999 to 2004 (CDC 2017, 350). Inside the body, PCBs tend to accumulate in fat and liver and are poorly metabolized. PCBs are classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as probable human carcinogens. They also cause adverse effects on the immune systems, reproductive systems, nervous systems, and endocrine systems of humans and animals. Occupational exposure to PCBs was found to cause chloracne (an acne-like skin eruption), pigmentation of the skin and nails, and damage to the eyes (ATSDR 2000). Among the 209 individual PCBs, twelve (PCB# 77, 81, 105, 114, 118, 123, 126, 156, 157, 167, 169, and 189) are “dioxin-like,” thus more toxic than others, because they act similar to the highly toxic 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (dioxin) in exerting toxicity. Based on molecular structures, other chemical pollutants that are most closely related to PCBs are polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs). In the United States, PBBs were manufactured under the trade name Firemaster by the Velsicol Chemical Corporation (St. Louis, Michigan) before the 1970s and used as fire retardants in many consumer products. The disastrous killing of cattle and poisoning of children in the state of Michigan in 1973 resulted from the PBB contamination of feeds for milk-producing cows. PCTs were made by Monsanto and were also given the trade name Aroclor, followed by four digits with the first two being five and four. Mixtures and blends of PCB and PCT were also called Aroclors. An Li See also: Monsanto Company; Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2000. Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Accessed September 15, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​ /­toxprofiles​/­t p​.­asp​?­id​= ​­142​&­tid​= ​­26. Carlson, D. L., and D. L. Swackhamer. 2006. “Results from the U.S. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program and Effects of Lake Processes on Bioaccumulative Contaminant Concentrations.” Journal of Great Lakes Research 32(2): 370–385. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals: Updated Tables, January 2017. Vol. 2. Accessed September 15, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­exposurereport​/­pdf​ /­FourthReport​_UpdatedTables​_Volume2​_ Jan2017​.­pdf. Chang, Fengchih, James J. Pagano, Bernard S. Crimmins, Michael S. Milligan, Xiaoyan Xia, Philip K. Hopke, and Thomas M. Holsen. 2012. “Temporal Trends of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Organochlorine Pesticides in Great Lakes Fish, 1999– 2009.” Science of the Total Environment 439: 284–290.



Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 515

Drinker, Cecil K, Madeline F. Warren, and Granville A. Bennett. 1937. “The Problem of Possible Systemic Effects from Certain Chlorinated Hydrocarbons.” Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology 19: 283–311. Fox River Watch. n.d. “The History of PCBs.” Accessed June 25, 2020. ­http://​­www​ .­americaunites​.­com ​/­the​-­history​-­of​-­pcbs​/. Francis, Eric. 1994. “Conspiracy of Silence: The Story of How Three Corporate Giants— Monsanto, GE and Westinghouse—Covered Their Toxic Trail.” Sierra Magazine (September/October). Accessed September 15, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­planetwaves​.­net​ /­silence​.­html. Hsu, Shu-Tao, Chao-I Ma, Steve Kwo-Hsiung Hsu, Shih-Shium Wu, Nora Hsu-MeiHsu, Ching-Chuan Yeh, and Shang-Bang Wu. 1985. “Discovery and Epidemiology of PCB Poisoning in Taiwan: A Four-Year Followup.” Environmental Health Perspectives 59: 5–10. Hu, Dingfei, and Keri C. Hornbuckle. 2010. “Inadvertent Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Commercial Paint Pigments.” Environmental Science Technology 44: 2822–2827. Jacobson, Joseph L., Sandra W. Jacobson, and Harold E. B. Humphrey. 1990. “Effects of In Utero Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Related Contaminants on Cognitive Functioning in Young Children.” Journal of Pediatrics 116(1): 38–45. Jensen, Sören. 1972. “The PCB Story.” Ambio 1(4): 123–131. Accessed September 15, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­jstor​.­org​/­stable​/­4311963. Li, An, Jiehong Guo, Zhuona Li, Tian Lin, Shanshan Zhou, Huan He, Prabha Ranansinghe, Neil C. Sturchio, Karl J. Rockne, and John P. Giesy. 2017. “Legacy Polychlorinated Organic Pollutants in the Sediment of the Great Lakes.” Journal of Great Lakes Research 44: 682–692. Ribas-Fitó, N., M. Sala, M. Kogevinas, and J. Sunyer. 2001. “Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Neurological Development in Children: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55: 537–546. Sun, P., I. Basu, and R. A. Hites. 2006. “Temporal Trends of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Precipitation and Air at Chicago.” Environmental Science & Technology 40: 1178–1183. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. “2011 National Listing of Fish Advisories.” EPA-820-F-13-058. Accessed September 15, 2017. ­https://​­19january2017​ snapshot​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2015​-­06​/­documents​/­technical​-­factsheet​-­2011​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017a. “Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).” Accessed September 15, 2017. h­ ttps://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­pcbs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017b. “Public Health Implications of Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).” Accessed September 15, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2015​- ­01​/­documents​/­pcb99​.­pdf.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are believed to be the most widely distributed class of potent carcinogens present in the human environment. Most PAHs found in the environment are from the combustion of organic substances, such as wood, oil, coal, tobacco, and vehicle fuels. Humans are usually exposed to PAHs through smoking, breathing contaminated air, eating smoked and grilled food, and skin contact with soot and tars. PAHs can cause cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other adverse health effects.

516

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Like other hydrocarbons, molecules of PAHs contain only two elements—carbon and hydrogen. All the carbons are arranged to form aromatic rings that are “fused” together. The number of rings ranges from two to many. The total number of PAHs with two to five rings is 20, with six to eight rings approaches 500, and with eleven to fourteen rings is estimated to be more than 1.6 million (Harvey 1997). PAHs with two to seven fused rings are mostly monitored and investigated in environmental research. Graphene and graphite are substances composed of large numbers of aromatic rings; they are distinctly different from PAHs in terms of sources, environmental behavior, and health effects. Most PAHs found in the environment are not intentionally manufactured by industries in their pure form (ATSDR 1995). PAHs are formed when substances containing organic matter are burned. The fuels can be wood, coal, oil, petroleum, or parts of plants or animals as well as materials that are made from them. Most burning processes are incomplete combustion, meaning that carbons in the fuel are not completely converted to carbon dioxide; some carbons condense to form PAHs. PAHs are also abundant in coal tar and smokes emitted from burning cigarettes, barbecue cooking, fireplace heating, waste burning, forest fires, and volcanic eruptions. Industrial sources of PAHs include power generation using fossil fuels, the coking process in the steel industry, and creosote production, among others. With urban sprawl and the urbanization of originally rural areas, the coal tar–based sealing coat used on parking lots and driveways has become a significant source of PAHs that have been detected in stormwater runoff and the sediment of some rivers and lakes (EPA, Office of Water 2012). The history of finding PAHs dates back to 1775, when a British surgeon found that many his patients with scrotal cancer were chimney sweeps. In the mid–nineteenth century, increased skin cancer was found among coal tar workers in Germany. By the early twentieth century, the link between cancer and soot and coal tar was widely recognized. Numerous individual PAHs were identified from soot and coal tar, and some caused tumors and cancers in test animals (Dipple 1985). Humans are exposed to PAHs through many daily activities. The inhalation of contaminated air is the major route for most nonsmokers. Dermal exposure occurs through skin that comes in contact with tars, soot, and other PAH-rich materials. Dietary exposure can be severe when one consumes smoked or grilled food. With the purification of water supplies, drinking water is generally not a major source for PAHs. After entering the human body, PAHs can be excreted, absorbed, and metabolized. Excretion is generally through feces. Absorption and subsequent distribution in the body may depend on the route of exposure. Metabolism can occur in all tissues. Compared with the parent PAHs, the metabolites are usually more polar, thus they are dissolved in body liquid more easily and removed through urination more quickly. However, the metabolites or reaction intermediates may bind to DNA and other cellular macromolecules and cause mutations and cancer (ATSDR 1995). The strengths and mechanisms of causing cancer differ among PAHs. In addition to cancer, PAHs have also been found to cause morphological, physiological, and developmental abnormalities in test animals; increase allergic immune responses in humans at low levels; and may act



Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 517

synergistically with other air toxics to cause adverse health effects (Harvey 1997; ATSDR 1995). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies sixteen PAHs as priority pollutants for environmental monitoring: naphthalene (NaP), acenaphthylene (AcNP), acenaphthene (AcN), fluorine (FL), phenanthrene (PhA), anthracene (An), fluoranthene (FlA), pyrene (Py), benz(a)anthracene (BaA), chrysene (Chy), benzo(b)fluoranthene (BbFLA), benzo(k)fluoranthene (BkFLA), benzo(a) pyrene (BaP), indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (IP), dibenz(ah)anthracene (dBahA), and benzo(ghi)perylene (BghiP). Among these, naphthalene is usually the most abundant in air but among the lowest in soil because of its relatively high volatility. Residential indoor combustions, such as cooking and heating by burning fuels, also produce PAHs. A study in Chicago reported the sum of the sixteen PAHs in the indoor air of ten residential homes ranged from 13 to 2,500 ng/m3 (Li et al. 2005). In the soils of Chicago, concentrations of individual PAHs were found in the part-per-million range, varying by three orders of magnitude throughout the city, and fluoranthene was found to be the most abundant among the sixteen PAHs measured (Kay et al. 2003). With the development of clean energy, the decline of PAH contamination in the environment is expected to continue. An Li See also: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); Coal and Coal Dust; Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. “Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. August 1995. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­toxprofiles​/­t p69​.­pdf. Dipple, Anthony. 1985. “Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Carcinogenesis: An Introduction.” In Harvey: Polycyclic Hydrocarbons and Carcinogenesis, 1–17. ACS Symposium Series. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Accessed October 17, 2017. ­http://​­pubs​.­acs​.­org​/­doi​/­pdf​/­10​.­1021​/ ­bk​-­1985​- ­0283​.­ch001. Harvey, R. G. 1997. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. New York: Wiley-VCH. Kay, Robert T. Terri L. Arnold, William F. Cannon, David Graham, Eric Morton, and Raymond Bienert. 2003. Concentrations of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Inorganic Constituents in Ambient Surface Soils, Chicago, Illinois: 2001–02. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4105. Urbana, IL: U.S. Geological Survey. Li, An, Todd M. Schoonover, Qimeng Zou, Felice Norlock, Lorraine M. Conroy, Peter A. Scheff, and Richard A. Wadden. 2005. “Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Residential Air of Ten Chicago Area Homes: Concentrations and Influencing Factors.” Atmospheric Environment 39: 3491–3501. National Research Council. 1983. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Evaluation of Sources and Effects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Accessed September 30, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/ ­books​/ ­NBK217755. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water. 2012. “Coal-Tar Sealcoat, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and Stormwater Pollution.” EPAP 833-F-12004. Accessed September 30, 2017. ­https://​­www3​.­epa​.­gov​/­npdes​/­pubs​/­coaltar​.­pdf.

518

PPG Industries, Inc.

PPG Industries, Inc. PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) produces paints, coatings, and other materials for industry as well as the household. The company provides paint and coatings for aircraft, shops, railcars, bridges, packaging, and automotive uses. It also sells its products directly to consumers. It has two major business segments: performance coatings and industrial coatings. In 2017, PPG sold its glass portion of the company so that it is no longer involved in that type of manufacturing or operations. The company reports approximately forty-seven thousand employees worldwide and $14.8 billion in net sales (PPG 2017). The headquarters is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. According to PPG (2018), it operates 156 manufacturing facilities in seventy countries. The performance coating segment is the larger of the two segments in terms of employees. Its major research facilities are located in the United States, China, the Netherlands, and Mexico. Most of the manufacturing facilities are located outside the United States. PPG was founded in 1883 as the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company by Captain John B. Ford and John Pitcairn Jr. It expanded its operations in Ohio to include facilities that produce the materials for its glassmaking business in 1899. The company acquired Patton Paint Company, located in Wisconsin, in 1900. This purchase launched the company into the paint market, which was considered to be very similar in distribution and customers as the rest of the company. During this time period, PPG also began operations in Europe. In the 1920s, with the automotive industry using more glass in its products, the company continued its growth. In 1930s, the company invented the brand Solex, which is a heat-absorbing glass, and Herculite, which is tempered glass that is stronger than regular glass and resistant to shattering. During World War II, the company developed laminated aircraft glass and synthetic resins which led to plastics, high-performance paints, and industrial coatings. The company entered into a new market of optical products that later became the brand Transitions lenses, which is still used in prescription eyeglasses today. During the postwar period, the company benefited from the increased consumer purchases of cars, housing, and construction. In 1952, the company created a fiberglass business. In the 1960s, the company changed its name from the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company to PPG Industries, Inc. During the 1980s and 1990s, the company extended its product lines with coatings and resins for pools, printing, and packaging. In 2000, it used various types of silica to improve athletic shoes, and its fiberglass is included in wind turbines. In 2008, it acquired SigmaKalon Group, which is a coatings producer for architectural paint and marine and industrial coatings. In 2013, PPG acquired AkzoNobel, and this made PPG the largest coatings company worldwide at the time. From this purchase, it acquired several new brands, including Glidden, Flood, Liquid Nails, Sico, Dulux, Devoe, Sikkens, and Sico. PPG has several sites where it is responsible or partially responsible for the remediation of pollutants associated with its operations. It is a potentially responsible party to twenty-four sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). The company is in negotiations with various government agencies in regard to 126 current and former manufacturing and off-site waste disposal sites (SEC 2017). The company is



Praxair, Inc. 519

also involved with remedial actions from sites in Ohio under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as corrective actions. The company reports that, prior to 2000, it was party to many claims related to asbestos-containing products. It is also involved in asbestos exposure litigation, for which it has funded $813 million to a trust based on a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission report (SEC 2017). The company is aware of 625 open and active asbestos claims pending as of 2017. In 2016, PPG reached an agreement with several federal and state agencies in regard to the natural resource damages caused from the release of hazardous substances into the Calcasieu River estuary in Lake Charles, Louisiana. PPG’s portion of the multiparty site is $3.6 million (SEC 2017). One site, New Jersey Chrome, is being remediated by PPG based on a settlement agreement with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the City of Jersey City, New Jersey. This is a former PPG chromium manufacturing site, and the agreement includes an additional nineteen sites. The remediation involves contaminated soils with hexavalent chromium. At a former Garfield Avenue chromium manufacturing site and five adjacent sites, PPG is responsible for performing groundwater remediation. At another site in Kokomo, Indiana, the company reports it is addressing impacts from a legacy plate glass manufacturing facility under the remediation program of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (SEC 2017). According to the Good Jobs First Report (2018), which lists individual violations extracted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) national enforcement and compliance data, PPG is reported to have over $1.9 million in fines associated with environmental violations since 2000. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Asbestos; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Good Jobs First. 2018. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary.” Accessed September 20, 2018. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­parent​/­ppg​-­industries. PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG). 2017. 2017 Annual Report. Accessed September 19, 2018. ­http://​­investor​.­ppg​.­com​/ ˜​/­media​/ ­Files​/ ­P​/ ­PPG​-­I R​/­f inancial​-­i nformation​/­a nnual​ -­reports​/­2017​-­annual​-­report​.­pdf. PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG). 2018. “Facts about PPG.” Accessed September 20, 2018. ­https://​­news​.­ppg​.­com​/­facts​-­sheet. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC). 2017. “PPG Industries, Inc.” 10-K Report. December 31, 2017. Accessed September 19, 2018. ­https://​­investor​.­ppg​ .­c om​/ ˜​/ ­m edia​/ ­Files​/ ­P​/ ­PPG​- ­I R​/­f inancial​- ­i nformation​/­a nnual​- ­r eports​/­10​- ­k a​ -­amended​-­annual​-­report​.­pdf.

Praxair, Inc. Praxair, Inc., was founded in 1907 as the first company in the United States to produce oxygen from air using a cryogenic process that transformed the industrial gas sector. The company became the leading gas producer in North and South

520

Praxair, Inc.

America. It produces gases for industrial use in more than fifty countries, such as atmospheric gases (oxygen, nitrogen, argon, and rare gases) and process gases (carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen, electronic gases, specialty gases, and acetylene). In late 2018, Praxair and the Linde Group completed a $46 billion merger, which created the largest global industrial gas business (Sachgau and McLaughin 2018). Linde was a gas company that began in the 1890s. The company was sold to Union Carbide in 1919. In 1992, Union Carbide formed Praxair as a solely gas division. In 1998, the Linde Group bought back the license to use the Linde name in the United States. The company supports surface technologies with wear-resistant and high-temperature, corrosion-resistant coatings. Praxair’s sales were $11,437 million in 2017. It supports the areas of health care, manufacturing, food and beverage, fiber optics, steel and aerospace, chemical and water treatment, and petroleum refining. According to its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission report (SEC 2017), in 2017, 95 percent of its sales were generated in four geographic segments (North America, Europe, Brazil, and Asia), primarily from the sale of industrial gases, with the balance generated from the surface technologies segment. Praxair has had a series of both environmental and occupational accidents associated with its operations. In 2005, a Praxair facility in St Louis, Missouri, had an explosion that swept through thousands of flammable gas cylinders. Dozens of exploding cylinders were launched into the community, causing extensive damage and several fires (Chemical Safety and Hazardous Investigation Board 2006). This site contained a large amount of chemicals. This caused an evacuation from the area in St. Louis that included a serious fire. In 2016, a federal jury awarded $576,000 for an industrial site injury in Springfield, Oregon, from a pressured tank accident (Bernstein 2016). Linde/Praxair Company has had over $1.6 million in environmental violations, not including workplace safety fines (Good Jobs First 2019). Praxair’s violations involve the Clean Air Act (CAA) and often the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), occupational safety issues, the toxic substances laws, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986).

Further Reading

Bernstein, Maxine. 2016. “Federal Jury Awards Just over Half a Million Dollars to Injured Springfield Truck Driver.” The Oregonian, July 23, 2016. Accessed April 4, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­oregonlive​.­com​/­portland​/­2016​/­07​/­federal​_ jury​_ awards​_ just​_over​ .­html. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. 2006. “Praxair Flammable Gas Fire.” Accessed April 4, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­csb​.­gov​/­praxair​-­flammable​-­gas​-­cylinder​-­fire. Good Jobs First. 2019. “Violation Tracker Parent Company Summary: Linde.” Accessed April 4, 2019. ­https://​­violationtracker​.­goodjobsfirst​.­org​/­prog​.­php​?­parent​= ​­linde. Sachgau, Oliver, and David McLaughin. 2018. “Linde, Praxair Win US Antitrust Node to Create Gas Giant.” Bloomberg, October 22, 2018. Accessed April 4, 2019. ­https://​



Precocious Puberty 521

­ ww​.­bloomberg​.­com​/­news​/­a rticles​/­2018​-­10​-­22​/ ­linde​-­praxair​-­w in​-­u​-­s​-­a ntitrust​ w -­nod​-­to​-­create​-­gas​-­giant. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2017. “Praxair, Inc.: Form 10-K.” Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­sec​.­gov​/­A rchives​/­edgar​/­data​/­884905​ /­000088490518000014​/­px201710​-­k​.­htm.

Precocious Puberty Precocious puberty is when a child’s body physically and sexually develops into an adult body before the age of eight for girls and nine for boys. This is often referred to as premature puberty. Puberty is a period of rapid growth in such physical characteristics as bones, muscles, body shape, and size and the development of the body’s ability to reproduce. For girls, changes include menses, breasts, hips, body odor, and body and pubic hair; for boys, changes include deepened voices, body odor, height, body muscle transformation, and significant body, facial, and pubic hair growth. Precocious puberty is difficult for the child because the early onset makes the child appear more physically and sexually developed than his or her peers and for the child’s age. Rare medical conditions, such as infections, hormone disorders, tumors, and brain abnormalities, have been linked to precocious puberty, and there also appears to be some genetic predisposition in families; however, the cause of precocious puberty is not well understood. LINKS TO TOXIC CHEMICALS AND HORMONES IN FOOD The endocrine system regulates puberty. Hormones are activated in the body, with some start and end variance among the general population. Over time, a trend has developed in that children, particularly girls, are entering puberty earlier; menses begin earlier for girls than they used to, and this trend appears international. There is no conclusive evidence in scientific studies, but there have been several reasons proposed as to why this trend is occurring. The early onset of puberty may be the result of some environmental and endocrine disrupters, in addition to genetics and other factors, such as increased health. The suspicion is that toxic contaminants, including endocrine disrupters, may be contributing factors. These may include both natural triggers, such as phytoestrogens in food, and manufactured chemicals, such as pesticides, industrial chemicals, and phthalates. Endocrine disruptors have been shown to disrupt normal endocrine systems and have been linked to precocious puberty since the 1990s. They are widespread, so pathways for exposure include food, water, and air in the household and beyond. Studies show these chemicals can cross the placenta to reach the developing fetus. The chemicals have also been found in breast milk. Many toxic chemicals have been classified as endocrine disrupters. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical in some plastics that was thought to act like the human hormone estrogen. Due to consumer concerns, the use of this chemical in products for babies and children has been phased out. Polychlorinated biphenyls

522

Pregnancy, Toxic Chemicals during

(PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), several heavy metals, phthalates, and several pesticides have been linked to endocrine-disrupting impacts. Some chemicals were thought to be xenoestrogens, meaning that they mimic estrogen in the human body. Dioxin has been found to have estrogen-like impacts on children’s bodies, creating precocious puberty in girls and delayed puberty in boys. A chemical used in mothballs and toilet and air deodorizers is also under investigation as an endocrine disrupter. Recent studies are getting closer to understanding the links between toxic chemicals and puberty in children. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that girls exposed to high levels of household chemicals had their first periods seven months earlier than those with lower exposures. It concluded that, over the last century, girls’ menses moved to start earlier, from an average of sixteen years to twelve. That same year, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concluded that boys begin puberty six months to two years earlier than just a few decades ago. It also found that race played a significant role in the onset of early puberty. African American boys began puberty at age nine, and Caucasians and Hispanics began one year later, at age ten. There was significant concern that hormones and antibiotics given to farm animals transferred into the food chain via milk and other food products, such as poultry and other meats, possibly exposing consumers to potential endocrine disruptors. When these increased onsets of puberty were first noted in the 1980s, it was thought that hormones and antibiotics given to farm animals were the likely cause. This sparked an organic produce movement in the United States, with products being listed as hormone-free and organically fed; however, studies have not been able to link these hormones to human health impacts. More recent studies have linked obesity in children with the early onset of puberty. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); Dioxins; Endocrine Disruptors; Pesticides; Steingraber, Sandra (1959–).

Further Reading

Özen, Samim, and Şükran Darcan. 2011. “Effects of Environmental Endocrine Disruptors on Pubertal Development.” Journal of Clinical Research in Pediatric Endocrinology 3(1): 1–6. Scheer, Roddy, and Doug Moss. n.d. “Rises in Early Puberty May Have Environmental Roots.” Scientific American, EarthTalk: E—The Environmental Magazine, October 19, 2013. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­scientificamerican​.­com​ /­article​/­rises​-­in​-­early​-­puberty​-­may​-­have​-­environmental​-­roots. Weil, Elizabeth. 2012. “Puberty before Age Ten: A New ‘Normal’?” New York Times, March 30, 2012. Accessed October 4, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2012​/­04​/­01​ /­magazine​/­puberty​-­before​-­age​-­10​-­a​-­new​-­normal​.­html.

Pregnancy, Toxic Chemicals during Exposure to toxic chemicals during pregnancy is a significant concern because they pose problems in fetal development. Fetuses are considered a highly vulnerable population because of the significant growth and development taking place



Pregnancy, Toxic Chemicals during 523

during gestation, particularly during the first trimester when the neurological system is developing. Many toxics can transport across the placenta barrier that separates the mother’s system from her child’s. This allows immediate and direct exposure to the fetus. Chemicals such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) pose a significant concern for exposed women who may become pregnant in the future because lingering toxics in the mother’s body from past exposures, as well as toxics from new exposures, both threaten the fetus. Studies have indicated the presence of many toxic chemicals in pregnant women as a result of prior exposure, and these include flame retardants, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and sometimes heavy metals. Prenatal exposure to certain chemicals has been documented to increase the risk of childhood cancer for those exposed in utero. Because of the abundance of many of these toxic chemicals in the environment, women have often been exposed prior to pregnancy. There is a heightened concern for pregnant women because fetal exposure can have immediate adverse effects on the pregnancy and long-lasting negative impacts on the child’s future development. Because fetal development is rapid and fragile, fetuses are more vulnerable to harmful impacts than adults, so even chemicals that may not be toxic to adults can be extremely dangerous to fetuses. The impacts to fetal development from toxic chemicals vary based on the type of chemical as well as the level of exposure and timing in the fetal developmental process. Common effects are low birth weights, preterm births, and, in extreme cases, miscarriages. Other impacts can continue to manifest after birth, which often involve the neurological system. Scientific evidence has emerged over the past fifteen years demonstrating that preconception and prenatal exposure to toxic chemicals can have a profound and lasting effect on reproductive health across the life of a newborn. Although many impacts of toxic chemicals have been clearly identified, there are many that are still not well investigated. The result is that many obstetricians encourage pregnant women to take precautions, as the scientific literature may be lacking in decisive conclusions on many of these chemicals: “The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) join leading scientists and other clinical practitioners in calling for timely action to identify and reduce exposure to toxic environmental agents while addressing the consequences of such exposure” (ACOG 2013). A few well-known groups of concerning toxic chemicals for pregnant women to avoid include metals, pesticides, occupational hazardous substances, and tobacco smoke. Cosmetics are a less well-studied grouping that has been highlighted more in the literature but continues to have some uncertainty in links to fetal development. METALS Many metals are known to harm the fetal neurological system under development. Some common metals of concern include lead and mercury, but all metal exposures should be avoided in pregnancy, particularly those coming from occupational sources because of the daily exposure.

524

Pregnancy, Toxic Chemicals during

Some impacts of metals on fetal development are well known from research. For instance, lead is known to cause miscarriages, low birth weight, paralysis, blindness, and encephalopathy. It can also cause neurological delays in development. Lead can be released into the blood supply of a woman from previous exposures that have been accumulating in her bones. Behavioral and mental disorders occur at low lead level exposure to fetuses. Another example is mercury and methylmercury, which are contaminants found in seafood and freshwater fish. They can cause deficiencies in fetal brain functioning and development as well as physical disorders. As a result, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advise against eating a variety of fish that may be contaminated with mercury compounds and other pollutants. PESTICIDES, FUNGICIDES, HERBICIDES, AND INSECTICIDES Pesticides are, for the most part, considered dangerous to fetal development. Fungicides such as vinclozolin have been detected in the umbilical cord blood of infants. Some of these chemicals, like those containing dioxins and furans, usually enter the human body through the ingestion of fatty meat, dairy products, and fish (especially those from fresh waters). Breathing contaminated air is another way, particularly in an occupational setting. These toxic chemicals tend to accumulate in the body, mostly in adipose (fat) tissues; their concentrations in serum tend to increase when people get older. Public policy efforts have been made to reduce the release of dioxins and furans to the environment. As a result, levels of dioxins in the environment have been decreasing at most places over the past twenty years. Warnings to pregnant women often encourage refraining from exposure to pesticides. For instance, the March of Dimes encourages women to avoid contact with these chemicals, which are used in households, backyards, and for agricultural crops. These chemicals are known to cause low birth weight, miscarriages, and premature births. They may also cause birth defects if the fetus is exposed in utero, and they may have long-lasting impacts on brain functioning and learning. Over-the-counter insect repellants used on skin or clothes to prevent mosquito and tick bites are not considered dangerous for pregnant women. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG 2013), nearly every pregnant woman in the United States is exposed to at least forty-three different toxic chemicals. Prenatal exposure to environmental chemicals is linked to various adverse health consequences, and patient exposure at any point in time can lead to harmful reproductive health outcomes. OCCUPATIONAL TOXIC CHEMICALS During pregnancy, additional precautions are encouraged to protect against exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace. Chemicals in the workplace are



Pregnancy, Toxic Chemicals during 525

not only problematic for their toxicity but also for chronic and frequent exposure. For instance, volatile organic chemicals such as benzene, toluene, and xylene that are used in industry are known to cause brain developmental disorders in fetuses. Female workers who experienced frequent exposure to toluene had three to five times the miscarriage rate of those with low exposure. Likewise, female workers exposed to benzene have been shown to have a higher rate of miscarriages, and there is an indication of neural spine formation disorders, such as spina bifida. Other chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), remain in the environment even though they were banned in 1976 by the EPA. These toxic chemicals are ingested by pregnant women via cattle exposed to PCB-contaminated grass and soil. Food packaging, inks and dyes in house paints, and newspapers also used to have PCB chemicals. The toxic chemicals known to be endocrine disrupters have been linked to inducing health problems associated with hormones, homeostasis, and human developmental processes. These chemicals can be found in pesticides, plastics, industrial chemicals, and fuels. COSMETICS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS Most people are unaware that cosmetics and personal care products are not strictly regulated for health and safety in the United States. The FDA is primarily responsible for cosmetic safety protection; however, the agency does not require cosmetic products or ingredients to have approval before they are sold in stores. It does require that cosmetics be safe for consumers and have complete labeling. Any color additives used in cosmetics must be approved by the FDA. There are several types of chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products that may be of concern for pregnant women and can include toxic chemicals, specifically endocrine disruptors, to which pregnant women are particularly vulnerable. Products such as hair dyes, cosmetics, shampoo, lipstick, conditioner, fragrance, nail polish, lotion, antiaging products, acne medicines, and other commonly used products have been mentioned in the press. Some of the concerning toxic chemicals are fragrances, parabens, and phthalates. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a hazard alert to hair salon owners and workers about potential formaldehyde exposure from working with hair care products. The FDA continues to evaluate hair products that release formaldehyde when heated. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a nonprofit that focuses on potential health risks from toxic chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products, advises that pregnant women avoid hair dyes and nail treatments while pregnant. This nonprofit organization has performed its own independent testing of cosmetics to provide women with health details about certain products. It also suggests limiting the use of lipsticks due to trace amounts of lead and other heavy metals and avoiding a group of toxic chemicals called parabens, which are used as preservatives and have been linked to birth defects and miscarriages.

526

Pregnancy, Toxic Chemicals during

The Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics have provided public statements informing women about the concerns for toxic chemicals in personal care products and cosmetics. SMOKING TOBACCO AND EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE DURING PREGNANCY Smoking tobacco products is one of the common reasons for fetal distress in the United States and is clearly associated with fetal and infant mortality. Tobacco smoke can cause intrauterine growth restrictions, placenta problems, and preterm births. Low birth weight, perinatal mortality, and ectopic pregnancies are also complications from smoking. Children born to mothers who smoke during pregnancy are at an increased risk of asthma, infantile colic, and childhood obesity. Secondhand prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke also increases the risk of having an infant with low birth weight by as much as 20 percent, according to ACOG (2010). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Benzene (C6H6); Campaign for Safe Cosmetics; Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of; Endocrine Disruptors; Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Heavy Metals; Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg); Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs); Phthalates; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Secondhand Smoke; Tobacco Smoke.

Further Reading

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 2010. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 721: Smoking Cessation during Pregnancy. October 2010. Accessed February 22, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­acog​.­org​/­Clinical​- ­Guidance​-­and​-­Publications​ /­C ommittee​- ­O pinions​/­C ommittee​- ­on​- ­Obstetric​-­P ractice​/­Smoking​- ­C essation​ -­During​-­Pregnancy. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 2013. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 575: Exposure to Toxic Environmental Agents. October 2013. Accessed February 22, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­acog​.­org​/­Clinical​-­Guidance​-­and​-­Publications​ /­C ommittee​ -­O pinions​ /­C ommittee​ -­o n​ -­Health​ -­C are​ -­for​-­Underserved​ -­Women​ /­Exposure​-­to​-­Toxic​-­Environmental​-­Agents. Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. 2018. “Pregnant Women.” Accessed February 21, 2018. ­h ttp:// ​­ w ww​.­s afecosmetics​ .­o rg​ /­g et​ -­t he​ -­f acts​ /­w hats​ -­i n​ -­m y​ -­p roducts​ /­p eople​ /­pregnant​-­women. March of Dimes. 2014. “Pesticides and Pregnancy.” Accessed December 17, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­marchofdimes​.­org​/­pregnancy​/­pesticides​-­and​-­pregnancy​.­aspx. Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR). n.d. Prenatal Exposure to Toxic Chemicals. Washington, DC: PSR. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­psr​.­org​/­wp​-­content​/­uploads​ /­2018​/­05​/­prenatal​-­exposure​-­to​-­chemicals​.­pdf. Swayne, Matt. 2017. “Exposure to Chemical during Pregnancy May Cause Health Problems for Offspring.” Penn State News. Last updated November 16, 2017. ­http://​ ­n ews​.­p su​.­e du​/­s tory​/­491849​/ ­2 017​/­11​/­0 8​/ ­r esearch​/­e xposure​- ­c hemical​- ­d uring​ -­pregnancy​-­may​-­cause​-­health​-­problems. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. “Cosmetics and Pregnancy.” Last updated March 6, 2018. Accessed November 11, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­fda​.­gov​/­Cosmetics​ /­ResourcesForYou​/­Consumers​/­ucm388727​.­htm.



Prescription Drugs, Disposal of 527

Prescription Drugs, Disposal of The disposal of prescription drugs is one public health and environmental problem of which most people are unaware. Since World War II, antibiotic and prescription drug use has grown in the United States; pain medicines, birth control, and mental health pharmaceuticals have been widely prescribed since the 1960s. While these medicines are useful in treating pain and diseases, their disposal has not been perceived in public policy as being a potential toxic chemical or pollutant. The agencies involved with pharmaceutical disposal policy are the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Prescription drugs can be classified as either controlled substances or noncontrolled substances. Drugs containing stimulants for the treatment of attention deficit disorders (ADD), such as methylphenidate HCL (Ritalin), and pain medicines with opioids are controlled pharmaceuticals. The well-known pain reliever oxycodone HCI (OxyContin) and the anxiety treatment alprazolam (Xanax) also fall in this category. Examples of prescription medicines that are not controlled include antibiotics, birth control hormone pills, many cancer treatment medicines, and most cold medicines. The distinction is important because of the rise in misuse of certain drugs for recreational use and illegal sales in the United States. For instance, the recreational use of prescription drugs containing opioids, prescribed for pain reduction, has become a serious concern in young people, particularly because this class of drugs is one of the more addictive. A report from the Congressional Research Service calls the misuse of these controlled substances in the United States an epidemic. It further claims that an estimated 6.5 million individuals currently abuse prescription drugs in the United States, which includes 4.3 million abusing prescription pain relievers with opioids (Bagalman et al. 2016). Because of these issues, the DEA plays a role in creating regulations for the disposal of controlled prescription medicines. In the past, people disposed of unused or expired medicines in the toilet or in a household sink instead of putting them in the household trash, which is most often dumped in landfills. This has created significant challenges for city drinking water filtration centers as well as wastewater treatment facilities because they were not designed to filter or treat chemicals of this small molecular size or structure. The result is that, for decades, our lakes and rivers have become disposal outlets for these chemicals into the ecosystem. Both controlled and noncontrolled prescription drugs have been reported in a number of lakes in the United States: scientists found high concentrations of common antidepressants and birth control hormones in the Great Lakes, which is a surprising result because these substances were not diluting in waters of such large size. Prescription drugs are not the only problem being found in the ecosystem. Other things that are showing up include personal cosmetic products; antibacterial and antifungal chemicals in soaps, such as triclosan, which can act as a hormone disrupter in fish; antibiotics; caffeine; and diabetic drugs such as metformin. Some

528

Prescription Drugs, Disposal of

scientists are concerned about the impacts of all these substances in the behavior and health of life in aquatic ecosystems; some have found links to aquatic life with slower than normal reaction times to predators and reproductive disorders. In general, the EPA considers pharmaceuticals a potential risk to humans and the ecosystem; however, there are currently no federal regulations of either controlled or noncontrolled substances in discharges to wastewater or drinking water. Pharmaceutical exposure on water systems is complicated by urine. Over the last ten years, more people are being prescribed antidepressants than in previous years, which has resulted in these and other pharmaceuticals being excreted in human urine into the wastewater system, where they are not easily filtered before entering the waterways. Prescription drugs are regulated by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). This agency, under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has the overall responsibility for the safety and protection of people taking both prescription and nonprescription drugs. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 authorizes the DEA, under the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), to regulate controlled drugs to prevent illegal uses. The disposal of controlled substances was complex and restrictive under this law, so to make it easier and more convenient for patients to dispose of unwanted controlled substances, the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act was created in 2010. This allows easier disposal of these controlled prescriptions, preventing them from being flushed down toilets or sinks and from entering the illegal market for selling. However, most prescriptions are not considered controlled substances, so state and local governments, as well as pharmacies, conduct public education campaigns to inform people not to dispose of them into the water system. Collection bins for uncontrolled prescriptions can be found in hospitals, city halls, local pharmacies, policy stations, and public libraries. The FDA maintains a list of fewer than thirty medicines people can flush down the toilet or sink. The agency does warn people that disposal by flushing is not recommended for the vast majority of medicines. Researchers tested fifteen of the medicines on the FDA “flush list.” They concluded there is negligible risk of fish ingesting these medicines through water (Khan et al. 2017). Today, people have expanded options to safely and responsibly dispose of their controlled pharmaceuticals through collection receptacles, mail-back packages, and take-back events conducted by state and local agencies and drug manufacturers. The DEA hosts National Prescription Drug Take-Back events, where collection sites are set up in communities nationwide for safe disposal. Local law enforcement agencies may also sponsor medicine take-back programs in their communities. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938).

Further Reading

Bagalman, Erin, Lisa N. Sacco, Susan Thaul, and Brian T. Yeh. 2016. Prescription Drug Abuse. Report R43559. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Accessed September 8, 2017. ­https://​­fas​.­org​/­sgp​/­crs​/­misc​/ ­R43559​.­pdf.



Project Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks

529

Bienkowski, Brian. 2013. “Drugs Contaminate Lake Michigan.” Scientific American, originally published in Environmental Health News, September 5, 2013. Accessed September 8, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­scientificamerican​.­com​/­article​/­drugs​-­contaminate​ -­lake​-­michigan. Gilmour, Jared. 2017. “These Great Lakes Fish Are Swimming in Prozac—and Scientists Are ‘Very Concerned.’” Bradenton Herald, September 5, 2017. Accessed September 8, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­bradenton​.­com​/­news​/­nation​-­world​/­national​/­article171392757​.­html. Khan, Usman, Raanan A. Bloom, James A. Nicell, and James P. Laurenson. 2017. “Risks Associated with the Environmental Release of Pharmaceuticals on the US Food and Drug Administration ‘Flush List.’” Science of the Total Environment 609 (December 31, 2017): 1023–1040. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2017. “Disposal of Unused Medicines: What You Should Know.” Last updated July 25, 2018. Accessed September 8, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­fda​ .­gov​ /­d rugs​ /­r esourcesforyou ​ /­c onsumers​ / ­buyingusingmedicinesafely​ /­ensuringsafeuseofmedicine​/­safedisposalofmedicines​/­ucm186187​.­htm. Yeh, Brian T. 2010. Legal Issues Relating to the Disposal of Dispensed Controlled Substances. Report R40548. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Accessed September 8, 2017. ­https://​­fas​.­org​/­sgp​/­crs​/­misc​/ ­R40548​.­pdf.

Project Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks (TENDR) Project Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks (TENDR) is an advocacy group composed mainly of medical health professionals interested in children and environmental issues. Created in 2015, the organization is a collaboration that was prompted by the causal link of toxic chemicals from the environment to neurodevelopmental disorders such as learning disorders, hyperactivity, attention deficient, autism, and other intellectual disabilities. Project TENDR is supported by many national and international organizations, such as the International Society for Children Health and the Environment, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in addition many others. Project TENDR is committed to reducing the widespread exposure to chemicals that interfere with both fetuses in utero and children’s brain development. They are concerned that the U.S. system for evaluating scientific evidence and making health-based decisions about environmental chemicals is fundamentally broken (Project TENDR 2016, A118). They call for a new framework for evaluating these chemicals’ impacts to human health. This new approach to toxicity should include a more precautionary policy in which more flexible inclusion of epidemiological, toxicological, and other studies should be prioritized for policy action. This would be a more proactive approach to identifying and preventing chemicals from being introduced into the environment. According to Project TENDR (2016, A118), there is an alarming increase in learning and behavioral problems, with one in six children, which is 17 percent more than a decade ago, being inflicted with developmental disabilities that include learning, attention deficits, autism, and delays.

530

Pulmonary and Cardiovascular Toxicity

Examples that Project TENDR highlights as neurodevelopmentally toxic chemicals include the following: • Pesticides • Flame retardants • Air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) • Lead • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) • Mercury • Phthalates The organization promotes activities to lower children’s exposures to chemicals, such as buying organic fruits and vegetables and other foods with lower levels of pesticides; consuming seafood rich in nutrients but not polluted with mercury or other chemicals; carefully selecting home products, such as those free of flame retardants; and avoiding vinyl flooring, toys, and children products that contain phthalates. A special note is made from the organization about lead because of its dangerous impacts on developing children. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes; Lead (Pb); Learning Disabilities; Mercury (Hg); Pesticides; Phthalates; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Further Reading

Project TENDR. 2016. “The TENDR Consensus Statement.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124(7): A118–A122. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1289​/ ­EHP358. Project TENDR. 2019. “Targeting Environmental Neuro-Development Risks.” Accessed April 2, 2019. h­ ttp://​­projecttendr​.­com.

Pulmonary and Cardiovascular Toxicity The pulmonary system of the human body includes the lungs and breathing tissues that support air exchange. The cardiovascular system includes the heart and circulatory processes such as blood vessels. These systems are both related in the functioning of the transfer and distribution of oxygen within the body through oxygenated blood as well as the removal of used gases. The exposure to toxic chemicals that impact the pulmonary and cardiovascular systems in the body may include inhalation and ingestion. The first reactions of the human body to inhaled toxic chemicals come from the pulmonary and circulatory systems. Research studies have linked the inhalation of pollutants to adverse health impacts to these systems. The ingestion of toxic chemicals through food sources and drinking water is also a viable route to impacting these systems. People with preexisting conditions, such as asthma, heart disease, or other ailments of the cardiopulmonary areas of the human body, are more susceptible to these adverse impacts (Zaky et al. 2015).



Pulmonary and Cardiovascular Toxicity 531

Toxic gases that are inhaled or ingested can be lethal. In an inhalation route of exposure, the first attack of these toxic gases is to the pulmonary tissues. For example, halogen gases are known to cause cardiac injury and lead to heart failure. Specifically, bromine and chlorine gases trigger respiratory reactions, such as eye, lung, and throat irritation, and at higher concentrations, they can cause adverse respiratory impacts, including lung cancer. Inhaled toxic halogens enter the circulatory system and impact the heart’s functioning, which can lead to cardiac arrest. Sulfur dioxide (primarily from coal-fired power plants) can cause irritation within the pulmonary system. Carbon monoxide is known to cause heart failure by binding to oxygen receptors in the blood, thereby reducing the capacity of oxygen transport. The toxic gas ozone, which forms in ambient air from the mixture of water vapor, ultraviolet light, and volatile organics, is associated with cardiovascular morbidity. When this gas combines with particulate matter (soot) in the air, it can cause hypertension. It is thought that gases from the early industrial revolution contributed to the lower life expectancy of those living near factories in Europe. Toxic chemicals that are ingested also directly impact the cardiovascular system. For instance, the heavy metal lead in drinking water has been a contributor to heart disease in addition to its impact on the neurological development of young children. Arsenic has historically been found in the drinking water from private and small well systems and impacts cardiovascular functioning. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2011) lists the substances that can cause cardiovascular toxicity. VULNERABLE POPULATIONS Certain parts of the population are more susceptible to the impacts of toxic chemicals on the cardiopulmonary system than the general population. These populations include older adults, young children, pregnant women, those with pulmonary or heart conditions, and asthmatics. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2009) has identified chemicals associated with indoor air pollution that can be dangerously toxic to older populations. Toxic chemicals from tobacco smoke and secondhand smoke, wood-burning stoves, and fireplaces can impact heart palpitations and contribute to heart disease in older adults. Vapors from household cleaning products and paint solvents such as turpentine can stress the cardiovascular system and cause an irregular heartbeat. Infants and children are more sensitive to the effects of toxic chemicals because of the active growth of their bodies and lower body mass at the time of exposure. Their bodies are less able to process these chemicals. Children are also more vulnerable to toxins that enter the pulmonary and cardiovascular systems because they lack a fully developed blood–brain barrier, the structure in the central nervous system that prevents the passage of chemicals between the bloodstream and the neural tissue. Studies supported by EPA (2016) assist with setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to provide regulatory standards from air pollutants.

532

Pump and Treat

One study found that long-term exposure to particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides can prematurely age blood vessels and contribute to an accelerated accumulation of calcium in coronary arteries, which can lead to heart attack or stroke. This data along with other results from studies around the United States can be accessed at the EPA’s AirNow website (­https://​­airnow​.­gov). This site contains links to air quality measurements for PM and ozone across towns and cities in the United States. The Lancet Commission is a leading organization that focusses on the role of pollution in human health. It publishes articles in a variety of its journals on the impact of toxic chemicals as what they describe as “a global burden.” The Commission includes international leaders, researchers, and public officials in the field of pollution and human health. As a leading source of information on pollution, it frequently includes materials on pulmonary and cardiovascular impacts. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chlorine Gas (Cl2); Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants; Halogens.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Cardiovascular (Heart and Blood Vessels).” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed August 20, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxorganlisting​ .­asp​?­sysid​= ​­1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2018. “Health Effects of Chemical Exposure.” Fact Sheet. Accessed August 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­e mes​/­public​/­docs​/ ­health​%­20effects​%­20of​%­20chemical​%­20exposure​ %­20fs​.­pdf. Lancet Commission. 2018. “The Lancet.” Accessed August 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­thelancet​.­com​/?­code​= ​­lancet​-­site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. “Environmental Hazards Weigh Heavy on the Heart: Information for Older Adults and Their Caregivers.” Fact Sheet, August 2009. EPA 100-F-09-043. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​ /­files​/­2015​- ­08​/­documents​/­ehwhh​_english​_100​-­f​- ­09​- ­043​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Linking Air Pollution and Heart Disease.” Last updated October 11, 2009. Accessed on August 20, 2018. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­epa​.­gov​/­sciencematters​/­linking​-­air​-­pollution​-­and​-­heart​-­disease. Zaky, Ahmad, Aftab Ahmad, Louis J. Dell’Italia, Leila Jahromi, Lee Ann Reisenberg, Sadis Matalon, and Ahmad Shama. 2015. “Inhaled Matters of the Heart.” Cardiovascular Regeneration Medicine 2: e997. http://doi:10.14800/crm.997.

Pump and Treat When groundwater becomes contaminated with pollutants, one of the common options for remediation is “pump and treat.” According to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2012) estimate, this remediation option has been used at hundreds of Superfund sites and is considered one of the most common for groundwater contamination, particularly for actions taken under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).



Pump and Treat 533

Generally, this remediation technique involves pumping the groundwater from installed extraction wells to a surface treatment system that removes the pollutants. After the water is brought to the surface, the groundwater is either treated immediately or can be placed into a tank for treatment later. Treatment usually involves activated carbon or air striping to remove the contaminants to regulated levels, usually those associated with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) because most groundwater systems are associated with aquifers that are used for drinking water and irrigation. Several different treatments are often required because multiple chemicals are usually involved in the contamination. When the cleaned and treated water reaches health standards, it may be added to a nearby stream, spread across ground cover, or discharged into the municipal waste treatment plant or sewer system. Sludges produced from the treatment are assessed and disposed of according to environmental and public health standards. Thus, pump and treat has the benefit of being most effective with volatile aromatic chemicals and hydrocarbons. The pump-and-treat process for treating groundwater can take a couple years or many decades. This time range varies greatly based on the size of the plume, the concentrations of the pollutants, and the complexity of the groundwater system at the site. Higher concentrations of chemicals being treated contribute to longer treatment times. The groundwater contamination usually involves dissolved chemicals such as industrial solvents, metals, and fuel oil. Another technique related to pump and treat is air sparging. It is used when the groundwater and saturated soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This type of groundwater treatment injects air under pressure to extract the volatile organic compounds through the plume. This approach can remediate both contaminated soils and groundwater without the need for a full pump-and-treat approach. The secondary benefit of this technology is that is also keeps the plume (a zone of contamination) from migrating. Although the primary purpose of pump and treat is groundwater remediation, this technology can also contain or limit the migration of the plume over time. This secondary benefit is significant because the contaminants remain in the treatment area where the plume is being addressed without impacting the other areas of the groundwater. Thus, pump and treat assists in plume containment while it is in operation. One study at a U.S. Geological Survey site reports that at one of its sites contaminated with trichloroethene (TCE), in New Jersey, pump-and-treat remediation in conjunction with natural attenuation has accelerated the restoration of the groundwater. The pump and treat is estimated to be removing 630 kilograms of TCE per year, and the naturally occurring biodegradation processes are remediating another 500 kilograms per year (Chapelle et al. 2012). When pump and treat is used at a site with a polluting chemical that can naturally biodegrade, the pump-and-treat remediation can be cost-effective and accelerate restoration. There has been significant criticism of the pump-and-treat approach to restoring water quality. Today, pump and treat is not considered the most cost-effective remediation alternative for groundwater remediation. One of the major problems is the time needed to reach groundwater quality standards and the inefficiencies of

534

Pump and Treat

the treatment. Often, pump-and-treat systems are now combined with other approaches, such as in situ air sparging or bioremediation, to address the pollution in multiple ways. Also, pump-and-treat remediation is not suitable for sites with fractured rock or clay or with contaminants that adsorb to soils. According to an EPA report (2001), using data from a case study of twenty-eight groundwater remediation projects, when large volumes of water were treated, more cost efficiencies were gained at greater than twenty million gallons of water per year. This means that smaller volumes of groundwater treatment can be more costly for this type of remediation. Sites with even small volumes of water to be remediated under a pump-and-treat system can incur significant costs for operation, which can easily be over a million dollars per year based on the volume or operation. One case study of a Superfund site in Arizona used pump and treat for eighteen years to address a large groundwater plume of TCE. It concluded that improvements in pump-and-treat operations can be made to enhance their effectiveness by using additional treatments, such as soil vapor extraction and other in situ chemical treatments. Pump and treat can also be used to help characterize the contamination of the site and plume. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974); Trichloroethylene (TCE) (C2HCl3).

Further Reading

Brusseau, Mark L. 2013. “Use of Historical Pump-and-Treat Data to Enhance Site Characterization and Remediation Performance Assessment.” Water, Air, Soil Pollution 224(10): 1741. Chapelle, F. H., P. J. Lacombe, and P. M. Bradley. 2012. “Estimated Trichloroethene Transformation Rates due to Naturally Occurring Biodegradation in a Fractured Rock Aquifer.” Remediation Journal 22(2): 7–20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. “Cost Analyses for Selected Groundwater Projects: Pump and Treat Systems and Permeable Reactive Barriers.” Fact Sheet, February 2001. EPA 542-R-00-013. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​ .­e pa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2015​- ­0 4​/­documents​/­cost​_ analysis​_ groundwater​ .­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. “A Citizen’s Guide to Pump and Treat.” Fact Sheet, September 2012. EPA 542-F-12-017. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2015​- ­04​/­documents​/­a ​_citizens​_ guide​_ to​_ pump ​_and​_treat​.­pdf.

R Reasonably Anticipated to Be a Human Carcinogen The phrase “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” is one that is important for the public and consumers of chemicals to understand. Other related phrases commonly used include “suspected to cause cancer” and “a probable human carcinogen.” These phrases are often confusing for consumers. The clear determination is when a substance is declared “known to be a human carcinogen.” The definition of reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen means that there is limited evidence from studies (either human or animal experiments) that indicates there is a causal link, but other potential explanations have not been eliminated, such as multiple routes of exposure, other factors, and alternative explanations. For example, there may be substances for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals, but there is no scientific data that indicates the substance performs in the same manner in humans. Human carcinogens are agents that cause changes in the DNA of a human cell. Other types of carcinogens may accelerate cell division, which can lead to a higher chance of DNA mutations that can lead to cancer. In both cases, cancer is caused by uncontrolled growth with the spread of these abnormal cells throughout the body. When these agents are from external sources to the human body, it usually means exposure to an environmental toxic substance may be the cause. These environmental factors can range from chemicals in the workplace or occupation exposures; household (paints, cleaners, pesticides, water, and food sources) and behavior exposures (smoking tobacco products and secondhand smoke); or exposure from toxic substances in the environment. Also, there are substances that can demonstrate carcinogenic behavior in experimental animals, but there is a lack of scientific evidence that this is the case inside the human body. Cancer-causing substances usually impact the human body based on different levels of exposure, such as the concentration of the substance and duration of the exposure. Information on the exposure intensity and duration is obtained in research studies using laboratory animals. Some information has also been gathered from epidemiological studies, such as those associated with international releases of chemicals and radiation exposures. One difficulty in understanding cancer-causing agents is that these substances are situational and exposure based. This means that the route into the human body and the genetic composition of the person play key roles in whether the substances cause cancer. The duration of exposure is also a key factor. For instance, ultraviolet sunlight and alcohol beverages are known carcinogens. However, exposure to small doses of these

536

Reasonably Anticipated to Be a Human Carcinogen

substances does not mean a human will incur cancer from them, and the dose one person can tolerate may be very different from that of another person. Two important organizations that help to make determinations on cancer-causing agents are the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), under the World Health Organization (WHO), and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the United States. NTP is an umbrella organization that was created in 1978. It comprises several other agencies that deal with public health in the United States. These contributing organizations include the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). IARC and NTP are nonaffiliated organizations; therefore, substances will often appear on both lists. IARC is a global source for cancer information that has been operating since 1965. Its headquarters is in Lyon, France. IARC has evaluated over nine hundred potential cancer-causing substances since the 1980s. It classifies the substances into five groups, which range from the impacts to human, which include possible and probable carcinogens, to unclassifiable and probably not carcinogens. It also clearly identifies with certainty those substances that are carcinogenic. Most chemicals are classified as probable, possible, or unknown carcinogens. The carcinogenic to humans classification identifies approximately one hundred substances. NTP evaluates chemicals that impact public health. It issues a report that includes two categories for over 250 potential carcinogens. These include known to be human carcinogens and reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2011), the NTP classification means that studies in humans have shown sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity, which indicates a causal relationship between exposure to the agent, substance, or mixture and human cancer. According to NTP (2018), more than eighty thousand chemicals are registered for use in the United States, with about two thousand new chemicals added each year. Many of the effects are not known for all these chemicals, and not all of them have been tested. Most of these chemicals are used in everyday uses, such as food, household cleaners, personal care products and cosmetics, lawn and outdoor care, and prescription drugs. NTP is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As part of its requirements, NTP periodically publishes a Report on Carcinogens. It formally classifies substances as known to be a human carcinogen or reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. Other state and federal public health and environmental agencies also publish lists classifying substances based on the likelihood of being a carcinogen. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a similar system to IARC that includes additional categories of suggestive evidence of carcinogen potential, inadequate information, and not likely to be a cancer-causing agent. State agencies also provide lists to the public classifying cancer-causing substances. The American Cancer Society (ACS) is responsible for supporting cancer research and serves as a public information service on the topic. Cancer is the



Renal Toxic Chemicals (Nephrotoxicity) 537

second most common cause of death in the United States, only surpassed by heart disease. The ACS (2016) estimates that many deaths from cancer can be avoided. For instance, about 19 percent of all cancers are caused by smoking tobacco products. Many of the more than five million skin cancer cases that are diagnosed annually could be prevented by protecting skin from excessive sun exposure and not using indoor tanning devices (ACS 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); Known to Be a Human Carcinogen; National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Reasonably Anticipated to Be a Human Carcinogen.” Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed April 3, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxorganlisting​.­asp​?­sysid​= ​­24. American Cancer Society (ACS). 2016. “Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.” Last revised November 3, 2016. Accessed August 21, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​ /­cancer​/­cancer​-­causes​/­general​-­info​/­k nown​-­and​-­probable​-­human​-­carcinogens​.­html. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2018. “IARC News.” Accessed August 20, 2018. h­ ttps://​­www​.­iarc​.­f r. National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018. “Report on Carcinogens: Process & Listing Criteria.” Last updated August 8, 2018. Accessed April 3, 2018. ­https://​­ntp​.­niehs​ .­nih​.­gov​/­pubhealth​/­roc​/­process​/­index​.­html.

Renal Toxic Chemicals (Nephrotoxicity) When the urinary system, including the kidneys, are adversely impacted by toxic chemicals, the condition is called nephrotoxicity. This can be lethal to the functioning of the kidneys, ureters, bladder, or the urethra, which comprise the urinary tract system. The impact of toxic chemicals can be the most significant on people with preexisting kidney conditions. Nephrotoxicity occurs when the body is exposed to certain medications or toxic industrial chemicals that damage the kidneys. When this happens, the human body cannot effectively eliminate wastes, which then build up inside the body. The excess waste inside the bloodstream causes increased blood electrolytes of potassium, magnesium, and urea that can be detected early. The kidneys serve as the human body’s filtration system, and they also regulate the body’s salt and water balance. When this filtration is impaired, the body begins to slow its filtration of waste products, which then accumulate. Exposure to toxic chemicals is linked to renal failure, significant damage to kidney function, and renal cancer. Toxic chemicals found in industry are often linked to nephrotoxicity. Some common nephrotoxic chemicals include carbon tetrachloride, or trichloroethylene (TCE), which is a widely used halogenated chlorocarbon compound used in industry as a degreasing agent, organosolvent, or for the production of other chemicals. Also, cadmium, lead, and other metals, such as mercury, can cause significant damage to kidney function. These common occupational and industrial chemicals

538

Renal Toxic Chemicals (Nephrotoxicity)

do not break down in the body, so they have significant impact on the entire urinary system. Other nephrotoxic chemicals are beryllium, uranium, and carbon disulfide. Occupations that are the most exposed to these nephrotoxic chemicals include battery manufacturing, smelting, scrap metal recovery, electroplating, paint stripping, fur preserving, and gold extracting. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2011) lists the substances that are considered dangerous to kidney function. According to a recent study on the effects of environmental chemicals on renal function, the global incidence of kidney disease is increasing among all ages over time. Toxic chemicals, which are a consequence of daily life, such as phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), could have adverse consequences on renal functioning over a lifetime (Kataria, Trasande, and Trachtman 2015). Other sources of nephrotoxicity include the use of medications to treat diseases and cancer treatment agents that can contribute to renal failure as a side effect. Severe dehydration and physical trauma to the kidneys may also cause nephrotoxicity. According to the National Kidney Foundation (2018), over-the-counter pain medications such as aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen, if taken in large quantities or over long periods of time, can contribute to kidney damage. Alcohol abuse is usually associated with liver damage, but it is also a contributor to renal failure. Smoking tobacco products has also been identified as a risk factor for renal cancer. HEALTH IMPACTS AND DETECTION Health impacts to the urinary system and kidneys can be detected early with blood tests that measure blood urea nitrogen and creatinine. Blood urea nitrogen, commonly referred to as BUN by health providers, measures the amount of nitrogen in the body from the inability to process urea waste from the human body. As kidney failure begins, this waste accumulates, which makes it an indicator of nephrotoxicity. As kidney failure progresses, uremia sets into the bloodstream from the excess urea that is not being eliminated and filtered by the kidneys. The other blood test measures creatinine, which is filtered by the kidneys daily. This is a chemical inside the human body that is used as an energy source for muscles. Like BUN levels, creatinine will increase in the blood because of the inability of the kidneys to adequately filter it. People who experience renal failure have a variety of symptoms that include swelling in extremities, persistent nausea, fatigue, and urine reduction. Shortness of breath, coma, and seizures can occur. According to the Mayo Clinic (2018), acute kidney failure can occur in a couple of days and it occurs with people who are already in critical care. This condition requires immediate treatment, which can reverse the condition. Renal cancer is among the top ten most common cancers for both men and women. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2016), studies have shown a link in exposure to TCE and arsenic in drinking water and an increased risk for kidney cancer.

RESOLVE 539

WORLD KIDNEY DAY In an effort to increase global awareness of the importance of protecting healthy renal function, there is an annual World Kidney Day. This effort raises awareness about risk factors related to kidney disease. The global event includes ninety-nine countries that host webinars, awareness walks, education conferences, and public health screenings. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Arsenic (As); Cadmium (Cd); Carbon Tetrachloride; Dioxins; Heavy Metals; Lead (Pb); Mercury (Hg); Phthalates; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); Tobacco Smoke; Trichloroethylene (TCE); Uranium.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Renal (Urinary System or Kidneys).” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed August 20, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxorganlisting​.­asp​?­sysid​= ​­20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016. “Cancer: Kidney Cancer and the Environment.” Last updated October 26, 2016. Accessed August 20, 2018. ­https://​­ephtracking​.­cdc​.­gov​/­showCancerKidneyRenalEnv​.­action. Harvard Medical School. 2015. “Kidney Failure.” Harvard Health Online. Accessed August 20, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­health​.­harvard​.­edu​/­a ​_to​_z​/ ­kidney​-­failure​-­a​-­to​-­z. Kataria, Anglina, Leonardo Trasande, and Howard Trachtman. 2015. “The Effects of Environmental Chemicals on Renal Function.” Nature Reviews Nephrology 11(June 23, 2015): 610–625. Mayo Clinic. 2018. “Acute Kidney Failure.” June 23, 2018. Accessed August 20, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­mayoclinic​.­org​/­diseases​-­conditions​/ ­kidney​-­failure​/­symptoms​-­causes​ /­syc​-­20369048. National Kidney Foundation. 2017. “Which Drugs Are Harmful to Your Kidneys?” Accessed August 20, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­kidney​.­org​/­atoz​/­content​/­drugs​-­your​-­kidneys.

RESOLVE RESOLVE is an independent nonprofit organization, created in 1977 and headquartered in Washington, DC, that provides environmental and public policy dispute resolution services in the areas of drinking water, energy, environmental quality, sustainable development, health and biotechnology, land use and transportation, human and wildlife trafficking, natural resources, and rivers and watersheds. The organization’s members include nongovernment organizations (NGOs), corporations, government agencies, landowners, scholars, and others. Its services include environmental dispute resolution, environmental mediation, consensus building, facilitation, conflict resolution, and policy dialogue. One of RESOLVE’s particular aims is to facilitate the use of scientific information in decision-making by acting as impartial translators between technical experts, decision makers and stakeholders. RESOLVE’s major projects are divided into the policy areas of clean air and water, healthy people and communities, resource diplomacy, resilient ecosystems, smart energy, and sustainable development. Each of these areas includes several initiatives and forums.

540

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

RESOLVE identifies a number of areas where it has been successful in its policy mission. In wetlands, RESOLVE facilitated a forum that developed a set of consensus recommendations that included the goal of “no net loss” of wetlands. RESOLVE convened industry experts, consumer advocates, and government officials to discuss and develop ideas for addressing critical issues in the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), including early foodborne illness outbreak consultation and water quality standards and testing protocols for produce. Partnering with the Health Care Transformation Task Force (HCTTF), RESOLVE helped to lead a high-level group of public health and health-care professionals in developing an actionable framework for cross-sector collaboration on health-care quality and access. RESOLVE has helped electronics companies and stakeholders understand the complexities and hazards related to responsible sourcing of minerals from conflict-affected regions such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As part of the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, RESOLVE facilitated representatives from NGOs, government, industry, and scientific consultants in the development of handbooks documenting best practices for assessing wildlife impacts and siting wind facilities. RESOLVE, along with three separate federal advisory committees, negotiated a set of regulations that modified the Surface Water Treatment Rule, expanded and strengthened disinfection by-products rules, and launched an Information Collection Rule to inform future discussions on safer drinking water. The organization also worked with the Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute and the Mara Elephant Project to use hobby drones to prevent human-wildlife conflict near the Tarangire and Serengeti National Parks in Tanzania. Concerning the restoration of the Missouri River watershed, RESOLVE and the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution facilitated the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC), which provides guidance to the assistant secretary of the army for civil works regarding the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plans based on input from states, tribes, federal agencies, and other stakeholders (RESOLVE 2017). Robert L. Perry See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972); Clean Water Action (CWA); Groundwater Contamination; Water Contamination (Surface).

Further Reading

RESOLVE. 2017. “Annual Report.” Accessed July 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­resolve​.­ngo​/ ­blog​ /­category​/­2017​/­default​.­htm RESOLVE. 2018. “About.” Accessed July 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­resolve​.­ngo​/­about​.­htm.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)(1976) In 1976, President Carter signed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This was the first major piece of environmental legislation during the environmental movement of the 1970s, and it established a framework for the disposal of hazardous waste. It was passed to address the need for environmental standards to dispose of municipal (often referred to as solid wastes) and industrial



Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 541

wastes. As one of the more complex environmental laws, along with its associated regulations, RCRA has a series of subtitles that were created to deal with the different types of waste, such as medical wastes, nonhazardous and hazardous wastes, and leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs). Although state governments regulate their municipal wastes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given the authority under RCRA to set national regulations and guidelines for how disposal facilities should be designed and operated. States are required to meet these minimum standards when they issue disposal permits, but they can require additional restrictions. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 updated RCRA to include a variety of land disposal restrictions and regulations for small quantity generators. RCRA was established to protection human health from the adverse impacts from waste disposal. It also included the goals of reducing the amount of waste generated and ensuring disposal took place in an environmentally sound approach. Prior to RCRA, chemicals were often disposed of without any regulations or very few protection requirements for human health. There were no documentation or tracking requirements for the disposal of hazardous wastes. RCRA made significant changes to how wastes were handled in the United States. It included comprehensive requirements for the transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. It included the identification of a hazardous wastes, packing, labeling, and a manifest system (tracking system at each step of the process) for their transport and disposal. This was not available in the past. Under RCRA, the EPA defines a hazardous waste that has to be regulated and creates lists for this identification that can be used by generators of the waste for determining the proper handling and disposal of the waste. In addition to the disposal of hazardous wastes, one of the most important aspects of RCRA is remediation from chemical spills that occur at an operating facility. RCRA policy is to manage hazardous wastes from “cradle to grave,” meaning hazardous wastes are tracked from origin to final disposal. This was a revolutionary policy in the United States, and it remains one of the most comprehensive management systems of hazardous wastes. Later, in 1980, the remediation of hazardous chemicals from abandoned sites or sites that are no longer in operation were covered under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). Under the RCRA’s corrective action program, the EPA and states work together to remediate contaminated areas from spills, accidents, and other releases. The EPA (2019) claims that it has managed 2.96 billion tons of solid, industrial, and hazardous wastes at sixty-six hundred facilities through permitting under RCRA. Under the correction program, the EPA provides $97 million in grants to help states implement their hazardous wastes programs, and it is addressing thirty-seven hundred existing contaminated facilities and reviewing another two thousand sites (EPA 2019). RCRA also includes the management of USTs, which are one of the most common sources of contaminated soils due to leaks. These tanks are found in many communities at homes, facilities, schools, and industries. They contain petroleum for heating fuels or other hazardous substances.

542

Respiratory Toxicity

The EPA’s Office of Resource Conversation and Recovery implements RCRA programs. It focuses on conserving resources by reducing wastes, and through permits, it prevents the release of hazardous wastes into the environment for the protection of public health. Prior to the passage of RCRA, there was no national standard for the management of these wastes. Now, under RCRA, the EPA regulates the transportation, storage, and disposal facilities for wastes. The criteria used to classify a hazardous waste include corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, and toxicity. When radioactive wastes are mixed with RCRA hazardous wastes, the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the U.S. Department of Energy have to coordinate how the waste will be disposed of. Common medicines such as warfarin (an anticoagulant medicine), cancer treatment chemicals, nicotine, and others are considered hazardous wastes. Today, hazardous waste generators have strict requirements for the management and disposal of their wastes under RCRA. At each step of the RCRA process, there are permits required for generators, owners, and operations, plus transporters. Although RCRA is a national law, states are allowed to enforce their own hazardous waste programs. This form of delegated authority occurs as part of several environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA). This means that states can be the government agency that issues the permits and enforces penalties and fines for violations. Currently, most states and U.S. territories have implemented a program under their delegated authority. According to a July 2018 report by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), there have been some delays with the states and the EPA in completing the authorization of all the required rules under RCRA. The report found that, of the required 173 rules under RCRA, states have 6 to 98 rules that they have not yet completed. In fact, the report finds that eight states have not been authorized for more than 50 rules. And no state has completed the authorization of all the RCRA rule requirements (EPA 2018). One conclusion from this report is that the EPA lacks the ability to validate the completeness and accuracy of the states’ information on their delegated authority for RCRA. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Environmental Movement (1970s); Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW).

Further Reading

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “At a Glance.” Office of the Inspector General, July 31, 2018. 18-P-0227. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Overview.” Last updated February 6, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­rcra​/­resource​-­conservation​-­and​-­recovery​-­act​-­rcra​-­overview.

Respiratory Toxicity Many toxic substances enter the human body through inhalation by exposure in the environment, the household, or the workplace. This exposure can result in irritation, disease, or death. In addition, the respiratory system can be the



Respiratory Toxicity 543

exposure route for substances that cause allergic reactions, which can be severe with repeated exposures. The human respiratory system begins with the nose and sinuses and then includes the trachea, bronchi, and lungs. The respiratory system’s major function is the exchange of oxygen into the circulatory system. Substances that interfere or cause injury to any part of this process is considered to be toxic to the respiratory system. Therefore, the respiratory system has both an entrance pathway for toxic chemicals and target organs that can be impacted. Many respiratory toxics include chemicals from occupations in the workplace. For instance, volatile organics, heavy metals, and other toxic chemicals contained in paints, dyes, cleaning agents, and glues and those used in industrial processes become aerated and then humans can be exposed. Many of these chemicals cause asthma-related responses from the respiratory system. Irritants such as latex, molds, and particulate matter (PM) can cause significant reactions from the system. Chromium toxicity is a well-known respiratory toxin that can cause asthma, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and ulceration. According to the Johns Hopkins University (2019), most occupational lung diseases are caused by repeated, long-term exposures; however, even short-term acute exposures can cause irreversible damage. Respiratory toxicity not only comes from exposure to substances in the workplace but includes common household chemicals, such as cleaning supplies and other products containing toxics, particularly volatile organic chemicals such as bleach or cleaners containing ammonium. Many aerosol sprays used in cleaning products, cosmetics, and personal care products can be irritants to the respiratory system. Furniture and carpet cleaners, floor polishes, and oven cleaners may contain toxic chemicals that can cause irritation and toxicity in humans that lead to headaches, nausea, and other symptoms (American Lung Association 2019). Smoking tobacco products is one of the most common sources of respiratory toxicity. Exposure to tobacco smoke is a leading cause of respiratory diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; sustained inflammation of the lung) and cancer. When occupational exposures to toxic respiratory chemicals occurs, smoking tobacco products increases the severity of risk to the respiratory system, particularly the lungs. Other types of toxics that are not officially chemicals include asbestos and PM. Asbestos that is contained in insulation is a primary source of lung disease and cancer—asbestosis and mesothelioma, respectively. This substance is a fiber that is mined and used in insulation because of its inability to decompose under high temperatures. PM includes particles of dust, molds, ashes, soot, and other airborne matter that can damage the lungs. The smaller the particle, the harder it is for the respiratory system to expel it adequately. PM comes from industry, mining, agriculture, fires, construction sites, and other sources of exhaust. It can create a hypersensitivity reaction by the lungs and occupational asthma. Black lung disease was contracted by coal miners in the 1900s from inhaling coal dust, causing lung damage and death. Several warfare agents have been used as aerosols that are lethal to the respiratory system. Ricin is a respiratory toxic chemical agent that is used in warfare chemical; it causes severe poisoning that leads to death within days upon

544

Risk Assessment

exposure. It does this through its chemical action, which kills respiratory cells at low concentration and causes extreme inflammation of the entire respiratory system. The World Health Organization (WHO 2019) estimates that over three million people die each year from COPD, 6 percent of all deaths worldwide. IT found that over 90 percent of COPD deaths occur in low-income and middle-income countries. The Global Alliance against Chronic Respiratory Disease, created in 2006, works with the WHO to prevent and control these diseases. It is an advocacy group of national and international organizations and agencies that work toward eliminating chronic respiratory disease. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Asbestos; Asthma; Bleach (NaOCl); Chromium (Cr); Secondhand Smoke; Tobacco Smoke; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Respiratory (from the Nose to the Lungs).” Toxic Substances Portal, March 3, 2011. Accessed April 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxorganlisting​.­asp​?­sysid​= ​­22. American Lung Association. 2019. “Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals.” Accessed April 3, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­lung​.­org​/­clean​-­air​/­at​-­home​/­indoor​-­air​-­pollutants​/­cleaning​ -­supplies​-­household​-­chem. Global Alliance against Chronic Respiratory Disease. 2019. “About GARD.” Accessed April 3, 2019. ­https://​­gard​-­breathefreely​.­org​/­about. Johns Hopkins University. 2019. “Occupational Lung Diseases.” Accessed April 3, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­hopkinsmedicine​.­org​/ ­health​/­conditions​-­a nd​- ­d iseases​/­occupational​ -­lung​-­diseases. World Health Organization (WHO). 2019. “Chronic Respiratory Diseases.” Accessed April 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­respiratory​/­en.

Risk Assessment Risk assessment is a general term used across many sectors of society in the United States. For instance, it is used in the business and insurance sectors; in engineering, particularly the field of safety; and in any area that may have the potential for liability consequences. Risk assessment is a variable in decision-making that is a part of the evaluation of liability and the probability of an adverse outcome. Risk assessment often involves quantitative calculations, but it can take the form of a qualitative analysis. It is frequently used in establishing regulations for allowable residues of pesticides in food and safety evaluations of medicines, cosmetics, and a variety of chemicals. When risk assessments are used in the human health and environmental fields, they take on specific meaning. In these fields, they are considered scientific calculations needed for decision-making. There are several components related to these risk assessments, and there are two major types that are performed in environmental decision-making: environmental risk and risk communication. Environmental risk management seeks to determine what environmental risks exist, which leads to implementing management and mitigation of those identified risks



Risk Assessment 545

to protect human health and the environment. Risk communication is the process of informing people about potential hazards to their person, property, or community. Depending on the area, there are different approaches to performing risk assessments. Human health risk assessment focuses on the probability that an adverse impact or harm occurs to human populations. Another type of commonly used risk assessment is focused on ecological risk, where the probability of harm to elements of an ecosystem (wildlife and habitat) is calculated. These risk assessments label risk as the calculated probability of harm that can result from a particular action being considered. Data is collected from scientific research as well as epidemiological studies over the time of the activity’s impacts. Some common human health risk assessments have been conducted on the impacts of smoking cigarettes and lung cancer and the role of alcohol in fatal driving accidents. In general, risk assessments consist of a hazard identification, a dose-response assessment, and an exposure evaluation. Human health assessment involving environmental contaminants evaluates the likelihood of a harmful human health impact. The most difficult part of this analysis is usually the exposure assessment, which includes the bioavailability of the pollutant.

RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR CHILDREN Risk assessments usually assume harm that may occur as measured on a healthy adult human; however, there are several groups of people that are more susceptible to harm from chemicals and pollutants that would not be captured in the risk assessment. In fact, these groups could not use the risk assessment results for human health protection. As a result, specialized risk assessments are performed to account for these different groups in society. One of the main groups that requires special attention is children. Because of the growth and development of children, they cannot be extrapolated from the risk assessment as merely being small adults. Particularly with heavy metals and other chemicals that impact brain or neurological development, the development of a child could be significantly and permanently damaged. Also, the exposure pathways for children are very different than for adults. Children tend to immerse themselves in their surroundings. This means a higher exposure rate and unusual patterns than can be assumed from an adult. For example, the risk of consuming lead-based paint by intentional ingestion is not considered a pathway for most adults, but for young children, this is a highly probably pathway that has to be regulated for paint. HISTORY OF RISK ASSESSMENTS The National Academy of Sciences has been a prominent agency involved with the development of risk analyses since the early 1980s. It has published principles and guidelines over time for federal agencies. It has consistently emphasized not just viewing risk assessments as scientific exercises but also including the social

546

Risk Assessment

dimensions of interacting with decision makers using an iterative, analytic-deliberative process. The organization wanted to ensure that the assessments met the intended objectives and could be communicated to the public at risk who needed the information. The Congressional/Presidential Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (CRARM) was created by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The commission’s mandate was to make a full investigation of the policy implications and appropriate uses of risk assessments in regulatory programs designed to prevent cancer and other chronic health effects that may result from exposure to hazardous substances. The commission was chartered to provide detailed guidance on how to manage residual emissions from Section 112 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) after technology-based controls had been implemented on stationary sources of air pollutants. In 1997, the commission published its report, which focused on the quantification of risks and strategies used to reduce risks to both human health and the environment. Below is a sample of how some agencies today use risk assessments related to toxic chemicals. U.S. FOREST SERVICE The U.S. Forest Service uses risk assessment in the management of forest lands and frequently has to make decisions regarding the use of pesticides in its lands. It uses human health and ecological risk assessments to identify the probability that a pesticide may pose harm to humans or other species as a consequence of its use. The U.S. Forest Service incorporates this information into broader environmental assessment reports that help guide the agency in decision-making. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the protection of the nation’s food supply and a variety of medicines and other drugs. The prevention of harmful effects from food and drugs is critical to protecting public health. The agency uses risk assessments that incorporate a framework from the World Health Organization (WHO) to ensure that regulatory decisions about foods and drugs are based on scientific analysis. As part of the agency’s comprehensive risk analysis, it includes risk assessment as a major component of decision-making. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses both human health and ecological risk assessments in a variety of its programs and decision-making activities. The agency was involved with risk assessment from its creation in 1970. In 1975, it completed its first assessment, titled Quantitative Risk Assessment for Community Exposure to Vinyl Chloride. It continued to issue risk assessments on carcinogens from pesticides and toxic chemicals.



Risk Assessment 547

Risk assessments are included in the decision-making of many of the EPA’s programs. For instance, the cleanups of some of the most contaminated abandoned sites in the United States, called Superfund sites, rely on human health risk assessments. For operating sites that may have spills or releases, cleanup occurs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs. Human health and ecological risk assessments are widely used to characterize the extent and magnitude of health risks to humans and the environment from pollution. In this context, the purpose of risk assessment is to inform affected communities of threats to their health and environment. Most risk assessments include the toxicity of a pollutant with the likelihood of exposure to predict the probability of risk associated with the activity being evaluated. This risk includes the nature and magnitude of the adverse health impact. This often has to take into account transport pathways, types of exposures, and the toxicity of the pollutant. The problem is that although risk assessments are scientific studies, they are based on estimates or incomplete information. As a result, judgments by the agencies are required in the assessments. For the EPA, risk assessment is simplified into three factors: (1) how much of the pollutant is present, (2) how much exposure can occur, and (3) the toxicity of the pollutant.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO) AND FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO) For the WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), risk assessment is the scientific evaluation of known or potential adverse health effects resulting from human exposure to foodborne hazards. These organizations, which are part of the United Nations, use risk assessment to protect food supplies. A food hazard is first identified and then characterized. A qualitative or quantitative evaluation is conducted on the nature of the adverse effects associated with foodborne hazards, which can be biological, chemical, or physical. For chemicals, a required dose-response evaluation is performed. Then, like other risk assessments, exposure pathways are evaluated for how the contaminated food can be consumed. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) uses risk assessment to create a hazard mitigation plan. In this context, the risk assessment helps decision makers determine a course of action by focusing attention and resources on the greatest risks. Here, risk assessment includes identification of the hazard, as in other studies, but it also outlines a profile hazard event, an inventory of assets, and an estimation of potential human and economic losses based on the exposure and vulnerability of people, buildings, and infrastructure. These risk assessments include a socioeconomic component that is usually not part of other human health and ecological risk assessments. Kelly A. Tzoumis

548 Rodenticides See also: Bioavailability; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

National Research Council. 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. “A Framework for Assessing Health Risk of Environmental Exposures to Children (Final).” Last updated March 8, 2017. Accessed February 22, 2018. ­https://​­cfpub​.­epa​.­gov​/­ncea​/­risk​/­recordisplay​ .­cfm​?­deid​= ​­158363. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Risk Assessment.” July 17, 2018. Accessed February 20, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­risk.

Rodenticides Rodenticides are chemicals used to kill rodents, which include rats, mice, squirrels, chipmunks, porcupines, and beavers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2010) reports that rates and mice spread over thirty-five diseases. When humans come into contact with rodent feces, urine, salvia, or through bites, these diseases can be transmitted. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2017) regulates rodenticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which was passed in 1972. Although a wide variety of chemicals are used in rodenticides, the chemicals most commonly used include bromethalin, chlorophacinone, and diphacinone. Warfarin, a strong anticoagulant, is also used. Two varieties of these chemicals are produced based on their uses. There are consumer, or household, uses of the chemicals, primarily to eliminate mice, rats, and other rodents; these are primarily purchased at retail stores by consumers and are usually used in bait traps for mice and rats. There are also uses of rodenticide for agricultural and industrial applications. These rodenticides are banned by the EPA for sale in retail stores. They are used to eliminate rodent populations near buildings and agricultural and farming facilities. These chemicals often include zinc phosphide, cholecalciferol, and other chemicals. Most rodenticides act as anticoagulants (agents that prevent blood clotting), where the result is that the animal bleeds internally, causing death. This can take from several days to a couple of weeks after the animal has ingested the chemical. The physiological impact of these chemicals is on the processing of vitamin K. What the EPA (2017) calls “first-generation anticoagulants” were developed prior to 1970; the animal feeds on the poison for several days, making the exposure incrementally more toxic and lethal. Then “second-generation anticoagulants” were introduced because the animals became resistant to the first-generation chemicals. These chemicals are more deadly, only requiring a single ingestion of the chemical, which remains in the animal’s tissues longer. These chemicals include brodifacoum, difethialone, difenacoum, and bromadiolone. They are often referred to as single-dose rodenticides and are not allowed for consumer use. These chemicals pose more threat to the ecosystem because predators consume

Rodenticides 549

infected rodents after they have been poisoned but are not yet dead. In addition, these chemicals will remain in a rodent’s liver for years if it survives. Bromethalin (which attacks the nervous system, causing paralysis) and zinc phosphide (which attacks the heart, brain, kidneys, and liver) are nonanticoagulant poisons, whereas chlorophacinone and diphacinone are considered first-generation rodenticides by the EPA. The Center for Biological Diversity (2019), an advocacy group, has a campaign to reduce the risks to public health and the environment from rodenticides. These poisons impact not only the rodent targets but also pets and humans due to the toxicity. Cases of secondary unintended poisoning to predators, such as birds, and other species in the food chain are significantly affected (Lohan 2019). When these chemicals are used in the household, pets and children are at risk of being exposed to them. Rodenticides are also poisoning endangered wildlife. The National Pesticide Information Center provides scientific-based information about pesticides under a cooperative agreement between Oregon State University and the EPA. It provides detailed information on the variety of rodenticides, their impacts, and potential risks to unintended targets, such as pets, wildlife, and children. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Pesticides.

Further Reading

Center for Biological Diversity. 2019. “Rodenticides.” Accessed April 3, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­biologicaldiversity​.­org​/­campaigns​/­pesticides​_reduction​/­rodenticides. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2010. “Rodents.” Accessed April 4, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­rodents. Lohan, Tara. 2019. “Endangered Wildlife Are Getting Dosed with Rat Poison.” The Revelator, February 25, 2019. Accessed April 4, 2019. ­https://​­therevelator​.­org​ /­wildlife​-­rodenticides. National Pesticide Information Center. 2017. “Rodenticides.” March 20, 2017. Accessed April 4, 2019. ­http://​­npic​.­orst​.­edu​/­factsheets​/­rodenticides​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Restriction on Rodenticide Products.” April 7, 2017. Accessed April 3, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­rodenticides​ /­restrictions​-­rodenticide​-­products.

S Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)(1974) The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act, is the primary federal law for protecting public water supplies. Congress passed the act in 1974 and substantially amended it in 1986, 1996, and 2016. The SDWA is administered through programs that establish standards and treatment requirements for public water supplies, finance drinking water infrastructure projects, promote water system compliance, and control the underground injection of fluids to protect underground sources of drinking water (Tiemann 2017). BACKGROUND Prior to the nineteenth century, little was known about disease as it related to water quality. If any treatment occurred, it was primarily done to improve the appearance or the taste of drinking water. No defined standards of water quality or palatability appear in ancient records (Pontius 2003). The first widely published direct link between drinking water and disease occurred in the mid–nineteenth century. John Snow observed that the water pump in London’s Broad Street in the city’s Soho district was the source of a severe cholera epidemic. Prior to that time, it was generally thought that diseases were spread through breathing contaminated air (Kimm et al. 2014). In the late nineteenth century, the scientists Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch began several studies in microbiology that postulated the germ theory of disease, and they identified the specific organisms that cause typhoid and cholera. It was Koch who demonstrated the effectiveness of slow sand filtration in reducing microbial content (Kimm et  al. 2014). In the United States, some Northeastern states, including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York, began establishing health boards to improve housing conditions—the result of which was the establishment of regulations for water supply and disposal of household wastes (Okun 2003). Even though there was an increase in regulatory agencies, it would be several years before such agencies played a significant role in the monitoring of municipal water supplies and wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal (Okun 2003). During the early twentieth century, chlorine was first applied to drinking water in the United States. At the time, child mortality in major river cities was as high as two in five. The application of chlorine to drinking water resulted in a dramatic reduction in not only childhood mortality in major cities but also the eradication of typhoid fever. The continued widespread application of improved community

552

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

sanitation and water treatment (including coagulation, sand filtration, and disinfection) resulted in what would be considered one of the greatest public health breakthroughs of the twentieth century (Kimm et al. 2014). The first federal drinking water standards were adopted in 1914 when the U.S. Public Health Services (USPHS) was charged with the responsibility of the health care of merchant marine sailors. The surgeon general adopted standards for drinking water that was supplied to the public on interstate carriers. The basic bacterial standard adopted was one hundred microorganisms per milliliter (Okun 2003). Throughout the early twentieth century, the USPHS collaborated with several state health departments to produce consensus standards for water quality, which were enforceable only at watering points for interstate transport carriers (Kimm et al. 2014). By 1925, most cities that were drawing water from run-of-river sources had little trouble meeting the 1914 standards. The USPHS adopted stricter standards for physical and some chemical constituents, including lead, copper, zinc, and dissolved solids (Okun 2003). In 1941, the USPHS established maximum permissible concentrations for lead, fluoride, arsenic, and selenium as well as for barium salts, hexavalent chromium, heavy metals, and other substance thought to have deleterious physiological effects (Okun 2003). By the mid–twentieth century, several water professionals had become concerned about lax state supervision as well as the microbial and chemical quality in water utilities, especially in small systems (Kimm et al. 2014). What had occurred was that water treatment tools were believed to be so effective that there was little concern about the need to seek waters of high quality. The general thinking was that treatment would make nearly any water safe. The conventional treatment of water (i.e., chemical coagulation, sand filtration, and chlorination) did little to remove trace synthetic organic chemicals that resulted from the post–World War II surge in industrial development. A closely related problem was that chlorination increased the risk of synthetic chemicals created by chlorine itself (Okun 2003). In 1962, the USPHS standards were updated to address the increased chemical pollution in drinking water, including radioactivity, as well as physical characteristics such as odor, clarity, and turbidity. Bacterial quality requirements were modified, which then allowed no more than a monthly average of once coliform per milliliter when the membrane filter technique was used (Okun 2003). In 1965, Congress passed the Water Quality Act, which required all states to designate their intended uses for interstate water bodies within their jurisdiction and then adopt water quality standards that allowed each body to meet its intended use (Glicksman and Batzel 2010). By the late 1960s, there was a widespread public perception, particularly in the wake of the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire, that federal standards concerning water quality were largely ineffective. Pollutant discharges from municipal waste systems had grown larger, and fish kills had reached record levels (Andreen 2013). By the end of the decade, nearly half the states had not adopted the water quality standards set by the 1965 act, and even if they had, the federal government still had a great deal of difficulty in enforcing standards, in that it would have had to



Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 553

prove which particular polluter was responsible for violating the act’s standards. As well, the federal government usually lacked the scientific data concerning the location, volume, or composition of industrial discharges—something made even more difficult if several possible polluters were involved (Glicksman and Batzel 2010; Andreen 2013). In 1969, a review of the 1962 USPHS standards revealed that several water supplies did not meet the 1962 standards. Several million people were being supplied with water of inadequate quality (Okun 2003). Several environmentalists voiced their concerns and raised the issue of possible links between drinking water quality and cancer rates, particularly after industrial pollutants were found throughout the Mississippi River basin and trihalomethanes (THMs) were found in drinking water distribution systems (Kimm et al. 2014; Robeson and Frey 2016). As for water quality in general, Congress responded to the public’s concerns of water safety with the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972—more popularly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The new act had as its objective the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, and it had two major goals: zero discharge of pollutants by 1985 and that water quality that was “fishable” and “swimmable” by mid-1983 (Copeland 2006).

THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT As for safe drinking water, after four years of effort and debate in Congress, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was signed into law by President Ford on December 16, 1974, as Public Law 93-523. With the founding of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, the SDWA quickly became a key initiative for the new agency (Robeson and Frey 2016). In its original form, the SDWA established a cooperative program among local, state, and federal agencies and required the establishment of primary drinking water regulations to ensure safe drinking water for consumers. States were given the lead role in its implementation and regulation (Tiemann 2017). At that time, however, few states had the capability of implementing the regulations. The EPA then began to customize drinking water programs for each state (Kimm et  al. 2014). The new regulations were the first to apply to all public water systems in the United States and covered both chemical and microbial contaminants (Pontius 2003). The standards set by the SDWA were applicable to all systems serving more than twenty-five customers or fifteen service connections (Kimm et  al. 2014). As originally enacted, the act specified that the EPA adopt national drinking water regulations. Interim regulations were to be adopted within six months of its enactment, and within two years, the EPA was to propose revised regulations on the basis of a study of the health effects of contaminants in drinking water conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The revised regulations of the SDWA involved a two-step process. The first was that the agency publish

554

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

recommended maximum contaminant levels (RMCLs) for those contaminants thought to have an adverse effect based on the NAS study, and the second was that the EPA establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) as close to the RMCLs as the agency thought feasible (Pontius 2003). Shortly after the implementation of the SDWA, interim regulations were adopted by the EPA that were based on the 1962 USPHS standards. In 1975, the EPA conducted the National Organics Reconnaissance Survey (NORS) and the National Organics Monitory Survey (NOMS) to determine the extent of the THM problem in the United States (Pontius 2003). The surveys found that all systems that had used chlorine had contained THMs. The surveys also found several volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as trichloroethylene (TCE); however, the nationwide problem of groundwater contamination by VOCs was not recognized at this time because existing monitory programs primarily focused on surface water (Kimm et al. 2014). As a result of the NORS, the EPA implemented a maximum contaminant level for four THMs—chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform—that had been found to be widespread in the chlorinated drinking waters of eighty cities studied. Similarly, the NOMS showed that THMs were the most widespread organic contaminates in drinking water, occurring at the highest concentrations. The two surveys, along with some others, identified more than seven hundred specific organic chemicals in various drinking waters (Pontius 2003). In 1977, the required NAS study (mentioned above), which was conducted by the National Research Council, published its report “Drinking Water and Health.” It identified five classes of contaminants: microorganisms, particulate matter (PM), inorganic solutes, organic solutes, and radionuclides. The report, the first in a series of nine, served as the basis for revised drinking water regulations (Pontius 2003). AMENDMENTS The SDWA was amended and/or reauthorized in 1977, 1979, and 1980. Among the most important amendments, however, were those adopted in 1986. These amendments (P.L. 99-339) were largely intended to increase the pace at which the EPA regulated contaminants and to increase the protection of groundwater (Tiemann 2017). The 1986 amendments required the EPA to (1) issue regulations for eighty-three specified contaminants by June 1989 and for twenty-five more contaminants every three years thereafter, (2) promulgate requirements for disinfection and filtration of public water supplies, (3) limit the use of lead pipes and lead solder in new drinking water systems, (4) establish an elective wellhead protection program around public wells, (5) establish a demonstration grant program for state and local authorities having designated sole source aquifers to develop groundwater protection programs, and (6) issue rules for monitoring underground injection wells that inject hazardous wastes below a drinking water source (Tiemann 2017).



Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 555

The EPA soon fell behind in meeting the statutory deadlines, and the agency found itself in a series of litigations. Although the EPA did not meet the mandated schedule set in the amendments, it eventually published regulations for all eighty-three contaminants and issued its first treatment technique rulemaking in the Surface Water Treatment Rule (Robeson and Frey 2016). In 1993, a Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee occurred, which further raised public concern about drinking water quality. The outbreak, combined with litigation over the delays in promulgating regulations under the 1986 amendments, led Congress to further action (Robeson and Frey 2016). Congress passed more sweeping changes to the act with the SDWA Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-182). These amendments targeted resources to address the greatest health risks, increase regulatory flexibility, and authorize funding for federal drinking water mandates. Congress also revoked the requirement that the EPA regulate twenty-five new contaminants every three years and created a risk-based approach for selecting contaminants for regulation (Tiemann 2017). In 2002, Congress added several drinking water provisions to the SDWA in the form of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act. Title IV of the act included requirements for community water systems serving more than thirty-three hundred individuals to conduct vulnerability assessments and prepare emergency response plans (Tiemann 2017). On August 7, 2015, the Drinking Water Protection Act (P.L. 114-45) was enacted, which directed the EPA to develop a strategic plan to assess and manage the risks associated with algal toxins in public drinking water supplies. In December 2015, the Grassroots Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act (P.L. 114-98) revised and reauthorized the small system technical assistance program and extended the authorization of appropriations for the program through FY2020 (Tiemann 2017). In 2016, Congress implemented several revisions to the SDWA through the WIIN Act, which authorized new grant programs (1) to help public water systems serving small or disadvantaged communities meet SDWA requirements; (2) to support lead-reduction projects, including lead service line replacement; and (3) to establish a voluntary program for testing for lead in drinking water at schools and child care programs (Tiemann 2017). In recent years, several concerns have been raised in relation to whether poor and minority communities may be disproportionately exposed to environmental harms. In terms of how this issue relates to the SDWA, Switzer and Teodoro (2017) found that in communities with higher populations of black and Hispanic individuals, SDWA health violations are more common. They note (Switzer and Teodoro 2017, 45) that “while percent black population significantly correlates with drinking water violations, the correlation with Hispanic population is markedly stronger.” They conclude that such disparities not only represent failures of the water utilities’ core public health mission but also threaten to undermine public trust and the legitimacy of utilities at a time when many utility leaders urgently need public support for capital replacement, improvement, and expansion. Robert L. Perry

556

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

See also: Cuyahoga River Fires (Cleveland, Ohio); Flint, Michigan, Drinking Water Contamination (2016).

Further Reading

Andreen, William L. 2013. “Success and Backlash: The Remarkable (Continuing) Story of the Clean Water Act.” Journal of Energy & Environmental Law 4: 25–37. Copeland, Claudia. 2006. “Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act.” Congressional Research Service Report. Accessed November 20, 2019. ­https://​­digitalcommons​ .­unl​.­edu​/­crsdocs​/­36​/?­utm​_source​= ​­digitalcommons​.­unl​.­edu​%­2Fcrsdocs​%­2F36​&­utm​ _medium​= ​­PDF​&­utm​_campaign​= ​­PDFCoverPages. Glicksman, Robert L., and Matthew R. Batzel. 2010. “Science, Politics, Law, and the Arc of the Clean Water Act: The Role of Assumptions in the Adoption of a Pollution Control Landmark.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 32: 99–138. Kimm, Victor J., Joseph A. Cotruvo, Jack Hoffbuhr, and Arden Calvert. 2014. “The Safe Drinking Water Act: The First 10 years.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 106(8): 84–95. Okun, Daniel A. 2003. “Drinking Water and Public Health Protection.” In Drinking Water Regulation and Health, edited by Frederick W. Pontius, 3–24. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pontius, Frederick W. 2003. “History of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).” In Drinking Water Regulation and Health, edited by Frederick W. Pontius, 71–104. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Robeson, J. Alan, and Michelle M. Frey. 2016. “An SDWA Retrospective: 20 Years after the 1996 Amendments.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 108(3): 22–30. Switzer, David, and Manuel P. Teodoro. 2017. “The Color of Drinking Water: Class, Race, Ethnicity, and Safe Drinking Water Act Compliance.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 109(9): 22–30. Tiemann, Mary. 2017. “Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements.” Congressional Research Service. Accessed November 20, 2019. ­https://​­documents​.­deq​.­utah​.­gov​/­water​- ­quality​/­g round​-­water​-­protection​ /­u nderground​-­i njection​- ­control​/­general​/ ­DWQ​-­2018​- ­0 01025​.­pdf.

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families In 2009, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families was formed as a broad coalition of environmental organizations to work on reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This culminated in the implementation of the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The coalition included state and national environmental groups in conjunction with health professionals and environmental justice (EJ) organizations. Today, the organization works with retailers to phase out hazardous chemicals with a coalition of 450 organizations and businesses and over eleven million members (Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families 2019). Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families includes in its agenda prevention of chemicals called persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) and the protection of overburdened and EJ communities, and it has called for chemical manufacturers to be held responsible in providing full information on environmentally hazardous



Safer States 557

chemicals and health information associated with their products. The focus is on policy at the federal and state levels, retailers’ substitutions of nontoxic chemicals, and consumer education. The organization continues to provide leadership on the implementation of protections for the public from chemicals with adverse health impacts. For instance, it is actively working on banning toxic paint strippers that contain methylene chloride. In addition, it is advocating for a federal action plan on the removal of per- and polyfluoroalkyl compounds called PFAs from drinking water. These chemicals come into the drinking water supplies comes from food packaging, stain-resistant furniture, and fire-retardant materials. They are persistent chemicals that can migrate through the environment. They list several chemicals of concern for the public with health information for protection. These include the following: • Asbestos • Bisphenol A (BPA) • Formaldehyde • Heavy metals • Hexavalent chromium • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) • Perfluorinated compounds • Phthalates • Toxic flame retardants • Trichloroethylene (TCE) • Vinyl chloride Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016); Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. 2019. “Home.” Accessed April 11, 2019. ­https://​ ­saferchemicals​.­org.

Safer States Safer States is a network of environmental health organization in the U.S. states. The organization advocates at the state and national levels for chemical policies to protect human health. The mission is to protect drinking water and provide for safe chemical products. The organization is focused on the exposure to toxic chemicals in food from packaging and production, personal care products and cooking, cleaning supplies in the household, heavy metals, and flame retardants in furniture and electronics. The organization is concerned about perfluorinated compounds found in nonstick cookware that have permeated lakes, rivers, and drinking water and the bloodstreams of newborns. The organization was created

558

Safety Data Sheets (SDS)

over 120 years ago to lead on the ban and substitution of chemicals that impact human health. The organization provides states with information on toxic policies in their partner states. It brings this information together to assist state leaders with toxic chemicals. Currently, there are thirty-one states reviewing 143 policies to protect their citizens from toxic chemicals, and another 182 state policies have already been adopted in thirty-five states (Safer States 2019). The organization is concerned with everyday chemicals and the impacts to environmental justice (EJ) communities who are overburdened with exposure to everyday chemicals. Safer States provides information at the state level for the current and adopted policies on toxic chemicals. Safer States lists seventeen states as formally part of its organization and eight organizations at the national level as partners. These partners support the mission of Safer States and work toward advocating for the protection from toxic chemicals. The focus of the policies are on new state and national policies that substitute safer chemicals for public health to produce what the organization has called a “greener” economy. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Overburdened Community.

Further Reading

Safer States. 2019. “Our Vision.” Accessed April 11, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­saferstates​.­com​ /­vision.

Safety Data Sheets (SDS) Safety data sheets (SDS; formerly called material safety data sheets (MSDS), which is still used frequently as a reference) provide information about the impacts of chemicals to humans in a standardized format with sixteen sections. Today, SDS are used for information on hazardous substances in the workplace. The 1992 United Nations Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for Labelling and Classifying Chemicals that are hazardous is implemented through SDS worldwide. The classes of chemicals include flammable liquids, dermal irritants, and narcotic agents (those that impair judgment through nausea and dizziness). The classes are divided into fatal, toxic, and harmful if inhaled. The GHS provides the standardized format (referred to as harmonized) for the SDS information as a means of global harmonization on this information regardless of geopolitical boundary. All SDS include the lists of hazardous ingredients, duplication of information that is on the container label for each substance’s precautions, and critical information on the product. SDS include first aid and firefighting responses as well as accidental release actions for emergencies. Manufacturers of hazardous substances and importers have to complete SDS that comply with the GHS format. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA 2019) has created a Hazardous Communication Standard that requires employers provide workers with access to SDS located on the jobsite. Training for those workers is required for handling these chemicals in the



Safety Data Sheets (SDS) 559

workplace and for those that may potentially be exposed to the occupational chemicals. The training includes how to read the labels on containers of the substance and the SDS, plus prevention, protection, and how to detect a release of a chemical and what to do in an emergency. OSHA also provides exposure and threshold limits for the substance. These can include odor thresholds and the physical and chemical properties of the substance. Standard labels are required for each GHS classification and category. There are also what OSHA calls “signal” words, which are diagram icons in the form of pictograms with precautionary statements for each product for ease of communication. Instructive guidance in the precautionary statements help the employee with immediate information in case of a spill. The precautionary statements include guidance on prevention, response, storage, and disposal. The diagrams or icons used to convey information include a “star man” for chronic hazards from long-term exposure; a “skull and crossbones” for poisons that are toxic at brief exposures to low concentrations; an exclamation point for irritants, allergic dermal contact reactions, and ozone-depleting chemicals; and a picture of the aquatic ecosystem for chemicals toxic to fish and aquatic life. The labels also include contact and product information and the name and phone number of the responsible party. The United Nations has issued a guidance book for GHS that is commonly called the “Purple Book.” The book is updated every two years (being published on odd years). The mandate for this harmonization originated from the 1992 UN Conference on the Environment and Development. GHS is a nonbinding commitment, so each country must pass regulations and legislation that is enforceable for implementation. Although the EPA has adopted the GHS system, it has not implemented it for pesticide products. GHS diagrams and statements will not appear on the product labels sold and distributed in the United States for pesticide chemicals. Instead, the EPA uses only the skull and crossbones and flame icons for its pesticides. In 2012, the United States replaced MSDS using the sixteen sections format. By June 2015, workplaces were required to have the SDS updated with the new format. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit 1992); Workplace and Occupational Exposure.

Further Reading

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2019. “Hazardous Communication Standard Safety Data Sheets.” OSHA Brief. Accessed April 5, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­osha​.­gov​/ ­Publications​/­OSHA3514​.­html. United Nations. 2017. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). 7th ed. New York and Geneva: United Nations. ­http://​­www​ .­unece​.­org​/­t rans​/­danger​/­publi​/­ghs​/­ghs​_rev07​/­07files​_e0​.­html​#­c61353. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. “Hazardous Communication Standard for Chemical Labels and Safety Sheets in GHS Format.” December 2015. Accessed April 5, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2016​-­01​/­documents​/­hazard​ _communication​_standard​-­safety​_data​_sheets​_epa​_dec​_2015​.­pdf.

560

Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand Smoke Secondhand smoke derives its name from smoke that is inhaled by a secondary person to the one consuming the tobacco product. This term is primarily used to identify smoke from tobacco products such as cigarettes, pipes, and cigars. Two forms of secondhand smoke can be produced: the smoke produced by a smoker’s tobacco product and the by-product exhaled after the smoker has breathed in the tobacco smoke. According to the American Cancer Society (2015), “Secondhand smoke is known to cause cancer. It has more than 7,000 chemicals, including at least seventy that can cause cancer.” Secondhand smoke has the potential of being just as dangerous to the nonsmoker inhaling it as to the smoker. It also puts nonsmokers at increased risk of heart attack and stroke. This is a particular health problem for children who live with a smoker and most likely inhale secondhand smoke daily. This can lead to increased chances for asthma and breathing-related illnesses as adults. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have issued guidelines that state there are no known safe levels of secondhand smoke. The U.S. surgeon general has advised that workplaces should be smoke-free to prevent increased risks of cancer. In the past, smoking was permitted in restaurants, first openly and then in segregated sections, and throughout bars, entertainment venues, and on airplanes. Today, smoking is not allowed in public buildings and is prohibited in most public spaces. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2018), “Exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in nonsmokers.” As a result, many cities have banned smoking. Much of the mobilization to ban smoking in public places has come from employees in those workplaces and their unions. Today, some cities allow employees to smoke a certain distance away from the workplace building. Smoking on airplanes was not banned until February 1990. Casino workers were some of the most exposed employees to secondhand smoke. Many casinos have now segregated smoking to a section of their buildings. These places are regulated by individual states with different smoking ordinances. Smoking tobacco products has decreased overall over the decades because of public education detailing the risks as well as restrictions on marketing to children. The invention of “vaping” also contributed to the decline; nicotine is put into a vaporizer designed to look like cigarettes. These devices eliminate secondhand smoke exposure, although the chemicals from the tobacco product, which is in the vapor that is exhaled, is being investigated as a health hazard. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Tobacco Smoke.

Further Reading

American Cancer Society. 2015. “Health Risks of Secondhand Smoke.” Last updated November 13, 2015. Accessed September 5, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­org​/­cancer​ /­cancer​-­causes​/­tobacco​-­and​-­cancer​/­secondhand​-­smoke​.­html.



Sediment Contamination 561

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. 2009. “Secondhand Smoke and Gaming Facilities.” Accessed September 5, 2017. ­https://​­no​-­smoke​.­org​/­secondhand​-­smoke​ -­gaming​-­facilities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2017. “Secondhand Smoke (SHS) Facts.” Last updated February 21, 2017. Accessed September 5, 2017. ­https://​­www​ .­cdc​.­gov​/­tobacco​/­d ata​_ statistics​/­fact​_ sheets​/­secondhand​_ smoke​/­general​_facts​ /­index​.­htm. Sharkey, Joe. 2015. “What Flying Was Like before the Smoke Cleared.” New York Times, February 23, 2015. Accessed September 5, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2015​ /­02​/­24​/ ­business​/­what​-­airlines​-­were​-­like​-­before​-­the​-­smoke​-­cleared​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Secondhand Tobacco Smoke and Smoke-Free Homes.” Last updated January 29, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­indoor​-­air​-­quality​-­iaq​/­secondhand​-­tobacco​-­smoke​-­and​-­smoke​-­f ree​-­homes.

Sediment Contamination Sediment contamination refers to the bottom part of a riverbed or lake bed that may have been contaminated from runoff or natural means. Contaminated sediment can provide a host of harmful effects. It primarily causes a risk and adverse health effect on the aquatic habitat, but it also provides a danger to wildlife. Even more, if the sediment causes danger to aquatic wildlife, it almost certainly causes a high level of public health risk. As a result, sediment contamination poses grave risks to humans as much as it does to wildlife and aquatic habitats. In fact, two of the highest-profile cleanup sites in American history also deal with the possibility of contaminated sediment. As a result, contaminated sediment is not just a concern of scientists and regulators but also politicians, including the president of the United States and Congress. With sediment contamination, there are normally three different types of remediation: monitored natural recovery, capping, and excavation. Each of these is listed in terms of its ease of use and cost of the removal of the contaminated sediment. Monitored natural recovery costs very little, but excavation can represent costs so high that the federal government scarcely decides to undertake it. With that in mind, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a three-pronged policy approach to dealing with the possibility of contaminated sediment and its impact on aquatic habitats, wildlife, and human public health. First, the EPA wants to develop policies that can actually reduce the levels of contaminated sediment in the rivers and lakes of the United States. Second, it wants to prevent the accumulation of contaminated sediment within the rivers and lakes. Third, it wants to make sound policy decisions based on science regarding the relocation of contaminated sediment and make contaminated sediments the least harmful as possible for their possible negative health effects. Then, the EPA, with the help of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process, informs both the public and Congress by drafting reports that outline the successes, challenges, and problems associated with contaminated sediment nationwide. With sound science, policy, and public

562

Sediment Contamination

information, the EPA has attempted to mitigate the effects of contaminated sediment for both aquatic habitats and public health. DEFINITIONS AND HISTORICAL CONTEXTS The EPA (1997) defines sediment contamination as contaminated materials “found at the bottom of a water body. Sediments may include clay, silt, gravel, decaying organic matter, and shells.” Although some public health effects may occur naturally from sediment contamination, sediment contamination normally comes from pollution or from chemicals used by humans in industrial uses. The public health effects for humans usually come from the consumption of water from the contaminated sediment water source and from fish contamination. The most significant threat from fish contamination is elevated levels of mercury, which in high concentrations creates reproductive health effects for wildlife (EPA 1997), but it can also cause developmental and neurological effects in humans (National Research Council 2000). One of the biggest potential sources for this type of pollution is a business that is located near a source of water, specifically by a river or stream. If runoff flows into an ocean or a very large body of water, common remedial techniques are not logistically or financially possible. Two of the most prominent examples of sediment contamination comprise a considerable portion of the EPA’s Superfund history: Love Canal and the Bunker Hill Metallurgical and Mining Compound. At Love Canal, New York, the Occidental Chemical Corporation (now the OXY Corporation) dumped massive amounts of hazardous materials into an area known as Love Canal, which had water in certain areas but was mostly dry. The Love Canal contamination represented such an urgent public health issue that President Jimmy Carter designated it a disaster area not just for the more notable occasion in 1978 but again in 1981. However, the cleanup was not cheap. In 2004, the New York Times reported that when the Love Canal site was removed from the Superfund list, it had cost almost $400 million. In addition, one of the greatest environmental contamination disasters more prominently featured contaminated sediment in the Coeur d’Alene River basin at a location known as the Bunker Hill Metallurgical and Mining Compound. At that location, various enterprises had engaged in mining mostly lead and silver. Although the effects of the mining reached and extended to all parts of life and wildlife in that area, considerable sediment contamination was caused by the release of silver and lead tailings directly into the Coeur d’Alene River. This environmental disaster was not caused overnight; the amount of tailings varied but it had been happening for over sixty years. The tailings had settled on the bottom of the riverbed and eventually seeped into the sediment of that area. Eventually, the lead and silver had seeped deep into the bed, causing contamination of the river and affecting the previously vibrant wildlife that resided in the water as well as the animals that drank water from the Coeur d’Alene River. Eventually, the EPA closed off large sections of the river as water repositories and mandated that humans and animals not drink the water from various parts of the river that were the most contaminated.



Sediment Contamination 563

REMEDIES FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT Taking sediment out of a body of water, even on its face, represents a massive undertaking, and the thought of somehow removing massive amounts of the water from these sources could also adversely impact fish and other aquatic organisms. Not surprisingly, cleaning up contaminated sediments presents a more significant and expensive undertaking than other cleanup sites. To clean up contaminated sediment, the EPA uses the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) and its subsequent reauthorization, the 1986 Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA). However, the Superfund trust fund often does not contain nearly enough resources to fund the cleanups of all the water environmental contaminations in the United States, and sediment contamination cleanups receive much less press and money. Nevertheless, there are certain ways that both the government and private industry attempt to limit the incidence of contaminated sediment. In cleaning up contaminated sediment, the government uses several different methods. First, if the contamination is not extensive, it can rely on monitored natural recovery. Monitored natural recovery requires the EPA to take samples over time and relies on natural processes to reduce the risk posed by the sediment contamination. However, for biodegradation to occur, the water source must not have an extensive fish or shellfish population inhabiting the source. Additionally, water sources that can use this method for addressing the sediment contamination are not of great concern to the mass public because they do not affect the food chain in the same way that more contaminated sources can (EPA 2004a). Second, the government can use the capping method to remedy the sediment contamination. Capping involves dropping clean, uncontaminated sediment into the water source where the sediment contamination occurred. Previously, when the EPA used capping as the means of remediation, it used a combination of sand and gravel. However, as time progressed, the EPA now uses organoclay or carbon inside of geotextile mats as the remedy. However, this method relies on the fact that the contaminated sediment is not mobile. Third, the government or remediation authorities can excavate the contaminated sediment in the body of water. In the best-case scenario, the body of water is already gone from the sediment, which allows for the removal of the contaminated sediment. In some cases where the contamination is relatively extreme, you could see the scenario where a removal entity builds a cofferdam to extract the water from the afflicted area and then the removal entity excavates the contaminated sediment. However, this process is unlikely to occur because of the costs associated with building the cofferdam, and the excavation of the contaminated sediment is quite large.

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT POLICY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL The EPA (EPA, Office of Water 1998) estimated that roughly 10 percent of the U.S. surface water sediment suffers from contamination. Although the specific

564

Sediment Contamination

breakdown of which contaminants make up the greatest amount by volume is not currently known, the sheer amount remains staggering. For an idea of the massive amount of contaminated sediment that currently resides in the United States, 10 percent represents 1.2 billion cubic yards of contaminated sediment. To give some type of context, that would equate to 56,250 football fields full of contaminated sediment. Even considering the massive area of the longest rivers in the United States combined with the area of the Great Lakes, this still represents an immense amount of contaminated sediment. As a result, the U.S. government and, more specifically, the EPA consider contaminated sediment as a real and imposing public health problem. However, dealing with contaminated sediment as a public health issue runs into the problem of legal fragmentation. This means there are multiples laws that all allow the government to regulate this problem, but without a common and comprehensive legal framework, regulators are responsible for filling in the gaps and ensuring that the policies remain uniform and do not run afoul of legal precedents and rulings. That notwithstanding, the EPA has developed goals of policy toward addressing the enormous amount of contaminated sediment in the United States. One of the main goals within the EPA (among thousands of others) centers on the reduction and remediation of contaminated sediment. The EPA has outlined a series of priorities regarding contaminated sediment throughout the United States. One of the main issues at hand for the EPA and Sediment Contamination Policy includes the geographic distribution of the contaminated sediment. Although many of the sponsored EPA cleanup sites focus on the West, Northeast, and the Deep South, contaminated sediment does not show that same trend. In fact, most of the contaminated sediment established by the EPA comes from the upper Midwest and the Northeast and a hot zone around the middle of the Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers. The EPA lists four main goals of policy toward contaminated sediment. The first is to enact policy and programs that involve eliminating or reducing the amount of contaminated sediment at many of the water sources throughout the United States. More importantly, it also wants to ensure that that large rivers and lakes, most notably the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes, reduce the amount of contaminated sediment over time. It is not physically possible to dredge an entire Great Lake or the Mississippi River, but in certain hot spots within that area, it is possible to conduct some dredging. This is important because if contaminated sediment is limited in these areas, it will prevent large deposits of contaminated sediment in other large bodies of water. In addition, these river sources also comprise a large amount of water consumption for humans, so the public health risk associated with contaminated sediment in these bodies of water is quite large. Second, the EPA also wants to limit the amount of new contaminated sediment that enters the water sources. Although the regulations involving the dumping of hazardous chemicals in the United States has changed dramatically in the last thirty or forty years, some amount of hazardous chemicals will always find their way into water sources. However, with the banning of certain chemicals that presented disastrous public health consequences (most notably dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT]) from the water. However, in addition, the EPA will work with state governments to quickly enforce chemicals that are newly discovered



Sediment Contamination 565

hazards to the water supply, but those chemicals are specifically linked to a higher likelihood of resting and settling within the sediment, contaminating it for both human consumption and wildlife habitats. Third, when the EPA successfully dredges contaminated sediment, it also wants to find a way to dispose of it in the most environmentally sound way to ensure that it does not have a negative effect on aquatic habitats or the general public’s health. In some cases, the cleanup procedure calls for depositing contaminating sediment in the ocean because the depth of the water ensures that the effects of the harmful sediment are not nearly as concentrated and do not pose as much risk to public health. This results from the fact that humans generally do not desalinate water for large-scale use. Additionally, it mostly cannot be used for agricultural purposes either. Therefore, there are very few cases where contaminated sediment can produce negative public health effects if deposited at the bottom of the ocean as opposed to a river or lake. Also, the EPA plans to generate and draft reports that inform the public regarding the ongoing process of dredging and remediation efforts with regard to sediment contamination. Since 1993, the secretary of transportation in concert with the EPA administrator have worked together to deliver reports to Congress under the auspices of the Federal Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process. Although the effects of contaminated sediment can produce remarkably harmful outcomes for both aquatic habitats and public health, the role of regulators in limiting it over the last thirty to forty years has seen rapid improvement. With the banning or limiting of certain chemicals (most notably DDT) and keeping other chemicals restricted and cataloged in federal, state, and local databases, the amount of new contaminated sediment has been greatly curtailed. In the future, one of the more important parts of limiting the effects of contaminated sediment will be done by companies doing research on how to prevent chemicals used in various industrial processes from flowing into local water sources, including rivers and lakes. However, with the current improvement in technology involving desalination, regulatory agencies may have to reconsider whether using the ocean as a partial repository for these contaminated sediments is the sound policy going forward. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Further Reading

Depalma, Anthony. 2004. “Love Canal Declared Clean, Ending Toxic Horror.” New York Times, March 18, 2004. Accessed November 8, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​ /­2004​/­03​/­18​/­nyregion​/­love​-­canal​-­declared​-­clean​-­ending​-­toxic​-­horror​.­html. National Research Council. 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. “Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume V: Health Effects of Mercury and Mercury Compounds.” Accessed October 25, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­mercury​/­mercury​-­study​-­report​-­congress. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004a. “Sediment Remediation: Capping.” Accessed October 25, 2019. ­https://​­clu​-­in​.­org​/­issues​/­default​.­focus​/­sec​/­Sediments​ /­cat​/ ­Remediation​/­p​/­1.

566

Seniors, Environmental and Health Impacts on

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004b. “Sediment Remediation: Monitored Natural Recovery.” Accessed October 25, 2019. ­https://​­clu​-­in​.­org​/­issues​/­default​ .­focus​/­sec​/­Sediments​/­cat​/­Remediation​/­p​/­6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Superfund: Contamination Sediments.” Accessed October 25, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­superfund​/­superfund​ -­contaminated​-­sediments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water. 1998. “Sediment Management Strategy.” Accessed November 7, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­nscep.

Seniors, Environmental and Health Impacts on Many countries are aging as national birth rates decline, standards of living improve, and restrictive immigration policies remain intact. Countries with aging pollutions include China, Japan, and many countries within the European Union. Aging is also a characteristic of many developing nations. In 2050, for the first time in history, there will be many more people worldwide aged sixty and over than children under sixteen. About 62 percent of the 868 million people in the world over age sixty live in developing countries, and this percentage is expected to increase to 80 percent in 2050. U.S. population trends are consistent with global demographics. Although longevity is associated with healthy natural systems, environmental and health impacts caused by humans will impact aging populations in several ways. By 2030, all baby boomers will be older than age sixty-five. This will expand the size of the older population so that one in every five residents will be retirement age (U. S. Census 2018). “The aging of baby boomers means that within just a couple of decades, older people are projected to outnumber children for the first time in U.S. history,” said Jonathan Vespa, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census 2018). “By 2034 (previously 2035), there will be 77.0 million (previously 78.0) people 65 years and older compared to 76.5 million (previously 76.7 million) under the age of 18” (Census 2018). First, the exposure of infants and children to toxins determines whether the young will age normally or, alternatively, will eventually develop chronic health conditions leading to disabilities during the “golden years” or to earlier morbidity. Second, elderly populations are more vulnerable to climate change–related weather events such as flooding and hurricanes, primarily because their mobility is limited. Third, and finally, the elderly are usually more seriously affected by environmental toxic chemicals and hazardous substances than younger adults who have stronger cardiovascular and immune systems. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF EARLY EXPOSURE TO POLLUTION It is important to recognize that that there is growing evidence that early life exposures to environmental pollutants can affect the aging process. Adverse early life environmental exposures are major influences on developmental trajectories



Seniors, Environmental and Health Impacts on 567

with potentially lifelong consequences. Prenatal and early postnatal exposure to environmental toxicants may reprogram or suppress brain development and increase the risk of behavioral and neurological disorders as populations age. Individuals aging healthily may benefit the society by remaining longer in the workforce with less need for custodial care, while individuals aging unsuccessfully will constitute an economic burden to society from increased medical care costs and extensive supervision. Thus, protecting the young from environmental pollution is a critical public policy priority. Early toxic exposures have long-term consequences for elderly populations down the road. THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND INTENSE WEATHER EVENTS Although definitive data is not readily available regarding the age-related deaths directly or indirectly related to climate change, there is significant circumstantial evidence pointing to human intervention: intense flooding, regional temperature increases, and overwhelming storm events disproportionately impact older populations. Older individuals in developing countries are particularly vulnerable because of an endemic absence of advanced health systems and the presence of antiquated living facilities lacking modern sanitation systems and air-conditioning systems. Older people in advanced countries are also vulnerable to hot spells. A 2003 heat wave in Europe resulted in an estimated 14,800 deaths in France alone, of which 70 percent were people over age seventy-five. When hurricanes, heat events, high snowfalls, and fires occur, the consequences fall disproportionately on older people that are physically less able to tolerate heat or a lack of potable water. The elderly often lack mobility because of cognitive impairments or money. Many are confined to wheelchairs or poorly managed nursing homes. Sadly, they are also dependent on the decisions of others in the event of an environmental or weather catastrophe. In September 2017, Hurricane Irma enveloped Florida, knocking out electric power to most of the state’s residents. Six of eight nursing home deaths in Hollywood, Florida, were caused by the massive storm knocking out electricity to the nursing homes and forcing the residents to live without air conditioning. Obviously, aging people are a diverse group. Some are unusually robust while others are physically, financially, cognitively, and emotionally unable to respond to catastrophic events, including hurricanes and flooding. Aging populations often lack access to important information sources via newer technologies, such as computers and the Internet.

SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE ELDERLY TO POLLUTION As people age, core biological health, including the immune system and key organs, such as the heart and lungs, gradually weaken, making them susceptible to the effects of past or present exposures to toxics and other environmental

568 Sensitizers

hazards. Seniors are also more vulnerable to diseases once confined to the tropics but that are now slowly migrating into the northern latitudes, which are experiencing warmer winters and hotter summers. It is also important to note that there is growing evidence that early exposures to environmental pollutants can influence the aging process. Adverse early life environmental exposures are major determinants of developmental trajectories with serious health consequences. Prenatal or early postnatal exposure to environmental toxics may reprogram brain development and increase the risk of behavioral and neurological disorders over time. Public policy must be shaped by a greater understanding of aging and the consequences of environmental exposure for both the young and the elderly. When we approach each demographic separately, we risk overlooking solutions that could produce positive consequences for people of all ages. Public policies need to support environmental quality and health throughout life, reduce the negative environmental consequences of human intervention, and recognize that what protects the young will ensure healthy aging well into the future. John Munro See also: Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and Climate Change; Household Exposure.

Further Reading

Ambeskovic, Mirela, Tessa J. Roseboom, and Gerlinde A. S. Metz. 2017. “Transgenerational Effects of Early Environmental Insults on Aging and Disease Incidence.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, August 12, 2017. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1016​/­j​ .­neubiorev​.­2017​.­08​.­002. Chavez, Nicole, Lindsey Ellefson, and Michael Nedelman. 2017. “Investigations Underway after Florida Nursing Home Deaths.” CNN, September 14, 2017. Accessed September 14, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­cnn​.­com​/­2017​/­09​/­14​/ ­health​/­florida​-­nursing​-­home​ -­irma​/­index​.­html. Haq, Gary. 2013. “Aging Population More at Risk from Environmental Threats.” The Conversation, October 28, 2013. Accessed September 14, 2017. ­http://​ ­theconversation​.­com​/­ageing​-­population​-­more​-­at​-­r isk​-­f rom​-­environmental​-­threats​ -­19574. U.S. Census. 2018. “Older People Protected to Outnumber Younger Children for the First Time in U.S. History.” Accessed June 25, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­census​.­gov​/­newsroom​ /­press​-­releases​/­2018​/­cb18​- ­41​-­population​-­projections​.­html.

Sensitizers A sensitizer is a chemical that causes an allergic reaction upon the second exposure to the substance. Sensitizers can occur in nature with poisonous plants such as poison oak. Another example of a common natural sensitizer is bee stings. The sensitization reaction is an immune response that can expose itself in different ways throughout the body. Humans have different responses to sensitizers; some are not affected, while others develop permanent allergies to the chemical. In some people, fatal allergic reactions can occur quickly upon a repeated exposure. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) requires labeling of strong sensitizers. It defines a strong sensitizer as any substance that can cause

Sensitizers 569

hypersensitivity that is part of the Federal Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA) of 1960 requirements (CPSC 2018). What is characteristic of a sensitizer is that the chemical does not have an impact on the first exposure. This first exposure primes the immune system in the body for the subsequent exposure. After repeated exposures, an allergic reaction ensues that can occur from exposure at very low concentrations or exposure rates. Common responses occur in the immune system and include impacts to the respiratory system and reactions from the skin. Symptoms can be expressed such as eczema, contact dermatitis, rashes, asthma, bronchitis, eye irritations, and rhinitis. More severe reactions include damage to organs, particularly the lungs. One example of this is the reaction by some humans to the chemical formaldehyde. Some people become sensitized to this chemical and may have a hyperreaction from the skin or respiratory system. Reactions may express themselves as skin eczema or an assault to the respiratory system that triggers an asthma attack. What makes this reaction dangerous is that, once sensitized, the next exposure, even a small amount of the chemical, can elicit a severe allergic reaction. This is a permanent sensitization of the body; it is primed for a reaction at very low exposure rates, so the chemical has to be avoided to prevent the allergic results. Another example is benzocaine, which is the chemical widely used in topical antibiotics such as Neosporin or sunscreens with a derivative of benzocaine. Several metals can also be sensitizers, such as nickel, chromates, mercury, gold, platinum, and metallic compounds. Most of these metals illicit a contact dermatitis in those already sensitized. Another type of sensitizer, in addition to chemicals, is a photosensitizer. This is a substance that can illicit an allergic reaction with exposure to the sun. This occurs when the sensitizer substance triggers the body to incur itchy red rashes on the skin and sometimes hives or blisters. Sensitizers can include lotions or perfumes applied to the skin. This is very different than a sunburn. Multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) occur when there is an adverse reaction to low levels of several chemicals. There is controversy concerning whether MCS is considered to be an illness. There is insufficient scientific evidence to establish a relationship between the causes and symptoms from MCS (OSHA 2018). Another type of reaction is called cross-reactivity or cross sensitization. For instance, exposure to the poison ivy plant can also result in an allergic reaction to poison oak and other members of that plant family. This includes the oil in cashews, the peel of the mango and its leaves, or the gingko tree fruit. The smoke from burning these plants can incur a severe airborne dermatitis on exposed skin. Common household and garden plants can also be sensitizers to other plants. For instance, many of the bulb plants in the garden, such as tulips, or others, such as geraniums and poinsettias, can be sensitizers. Additionally, ragweeds and birch pollen can cross sensitize humans to apples, carrots, and celery. This sensitization occurs among chemicals with a similar structure to which the person was not exposed, but they can become chemicals that the body will react to as sensitizers. There are various types of asthma, but one specific type has been labeled occupational asthma. This is an asthma caused by a substance in the workplace that is a sensitizer for the employee. Once the employee becomes sensitized, very low

570

Sierra Club

exposures induce an asthma reaction. The list of sensitizers for occupational asthma increase annually. Chemicals called diisocyanates used to produce polyurethane foam and in urethane spray paints and adhesives are known sensitizers for occupational asthma. However, the list of sensitizers in the workplace is varied. For instance, latex in schools and laboratories is a sensitizer as well as wood dust from certain trees, biocides in health-care offices, acrylics used in dental and cosmetic professions, and chemicals used in printing and carpeting. The treatment for those people sensitized to certain substances is to avoid the triggering substance. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); Formaldehyde (CH2O); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2018. “Federal Hazardous Substances Act Requirements.” Accessed October 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cpsc​.­gov​/ ­Business​ --­Manufacturing​/ ­Business​-­Education​/ ­Business​- ­Guidance​/ ­FHSA​-­Requirements. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2018. “Multiple Chemical Sensitivities.” Accessed October 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​ /­multiplechemicalsensitivities​/­index​.­html. Tarlo, Susan, and Catherine Lemiere. 2014. “Occupational Asthma.” New England Journal of Medicine 370: 640–649.

Sierra Club Founded in 1892 by the Scottish-born American John Muir, the Sierra Club is an environmental organization in United States that seeks to protect the nation’s lands, waters, air, and wildlife and to get people outside and more connected with the natural world. The Sierra Club has over three million members and supporters, which makes it the nation’s largest, and among the most influential, environmental organizations. In the late nineteenth century, John Muir, the author of several articles and books concerning nature, drew attention to the devastation of mountain meadows and forests by sheep and cattle. Through the efforts of Muir and Century magazine associate editor Robert Underwood Johnson, Congress created Yosemite National Park in 1890. Johnson and others suggested to Muir that an association be formed to protect the newly created park. In 1892, Muir and a number of his supporters founded the Sierra Club. One of the club’s most dramatic early campaigns was to prevent the damming of Hetch Hetchy valley within the park to provide water to the rapidly growing city of San Francisco. In 1913, the battle was lost, and Muir died the next year, having served as the Sierra Club’s president until his death. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the Sierra Club sponsored several outings, and it encouraged and developed new and more sophisticated techniques for wilderness recreation. After the World War II, as wilderness recreation became increasingly popular, the club became more concerned with federal management of wildlands. Members of the club were philosophically divided



Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) 571

between those who wanted to encourage the public’s access to wilderness areas and those who sought to limit the public’s impact. In 1951, the board of directors, under the leadership of David Brower, recommended that the Sierra Club’s statement of purpose be revised from “explore, enjoy and render accessible  .  .  .” to “explore, enjoy and preserve the Sierra Nevada and other scenic resources of the United States.” Soon after, this change was approved by the membership. In the second half of the twentieth century, the Sierra Club became far more complex and diversified in its advocacy efforts. The club operates as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, which allows it to engage in legislative lobbying and political advocacy to a much greater extent than most other groups. The Sierra Club Foundation (SCF), which operates as an independent 501(c)(3), is the fiscal sponsor of the Sierra Club’s charitable environmental programs. The Sierra Club advocates for strong environmental laws and candidates at the municipal, state, and federal levels. The club’s policies and direction are largely controlled by the national organization and its twelve-member executive team, although the sixty-four local chapters do have some policy discretion within the chapters. At the national level, the Sierra Club has three priority initiatives. The first is the Dirty Fuels initiative, where through legal action, legislative advocacy, public education campaigns, media outreach, and on-the-ground organizing the club works against the construction of what it terms the “dirty fossil fuel infrastructure.” The second is the Protecting Lands, Wildlife, and Waters initiative, wherein the club has engaged in regional campaigns to ameliorate the effects of climate change and to protect against habitat loss in those regions. The third is the Outdoors for All initiative, in which the club has continued with its original mission of getting people outside and has, through several community outreach programs, broadened its attempts to get children, communities of color, low-income families, and military veterans connected with the outdoors. Robert L. Perry See also: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF); Environmental Movement (1970s); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Sierra Club. 2018a. “History: Origins and Early Outings.” Accessed June 25, 2018. ­http://​ ­vault​.­sierraclub​.­org​/ ­history​/­origins​/­default​.­aspx. Sierra Club. 2018b. “John Muir.” Accessed June 25, 2018. ­https://​­vault​.­sierraclub​.­org​/­john​ _muir​_exhibit​/­pdf​/­john​_muir​_sierra​_club​_fact​_sheet​.­pdf. Sierra Club Foundation. 2018. “What Is the Relationship between Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation?” Accessed June 25, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­sierraclubfoundation​.­org​ /­faq.

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) is a nonprofit professional society composed of industry leaders, academe, and government. It began in 1980 with 230 members and has grown to over six thousand that are

572

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)

located in more than one hundred countries. The organization has established offices around the globe in Europe, Asia/Pacific, Latin America, and Africa. Memberships are segmented into these major geographical units. There are also many local, regional, and branch chapters within each country. SETAC has two main administrative offices located in Pensacola, Florida, and Brussels, Belgium. The organizational bylaws have maintained equal representation among the three sectors SETAC serves, which are business, academe, and government. Its focus is branded as “environmental quality through science.” SETAC’s membership represents some of the largest chemical companies in the United States, such as DowDuPont (now Dow and Dupont), Bayer (which includes Monsanto), Eastman, FMC, and Chevron, as well as some universities, such as Towson University, Baylor University, and Texas Tech University, among others. The major international chemical corporations and businesses along with many governments and universities are represented through its different memberships dispersed into its organizational geographical units. “SETAC’s mission is to support the development of principles and practices for protection, enhancement, and management of sustainable environmental quality and ecosystem integrity” (SETAC 2017b). The organization supports scientific research related to human health and environmental contaminants. SETAC provides a number of professional activities for its members, such as scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journals for the publication of research. It hosts international annual meetings focused on scientific research on environmental-oriented issues. These conferences are conducted across the regions and are well known in the profession and industry. In 1980, the organization began publishing the journal titled Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and in 2005, it started publishing the journal titled Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. It has also published more than one hundred books, which include scientific studies and reports from workshops and conferences. In 2002, SETAC created what it calls the SETAC World Council. The council includes fifteen representatives whose focus is to promote international communication of environmental issues through research and education. The global executive director of the SETAC World Council was established in 2006 to support the work of the different geographical units with a focus on scientific research. SETAC also provides a variety of professional development and training opportunities for its members. It has created a SETAC Live Learning Center of training courses online and through webinars, which includes a sampling of research presentations from the annual meetings. There are short courses, professional training seminars, and summer school training that are available through the organization. It also posts employment positions and provides a network for professionals in this area. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chevron Phillips Chemical Company and Chevron Corporation; DowDuPont, Inc.; Eastman Chemical Company; Monsanto Company.

Further Reading

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 2017a. “History of SETAC.” Accessed October 14, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­setac​.­org​/?­page​= ​­History.



Soil Contamination 573

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 2017b. “SETAC’s Mission.” Accessed October 14, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­setac​.­org​/­page​/ ­Mission.

Soil Contamination When the environment is polluted, it can involve air, water, or land venues. Land contamination usually involves pollution of the soil, which is rarely contained because of the potential of migration, and so it impacts the surrounding area. The sources of contamination include accidents, spills, terrorism, natural disasters, and sometimes intentional releases. The sites that have significant contamination often become a priority for remediation, particularly if their ownership is either abandoned or no longer operating the facility. These sites can be listed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) for remediation to protect human health and the environment as part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). Soil contamination that is a result of an ongoing operational facility is generally addressed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION There are many different types of soil contamination. Many industries contribute to soil contamination through mining, manufacturing, leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), illegal dumping, and waste disposal. Other unique sources of soil contamination include national defense sites and the national laboratories involved with weapons production, pesticide and fertilizer use, and urban runoff of various pollutants into the soil associated with brownfield sites in cities. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and other natural disasters are also often overlooked sources of soil contamination. Unfortunately, there is no national database or tracking of soil contamination, which is partially explained by the variety of locations and sources that contribute to these types of pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does record the remediation actions that take place across the nation. The data shows that remediation efforts from Superfund, RCRA, and brownfield sites impact thousands of communities. In fact, the Office of Land and Emergency Management at EPA reports that approximately 188 million people live within three miles of one of these sites, which computes to 59 percent of the population, including 60 percent of all children under the age of five years old (EPA 2018). These data are not exclusive to soil contamination; however, soil contamination is usually involved in many of these sites. The EPA points out that 40 percent of U.S. lands are managed by public agencies. It also reports that it is overseeing approximately 640,00 to 1.3 million facilities to prevent the release of contaminants into the environment (EPA 2018). TYPES OF COMMON SOIL CONTAMINANTS Soils that have been contaminated can provide a substrate for a pollutant. Contaminants include heavy metals, organic chemicals, polychlorinated biphenyls

574

Soil Contamination

(PCBs), and fuels from UST leaks. These chemicals come from industrial uses. Heavy metals such as lead, mercury, arsenic, nickel, zinc, copper, chromium, and others can bind to the soil and remain there for a long period of time. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are also found as a soil pollutant. Agricultural uses of chemicals also contaminate soils. Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers all impact the soil. These chemicals remain in the soil and migrate into the groundwater and surface water. Many of these chemicals do not decompose in nature and will be taken up by wildlife in the ecosystem. Some of the most deadly soil contamination comes from weapons production and toxics associated with war agents. These can include radioactive materials, biological agents such as anthrax, or the variety of gases used in war. Some of the most long-lasting chemicals are the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that are used in agriculture, which do not easily decompose. These include PCBs, PAHs, and other chemicals that will remain in the soil. Other chemicals, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), can be readily extracted from soil contamination using a variety of vacuum techniques. SOIL CONTAMINATION AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL At the international level, soil contamination is one of the main threats impacting the planet. As in the United States, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2018) reports that the majority of the chemicals used in industrial activities, agrochemicals, petroleum-related products, and wastewater are major contributors to soil contamination. The result of soil contamination worldwide causes concern for food security, particularly in developing countries that have limited wastewater treatment or filtration technologies. The FAO (2018) classifies soil contamination into diffuse versus point pollution. Point pollution is from a source that is easily identified, whereas diffuse pollution refers to the comingling of contamination from a variety of sources. This includes pollution that can be transported from air-soil-water systems. The application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and another agrochemicals contributes to runoff that pollutes soils from a comingling of chemicals away from the source of application. Many chemicals come from personal care products, municipal wastewater, and detergents that impact the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. According to a European Commission (2013) report, scientists generally understand and focus policies on water and air without much attention to soil contamination. The most frequent contaminants of soil in Europe are heavy metals and mineral oil, with approximately three million sites impacted. In addition, of these sites, 250,000 need urgent remediation (European Commission 2013, 3–4). As in the United States, there is not a central database with information on soil contamination. The contamination includes mercury, lead, pesticides, arsenic, asbestos, benzene, dioxin, nickel, zine, copper, chromium, and cadmium. There are reports that at least 16 percent of China’s soil has been contaminated (Stanway 2019). The Ministry of Environmental Protection reported on a soil survey that included samples taken from across 6.3 million square kilometers of land, which is approximately two-thirds of the land area of the country. The results



SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP) 575

showed that 82.8 percent of the contaminated samples contained inorganic pollutants and heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury, arsenic, chromium and lead. This is particularly concerning for the contamination of one of China’s primary staples of rice, which is easily exposed to soil contamination. One-sixth of China’s arable land is reported to suffer from soil pollution (Wong 2013). The United Nations has identified December 5 as World Soil Day. The international Union of Soil Sciences established this date in 2002 for recognition of the importance of maintaining our soil free of pollution, as over 95 percent of our food comes from soil worldwide; a third of our global soils are degraded (FAO 2018). In 2013, the United Nation adopted this day to bring attention to this issue. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976); Vapor Vacuum Extraction of VOCs; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

European Commission. 2013. “Brownfield Regeneration.” Science for Environment Policy 39 (May). Accessed June 25, 2020. ­https://​­ec​.­europa​.­eu​/­environment​/­integration​ /­research​/­newsalert​/­pdf​/­39si​_en​.­pdf Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2018. Soil Pollution—A Hidden Reality. Rome: United Nations. Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol. 2013. Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report: Soil Contamination: Impacts on Human Health. Report produced for the European Commission DG Environment, September 2013. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­ec​.­europa​.­eu​/­environment​/­integration​ /­research​/­newsalert​/­pdf​/­IR5​_en​.­pdf. Stanway, David. 2019. “16% of China’s Soil Is Polluted.” Scientific American and Reuters, April 17, 2014. Accessed April 12, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­scientificamerican​.­com​/­article​ /­16​-­of​-­chinas​-­soil​-­is​-­polluted. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Contaminated Land—What Are the Trends in Contaminated Land and Their Effects on Human Health and the Environment?” September 4, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­report​-­environment​/­contaminated​-­land. Wong, Edward. 2013. “Pollution Rising, Chinese Fear for Their Soil and Food.” New York Times, December 30, 2013. Accessed April 12, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​ /­2 013​/­12​/ ­31​/ ­world​/­a sia​/­good​- ­e arth​- ­n o​- ­m ore​- ­s oil​- ­p ollution​- ­plagues​- ­c hinese​ -­countryside​.­html.

SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP) The SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP) is a grassroots nonprofit organization that was created in 1980 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, primarily by several young Hispanic activists. It focuses on increasing citizen empowerment in local issues and is committed to building leadership skills in low-income communities. Its early work started with social and economic issues associated with the Southwest region of the United States. Today, it has increased its scope to include racial and gender equality as well as social and economic justice across local communities throughout the United States and in developing countries. The organization works globally with

576

State Emergency Responders

partners and participates in the World Social Forum to support issues across nations on social and economic justice. SWOP’s principles are that all families have the right to healthy, sustainable environments in which to live, work, and play. This is very much aligned with the environmental justice (EJ) movement, whose motto is focused on providing a healthy environment “where we live, work and play.” SWOP uses a variety of techniques in its campaigns. These include direct grassroots organizing, education awareness, building community leaders, and civic engagement strategies, including promoting voting in elections. In 1990, SWOP sent a now famous letter to the top ten largest environmental interest groups, called the “Group of Ten Letter,” to express concerns about the exclusion of low-income and minority groups from the mainstream decision-making on environmental issues. This letter assisted in the creation of the EJ movement that led to Executive Order 12898 of 1994, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This executive order launched what is called the environmental justice policy that protects against disproportionate impacts from environmental actions by the federal government to low-income and minority populations in the United States. Some of the early campaigns that SWOP worked on included opposing the Intel Corporation facility in New Mexico, reclaiming water rights, defending against nuclear waste contamination, supporting air quality, and protesting corporate water and tax benefits for industry. Recently, the NM Con Mujeres was created to address poverty and violence among women. This group within SWOP focuses on the link between gender justice and climate justice. Today, SWOP maintains a paid staff of less than ten people, and its headquarters remains in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It has also been active on issues surrounding immigration policies. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Executive Order 12898 (1994).

Further Reading

Shabecoff, Philip. 1990. “Environmental Groups Told They Are Racists in Hiring.” New York Times, February 1, 1990. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​ /­1990​/­02​/­01​/­us​/­environmental​-­groups​-­told​-­they​-­are​-­racists​-­in​-­hiring​.­html. SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP). 1990. “Group of Ten Letter.” Letter from the SouthWest Organizing Project to President Jay Hair of the National Wildlife Federation, March 16, 1990. Accessed September 13, 2017. ­http://​­w ww​.­ejnet​.­org​/­ej​ /­swop​.­pdf. SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP). 2017. “SWOP Timeline.” Accessed September 13, 2017. ­https://​­w ww​.­swop​.­net​/­timeline.

State Emergency Responders First responders have many of the most dangerous jobs, including firefighters, police officers, emergency medical services, and company emergency response team members, and their work often brings them in contact with hazardous chemicals, among other dangers. For instance, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of



State Emergency Responders 577

September 11, 2001, researchers estimated that the dust that coated the Ground Zero recovery site contained a hazardous mixture of airborne particles, including aluminum, asbestos, glass, and remnants of burned jet fuel. The exposure to these airborne particles has left those emergency responders with lung disease, asthma, and cancer (Hansen 2017). In a chemical hazmat (hazardous materials) incident, the potential severity of the incident often depends on the decisions made and actions taken by first responders in the first few minutes—something that is even truer with mass casualty incidents resulting from mass exposure. In recent years, this urgency has become more acute with concerns related to chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The critical period immediately following hazmat incidents is often termed the “Golden First Minutes” (HHS 2019). The most common hazardous materials that first responders encounter are carbon dioxide (which has been particularly problematic for firefighters) and chlorine—a highly reactive and volatile substance, particularly when in the presence of heat, that is considered to be among the most dangerous of hazardous materials. Another common chemical a responder can encounter is Chlorine, which is classified as both a toxic inhalation hazard (TIH) and a poison inhalation hazard (PIH). Additional items responders frequently have to handle include fireworks and gasoline, which can contain approximately 150 different chemicals, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. Sulfuric acid is a common toxic chemical for responders, which is a highly corrosive substance that is widely used in the production of phosphate fertilizers, metal processing, lead-based batteries, fiber production, and chemical manufacturing (including paints, pigments, dyes, and synthetic detergents). They also often respond to emergency situation that involves propylene, which is a flammable gas used as a crucial product in the petrochemical, packaging, and plastics industries that poses a major fire risk, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), whose mixture of hydrocarbon gases poses a major fire risk (Pike 2018). In one study of chemical incidents among injured first responders, researchers found that the percentage of responders among all injured people in chemical incidents has not changed much over the years. Firefighters were the most frequently injured group of responders, followed by police officers. In terms of the chemical incidents affecting first responders, respiratory system problems were the most often reported injury, and respiratory irritants, ammonia, methamphetamine-related chemicals, and carbon monoxide were the chemicals most often associated with injuries. Most of the incidents with responder injuries were caused by human error or equipment failure. For police officers’ injuries, exposure to ammonia and methamphetamine-related chemicals was most common. Few responders received basic awareness-level hazardous material training (Melnikova et al. 2018). With the passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) in 1986, industries have been required to report on the storage, use, and release of hazardous substances to federal, state, and local governments. The act requires all state and local governments, as well as Indian tribes, to use this information to help communities and emergency responders to prepare for potential risks. The governor of each state is required to designate a State Emergency Response

578

State Public Health Agencies

Commission (SERC) that is responsible for implementing EPCRA provisions within his or her state (EPA n.d.). A list of each state’s SERC contacts can be found at ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­epcra​/­state​-­emergency​-­response​-­commissions​-­contacts. Robert L. Perry See also: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Workplace and Occupational Exposure.

Further Reading

Hansen, Matt. 2017. “9/11 Responders Who Became Ill from Toxic Exposure Now Have a Monument to Their Heroism.” Los Angeles Times, September 10, 2017. Accessed October 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­latimes​.­com​/­nation​/­la​-­na​-­new​-­york​-­9​-­11​-­responders​ -­20170910​-­story​.­html. Melnikova, Natalia, Jennifer Wu, Alice Yang, and Maureen Orr. 2018. “Acute Chemical Incidents with Injured First Responders, 2002–2012.” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 12(2): 211–221. Pike, Steven. 2018. “What Are the Most Common HazMat Threats for First Responders?” CBRN/HazMat Training Blog, October 8, 2018. Accessed October 30, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­argonelectronics​.­com ​/ ­blog​/­what​-­are​-­the​-­most​-­common​-­hazmat​-­threats​-­for​ -­first​-­responders. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2019. “The Golden First Minutes—Initial Response to a Chemical Hazardous Materials Incident.” Accessed October 30, 2019. ­https://​­chemm​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­detailedinfo​.­htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. “Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).” Accessed October 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​ .­gov​/­epcra.

State Public Health Agencies The public health system in the United States has been described as being ill prepared, in disarray, and underfunded to meet the needs of the population, according to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS 2003). Although there exist some federal agencies (particularly the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]) that deal with public health, traditionally, states have the primary responsibility for providing such services. Each of the states (along with Washington, DC, and U.S. territories) has its own health agency, and in most states, these operate as independent agencies; in other states, they may operate as an umbrella agency and include functions such as social services, long-term care, and insurance regulation (Salinsky 2010). Typically, state agencies have a high degree of collaboration with local health departments in their respective states. Some efforts have been made on the part of the federal government, primarily through federal grant restrictions, to make the states’ public health programs more consistent; however, such requirements do not describe the overall scope and organization of these state agencies. Thus, there remains a fragmented governmental public health infrastructure throughout the United States, meaning that the provision of certain health services across the states can vary greatly (Salinsky 2010).



State Public Health Agencies 579

The executive level of leadership across the state agencies varies. Some states require the state’s official health executive to hold a license to practice medicine; other states do not. Similarly, most state-level public health staffs have a state-level board of health, but others do not, according NAS (2003). In 2001, the National Conference of State Legislatures conducted a survey to ascertain the extent of the problem. Results of the survey revealed that most of the problem relates to revenue shortfalls. For many states, this means that the Medicaid shortfalls have occurred at the same time that these states have also experienced budget shortfalls in public education and corrections (NAS 2003). Starting in 1998, and largely under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were greater efforts on the part of the national government to assist state and local public health agencies in assessing and improving their public health systems. The CDC, along with other health agencies, developed the National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS) to identify areas for system improvement. In regard to state public health agencies, the State Public Health System Assessment is primarily administered by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO 2019). By 2019, ASTHO had identified several areas of concern in state public health agencies. One common problem among several states was the impact of rural hospitals. Between 2010 and 2019, 113 rural hospitals closed, many of which were considered essential to their communities (ASTHO 2019). A very recent problem for state public health agencies has been that of severe pulmonary illness connected to vaping. Several states have reported cases of severe acute pulmonary disease requiring hospitalization and respiratory support among previously healthy adults. Although no deaths have occurred owing to vaping, many patients have developed severe, progressive lung disease requiring ongoing mechanical breathing assistance. The CDC’s environmental health lab, the FDA’s forensics lab, and several states are trying to identify the cause of the illnesses related to vaping (Plescia 2019). Robert L. Perry Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Further Reading

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO). 2019. ASTHOExperts Blog. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­astho​.­org​/­default​.­aspx. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2003. Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? Educating Public Health Professionals for the 21st Century. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Educating Public Health Professionals for the 21st Century. Edited by Kristine Gebbie, Linda Rosenstock, and Lyla M. Hernandez. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Accessed August 10, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​ .­gov​/ ­books​/ ­NBK221185​/. Plescia, Marcus. 2019. “Severe Pulmonary Illness Connected to Vaping.” ASTHO Experts Blog. August 22, 2019. Accessed August 29, 2019. h­ ttps://​­www​.­astho​.­org​ /­StatePublicHealth​/­Severe​-­Pulmonary​-­Illness​- ­Connected​-­to​-­Vaping​/­08​-­22​-­19.

580

Steingraber, Sandra

Salinsky, Eileen. 2010. Governmental Public Health: An Overview of State and Local Public Health Agencies. Background Paper No. 77. Washington, DC: National Health Policy Forum. Accessed August 10, 2019. ­www​.­nhpf​.­org​/­library​/­details​.­cfm​/­2814.

Steingraber, Sandra(1959–) Sandra Steingraber is an environmental activist concerned about the dangers of cancer and, more recently, fracking for natural gas because of its risks to human health and the environment. She was on the faculty at Cornell University and is currently a distinguished visiting scholar at Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York. She has taught biology at Columbia College, Chicago; held visiting fellowships at the University of Illinois, Radcliffe/Harvard, and Northeastern University; and served on President Clinton’s National Action Plan on Breast Cancer. Steingraber was born in Tazewell County, Illinois, in 1959. Her mother was a microbiologist and her father a community college professor. Her interests in organic foods, farming, and sustainable practices were part of her childhood. Steingraber developed bladder cancer in young adulthood; in several of her books, she describes an apparent cancer cluster in her hometown and within her family. After her cancer went into remission, Steingraber received her undergraduate degree in biology from Illinois Wesleyan University, a master’s degree in English from Illinois State University, and her doctorate in biological sciences from the University of Michigan. She has written several books and many articles on the link between environmental toxics and cancer. She is a regular columnist for Orion Magazine, and her books include Post-Diagnosis (1995), a volume of poetry, and Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood (2003). Her more well-known books are Living Downstream: An Ecologist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment (1997; 2010) and Raising Elijah: Protecting Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis (2011). In Living Downstream, Steingraber presents cancer prevention as a human rights issue. She was the first to link toxic releases information with data from cancer registries in the United States. This work was recognized internationally and across the United States as an important contribution to the understanding of the causes of cancer. In 2010, her book Living Downstream was released as a second edition and made into a film by the People’s Picture Company of Toronto. In the film, she travels across North America, working to expose the environmental links to cancer. Steingraber blends observations of industrial and agricultural chemicals with research from medical sources to assess the relationship between environmental toxics and cancer. She highlights the problem with public policy, which is focused on studies of genetic predisposition to cancer versus environmental causes. Her point made in the book is that while little can be done to change our genetic inheritance, human exposure to environmental carcinogens is controllable. She was the recipient of the biennial Rachel Carson Leadership Award and the Jenifer Altman Foundation’s Award for “the inspiring and poetic use of science to elucidate the causes of cancer” (Sandra Steingraber 2017). Steingraber received a Hero Award from the Breast Cancer Fund and the Environmental Health Champion Award from Physicians for Social Responsibility.



Steingraber, Sandra 581

In 2011, Steingraber received the prestigious 17th Annual Heinz Foundation Award in recognition of her work on environmental toxics. The award included $100,000, which she donated to the organization she cofounded, New Yorkers against Fracking. Steingraber is also cofounder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York and serves as science adviser to Americans against Fracking. Steingraber has lectured internationally on the topic of human health and environmental toxics. She has testified in the European Parliament, at the European Commission, and to the President’s Cancer Panel, and she has participated in briefings to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United Nations. Unfractured is her most recent film. It highlights the opposition to fracking in New York and focuses on Steingraber’s personal dedication to exposing the harms from fracking. In it, she visits antifracking activists in Romania, where she is followed and pepper-sprayed by police. Over the last few years, Steingraber has been active in making her issues known through what she has labeled “civil disobedience.” On March 18, 2013, Steingraber was arrested along with nine other protesters for blocking the entrance to Inergy, a natural gas facility near Ithaca, to protest the industrialization of the Finger Lakes. After refusing to pay a fine, Steingraber served ten days in the Chemung County Jail in the city of Elmira. On October 29, 2014, Steingraber was arrested again with nine other protestors at the gates of Crestwood Midstream (formerly Inergy) for trespassing, blocking a chemical truck, and disorderly conduct. She served eight days in the Chemung County Jail. Steingraber lives in Trumansburg, New York, with her husband, Jeff de Castro, and their two children. She recently hosted a panel of climate activists at Ithaca College to present on the intersections of climate change and social issues. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Endocrine Disruptors; Natural Gas.

Further Reading

Living Downstream. n.d. “About Sandra.” People’s Picture Company (PPC). Accessed August 24, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­livingdownstream​.­com​/­about​_sandra. McElroy, Meaghan. 2017. “Sandra Steingraber Hosts Panel Discussion for Sustainability Week.” Ithacan, April 19, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​­theithacan​.­org​ /­news​/­sandra​-­steingraber​-­hosts​-­panel​-­discussion​-­for​-­sustainability​-­week. Sandra Steingraber. 2017. “Bio.” Accessed August 24, 2017. ­http://​­steingraber​.­com​/ ­bio. ​“Sandra Steingraber.” n.d. Orion Magazine. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​ ­orionmagazine​.­org​/­contributor​/­sandra​-­steingraber. Steingraber, Sandra. 2014. “Why I Am in Jail.” EcoWatch, November 21, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­ecowatch​.­com​/­sandra​-­steingraber​-­why​-­i​-­am​-­in​-­jail​ -­1881976173​.­html. Unfractured. n.d. Unfractured website for Unfractured documentary. Accessed August 24, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­unfractured​.­com​/#­intro.

Superfund (see Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)

T Tar Tar is a black syrup-like viscous liquid that is a by-product of the coking of coal for the steel and illuminating gas industries. Tar is known by different names, including coal tar, liquid tars, coal-tar pitch, coal-tar creosote, and coal-tar volatiles. Coal tar is often used as a fuel in the steel industry in open-hearth and blast furnaces because of its availability, low sulfur content, and high heating value. The majority of crude coal tars produced in the United States are distilled into refined chemicals and bulk products such as creosote and coal-tar pitch. Certain preparations of coal tar have long been used by patients to treat various skin conditions (such as psoriasis and seborrheic dermatitis). In medicinal form, coal tar belongs to a class of drugs known as keratoplastics. More frequently, coal-tar pitch is used as a base for coatings and paint, in roofing and paving, and as a binder in some types of asphalt products. The chemical composition of coal-tar pitch is complex and variable, with the number of compounds estimated in the thousands. Approximately 80 percent of the total carbon present in coal tars exists in aromatic form. These volatile fumes are emitted when coal tar, coal-tar pitch, or their products are heated. “They contain lower molecular-weight polycyclic hydrocarbons such as naphthalene, fluorene, anthracene, acridine, and phenanthrene, and higher molecular-weight polycyclic hydrocarbons, including known carcinogens such as benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(j)fluoranthrene, chrysene, and dibenz(a,b)anthracene” (NIH 2018). The most common ways that humans are exposed to coal tars and coal-tar products are inhalation, ingestion, and absorption through the skin. Coal tar is neurotoxic, and occupational exposure to the toxic fumes from these products, and particularly from asphalt used in road paving, roofing, siding, and concrete work, has been associated with an increased risk of skin cancer as well as other types of cancer, including lung, bladder, kidney, and digestive tract cancer. The acute effects of exposure to asphalt fumes include headache, skin rash, fatigue, reduced appetite, throat and eye irritation, and cough, and chronic exposure to coal tar has also been associated with cancer of the eyes; oral cavity effects, including periodontal disease and cavities; and other effects, including dermatitis, melanosis, and photosensitization dermatitis (NIH 2018). Thousands of workers in road-paving and roofing operations are potentially exposed to asphalt fumes, but exposures vary considerably between different types of asphalt work (i.e., roofing versus paving) and different jobs (i.e., kettle operator versus paver operator). Asphalt fume exposure meets several of the criteria for designation as an

584

Tetrachloroethylene (Perc)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration priority (OSHA n.d.). Exposures to coal tar and coal-tar pitch are regulated under the OSHA Air Contaminants Standard for general industry, shipyard employment, and the construction industry. In addition to the potential health risks that coal tar poses to humans, wildlife is also susceptible. Studies using multiple species exposed to coal-tar aerosols reported tumors of the skin, lung, liver, kidney, and spleen. Two studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were conducted to address a concern that rainfall runoff occurring within hours or days of coal-tar-based sealant application may be toxic to fish and other organisms in streams. Pavement sealants that contain coal tar have extremely high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The studies found coal-tar-based sealants are indeed toxic to aquatic life in that they damage DNA and impair the ability of the cells to repair DNA damage. Robert L. Perry See also: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

National Cancer Institute. 2015. “Coal Tar and Coal-Tar Pitch.” Accessed July 17, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­cancer​.­gov​/­about​-­cancer​/­causes​-­prevention​/­risk​/­substances​/­coal​-­tar. National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2018. “Coal Tar.” Toxicology Data Network. Accessed July 17, 2018. ­https://​­toxnet​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­cgi​-­bin​/­sis​/­search​/­a​?­dbs+­hsdb:@term+@ DOCNO+5050. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Asphalt Fumes.” Accessed July 17, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­archive​/­oshinfo​/­priorities​/­asphalt​.­html. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. “Coal-Tar-Sealant Runoff Causes Toxicity and DNA Damage.” Accessed July 17, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­usgs​.­gov​/­news​/­coal​-­tar​-­sealant​ -­r unoff​-­causes​-­toxicity​-­and​-­dna​-­damage.

Tetrachloroethylene (Perc) Tetrachloroethylene (perc) is also called perchloroethylene and is sometimes abbreviated as PCE. It is a sweet-smelling, colorless liquid that is volatile, nonflammable, not water soluble, and highly stable, and it can emit toxic fumes when exposed to sunlight or fire. This industrial chemical is used as a cooling liquid in electrical transformers and as an industrial solvent that is widely used to degrease machinery and metals, particularly in the automotive and metalworking industries. In this application, it is usually mixed with other chlorocarbons. Perc appears in a few consumer products, including paint strippers and spot removers, but its main use is as a cleaning solvent in dry cleaning and textile processing and in the manufacture of fluorocarbons. Exposure to perc irritates the upper respiratory tract and eyes, causes neurological effects, and damages the kidneys and liver. It is a probable carcinogen. Studies of dry cleaning workers exposed to tetrachloroethylene have shown increased rates for several types of cancer, specifically bladder cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Studies also show exposure may increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.



Three Mile Island Accident 585

Because of its mobility in groundwater and tendency to migrate under water table, remediation of perc in the environment has focused on chemical treatment or bioremediation. Perc’s main health risk is through inhalation and dermal exposure from soil and air, not from wearing clothes cleaned with i­t​.­The dry cleaning industry has improved the control of perc in recent years, and modern dry cleaning equipment involves much lower exposures than older equipment. Many dry cleaning employers have found that equipment design, preventive maintenance, control of equipment leaks, proper ventilation, and good work practices can reduce perc exposure for their workers. According to a recent survey of the dry cleaning industry, it is anticipated that within a few years most dry cleaners will not be using perc (Beggs 2014). There is a complete phaseout of perc machines in dry cleaners located in residential buildings by 2020. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Montreal Protocol; Ozone Hole.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Tetrachloroethylene (PERC).” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed August 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­48. Beggs, Bruce. 2014. “Survey: Many Dry Cleaners Give Perc Another Ten Years or Less as Solvent Option.” American Dry Cleaners, October 8, 2014. Accessed August 19, 2017. ­https://​­americandrycleaner​.­com​/­articles​/­survey​-­many​-­dry​-­cleaners​-­give​ -­perc​-­another​-­10​-­years​-­or​-­less​-­solvent​-­option. Codrea-Rado, Anna. 2016. “Can Dry Cleaning Give You Cancer? The Hidden Hazards of Delicates.” The Guardian, November 18, 2016. Accessed August 19, 2017. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­t heguardian​.­c om​/ ­l ifeandstyle​/­2016​/­n ov​/­18​/­d ry​- ­cleaning​- ­t oxic​- ­p rocess​ -­carcinogen​-­cancer. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Tetrachloroethylene, CID=31373.” PubChem Database. Accessed August 19, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​ .­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­compound​/­31373. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2005. “Reducing Worker Exposure to Perchloroethylene (PERC) in Dry Cleaning.” U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed August 19, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­dsg​/­g uidance​/­perc​.­html.

Three Mile Island Accident(1979) Three Mile Island is an island in the Susquehanna River about ten miles southeast of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. It is the site of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, which on March 28, 1979, suffered a partial core meltdown—the most serious nuclear power plant accident in U.S. history. In the wake of the accident, even as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tightened its regulatory oversight, public attitudes toward nuclear power remained largely negative. The Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI) consisted of two pressurized water reactors, with each one having two large steam generators and two 370-foot cooling towers, which were part of the system that condensed the steam after it has passed through the turbines to generate electricity. The Metropolitan Edison

586

Three Mile Island Accident

Company (MetEd) was licensed to operate the facility, a subsidiary of General Public Utilities, Inc., of New Jersey. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA 2001), Unit 1 at TMI was licensed for operation in 1974, at a net capacity of 819 MWe (megawatts electric); Unit 2 was licensed in February 1978 and went into commercial operation in December 1978 (NRC 1979). It had a net capacity of 880 MWe. At about 4:00 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, March 28, 1979, the TMI-2 reactor was operating at 97 percent power. A relatively minor malfunction occurred (either a mechanical or electrical failure) in the secondary cooling circuit that prevented the main feedwater pumps from sending water to the steam generators that remove heat from the reactor core. There was an automatic shutdown, or “scram,” of the plant’s turbine generator in response to the increased coolant pressure. The shutdown took about one second (WNA 2001; NRC 2018; NRC 1979). Within eight seconds of the shutdown, pressure within the reactor’s primary cooling system increased to the point where the pilot-operated relief valve (PORV) opened, just as it was designed to do. The primary coolant pressure dropped back to the point where the relief valve should have closed, which was about ten seconds later. However, the valve did not close; it was stuck open. Because it was stuck open, the primary cooling system’s pressure did not level off but continued to decrease. Operators in the control room believed that the relief valve had closed because instruments indicated that it had. Under “normal” shutdown situations, when the pressure of the coolant decreases, so does its boiling point. The danger of the coolant turning to steam then increases. Because steam cannot carry off decay heat (i.e., heat that is still present after the reactor shuts down), this increases the possibility of the primary system heating up to dangerous levels. In this particular situation, when the pressure had decreased to about 75 percent of normal, an emergency core cooling system (ECCS) automatically came on, causing high-pressure injection pumps to inject cold water into the reactor system. Then, as water and steam escaped through the relief valve, cooling water surged into the pressurizer, raising the water level in it. The operators feared that the filled pressurizer would lose the bubble of steam normally maintained in it. Therefore, they shut off one of the ECCS pumps and throttled back the flow on another. Steam then formed in the reactor’s primary cooling system. The pumping of steam and water caused the reactor cooling pumps to vibrate, so the operators shut down two of them. About a half-hour later, the operators shut down the other two for the same reason, which cut off all coolant flow to the reactor core. Thus, without the coolant pumps circulating water and the system not having emergency cooling water, the reactor’s coolant water boiled away, which meant the reactor’s fuel core was uncovered and became even hotter. The fuel rods had become damaged to the point that they released radioactive material into the cooling water. By 6:00 a.m., there was evidence from the radiation alarms that there was radioactive gas in the containment. Operators were able to seal the release valve when a block valve was put on the pressurizer. This action stopped the loss of coolant water, but superheated steam and gases still flowed through the core cooling system. At some time just before 7:00 a.m., utility officials declared a site



Three Mile Island Accident 587

emergency, and by 7:30 a.m., a general emergency was declared by the TMI station manager, signifying the potential for “serious radiological consequences” for public health and safety (WNA 2001; NRC 2018; NRC 1979). Sometime around 8:00 a.m., the station superintendent decided to retry activating the reactor cooling pumps to increase pressure and collapse steam bubbles. By this point, operators were not aware that the plant would be a total loss (Mahaffey 2014). Two pumps were successfully restarted, and by 8:30 a.m., there was new coolant entering the primary system from the ECCS. At 9:15 a.m., the White House was notified by the NRC of the accident. At 11:00 a.m., all nonessential personnel were ordered off the island (WNA 2001; NRC 1979). At some time during the morning of March 28, a high-temperature chemical reaction between water and the zircaloy metal tubes holding the nuclear fuel pellets had created hydrogen gas. At 1:50 p.m., a hydrogen burn of the gas took place in the TMI-2 containment building. Regulatory officials from the NRC were fearful that the bubble could explode. Subsequent investigations found that such an explosion was never possible owing to there not being enough oxygen in the system (WNA 2001; NRC 1979). During March 29–30, operators used a system of pipes and compressors to move the gas to waste gas decay tanks; however, the compressors leaked, causing radioactive gases to release to the environment. With most of the gas going through both charcoal and HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters, most radionuclides were removed (WNA 2001). By Friday, March 30, it was clear that things were still not fully under control. Radiation from the auxiliary building was increasing, and there was still a large gas bubble in the reactor vessel (NRC 1979). On that same Friday morning, reports of a 1.2 rems per hour reading from above the TMI-2 reactor led to discussions of whether residents in nearby towns should be evacuated. (On a comparative note, the average exposure in the United States from natural sources of radiation is 300 millirems per year at sea level; the federal occupational limit of exposure per year for an adult is 500 millirems [MIT News 1994].) Then governor Thornburgh counseled against a full-scale evacuation and recommended instead that people stay indoors until the true situation could be defined. Later that day, the governor recommended that pregnant women and preschool-aged children within five miles of the plant leave the area temporarily (NRC 1979). Meanwhile, few people knew for sure what was happening. MetEd continually tried to put its best face forward on the matter by making reassuring statements of what was known at the moment. However, as the news got worse, MetEd had to backtrack on its statements, admitting that things were worse than originally thought (Sandman 2009). The governor’s possible evacuation response was symptomatic of the larger issue at hand, namely, that there was essentially no emergency preparedness for a nuclear accident. Perhaps making matters worse in this instance was that, coincidentally, on March 16, 1979, the movie The China Syndrome had been released. The movie was the story of a reporter and cameraman who uncover safety cover-ups at a fictional California nuclear reactor. The Pennsylvania public was no

588

Three Mile Island Accident

doubt mindful of the issues concerning nuclear reactor safety portrayed in the movie, which added to public fear and anxiety. As Blakemore (2019) points out, the TMI disaster was a “textbook example of what not to do in an emergency.” As conflicting reports continued to circulate, about 40 percent of the people who lived within fifteen miles of the reactor evacuated themselves. Officials seemed to be bickering about evacuation orders; the public left the area anyway. From March 30 through April 1, operators removed the hydrogen gas bubble by periodically opening the vent valve on the reactor cooling system pressurizer. By midafternoon on the April 1, the bubble in the reactor vessel seemed to be dissipating and the system stabilizing (NRC 1979). By Monday, April 2, there came the discovery that iodine-131 had been detected. While much of it bonded to the porous cement walls of the containment building, a barely detectable amount was released into the atmosphere. A great deal of radioactive xenon gas escaped, but there was not much concern about it, owing to it being a noble gas that does not chemically bond with human tissue. The small amount of iodine-131 was of great concern, however, because it can concentrate in the milk of cows that graze in nearby pastures. When contaminated cows’ milk is consumed by humans, it tends to lodge in thyroid gland, which can lead to serious consequences (Mahaffey 2014; Walker 2004). Reactor cooling was then maintained for the next month by the action of one of the main coolant pumps, which provided the flow through the reactor core and heat removal through one of the steam generators to the condenser. Finally, on April 27, the reactor coolant pump was intentionally shut down, as the operators were able to establish a natural convection circulation coolant, meaning that the reactor core was being cooled by the natural movement of water rather than by mechanical pumping (NRC 1979; WNA 2001). In an odd sense, it meant this was the world’s worst nuclear industrial accident in which no one was directly killed (Mahaffey 2014). In the wake of the accident, one of the primary concerns was the question of what continued potential harms may have been inflicted on the public. In May, the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) began an intensive investigation of the TMI accident that focused on two major concerns: the operators’ activities on March 28 between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. and the steps taken to control radioactive releases. Its report, issued on August 3, 1979, concluded that the collective radiation doses constituted “minimal risk” to the health of the off-site population (NRC 1979). Similarly, although it was certain that lethal amounts of radiation had been released within the containment structure, extensive monitoring conducted by other agencies, such as the Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the State of Pennsylvania, found that there were no large releases to the environment (Walker 2014). Added to that, the State of Pennsylvania maintained a registry of more than thirty thousand people who lived within five miles of the TMI accident and found no unusual health trends in the area. The state’s registry was discontinued in 1997 (WNA 2001). The question of radiation risks from the TMI accident remains controversial, however. One study released in 2017, for example, notes that detecting



Three Mile Island Accident 589

population-level effects of radioactive releases still remains “challenging.” The authors Goldenberg et  al. (2017) argue that large populations are required to detect significant increases in cancer mortality following low-dose radiation exposure, something along the lines of five hundred thousand people. However, Pennsylvania’s registry of individuals who lived within five miles of the plant only contained around thirty-three thousand. Thus, the failure of the several studies to detect increased cancer rates following the accident may have been due to the small size of the population and the high degree of population mobility following the accident (Goldenberg et al. 2017). The conclusion from their study (that used next-generation sequencing [NGS] to identify signatures of radiation-induced thyroid cancer within a cohort of thyroid cancer patients who had lived near TMI at the time of the accident) was that the TMI accident may have contributed to the development of thyroid cancer in some patients. Cleanup operations for the TMI-2 reactor began in August 1979 and would take nearly twelve years to complete. Owing to the unique technological and radiological challenges, the cleanup required the services of over one thousand skilled workers. Approximately one hundred tons of damaged uranium fuel had to be removed from the reactor vessel. Total cleanup costs were nearly $1 billion (WNA 2001), $18 million of which was contributed by the Japanese government with the proviso that Japanese workers would be allowed to help in cleanup efforts to gain that experience (Mahaffey 2014). One bright spot found during the cleanup was that there had never been a possibility of melted uranium oxide burning through the bottom of the reactor vessel. The meltdown had actually formed an insulating layer of ceramic material that made the vessel impervious to extreme temperatures (Mahaffey 2014). After several investigations, many concluded that the TMI disaster was a combination of personnel error, design deficiencies, and component failures (NRC 2018). One of the most important consequences of the TMI accident was the dramatic decrease in the public’s trust of nuclear power. No new nuclear reactors would be built in the United States between 1979 and 1996 (although the Watts Bar Unit 1 in Tennessee would be completed during this time). Without doubt, the NRC responded to the TMI accident by attempting to make the industry safer through efforts such as strengthening plant designs and equipment requirements, including fire protection, piping systems, auxiliary feedwater systems, and containment building isolation; revamping operator training requirements; and, as learned by the communications failures during the TMI accident, having a 24/7 operational center with NRC staff to notify local, state, and federal authorities (particularly the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]) in case of emergencies. In recent years, as the threat of global warming has increased, more attention has been paid to nuclear power generation as a way to achieve economy-wide net-zero emissions. Nuclear power remains the single largest source of low-carbon electricity in the United States (UCS 2018). One of the major difficulties faced by the nuclear industry (beyond public distrust of nuclear power) is that more than one-third of U.S. nuclear power plants are unprofitable or scheduled to close. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimates that, on average, it would cost $814 million annually to bring unprofitable plants back to a break-even point.

590

Threshold Certification and Alternate Thresholds

On a related note, in May 2019, Exelon Generation, the company that owns the Three Mile Island (TMI-1) plant announced that it would be closing down operations there by September 2019. The company’s plans call for the radioactive material inside the reactor to be moved into a water pool and then, after a few years, moved again into dry storage. Exelon estimates that its plan to dismantle the final components of the plant will not begin until 2074 (Fortin 2019). Robert L. Perry See also: High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW); Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW).

Further Reading

Blakemore, Erin. 2019. “How the Three Mile Island Accident Was Made Even Worse by a Chaotic Response.” History Channel. Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­history​ .­com ​/­news​/­three​-­mile​-­island​-­evacuation​-­orders​-­controversy. Fortin, Jacey. 2019. “Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant Is Shutting Down.” New York Times, May 8, 2019. Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2019​/­05​ /­08​/­us​/­three​-­mile​-­island​-­shut​-­down​.­html. Goldenberg, David, Mariano Russo, Kenneth Houser, Henry Crist, Jonathan B. Derr, Vonn Walter, Joshua I. Warrick, Kathryn E. Sheldon, James Broach, and Darrin V. Bann. 2017. “Altered Molecular Profile in Thyroid Cancers from Patients Affected by the Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident.” Laryngoscope 127(S3): S1–S9. Mahaffey, James. 2014. Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters: From the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima. New York: Pegasus Books. MIT News. 1994. “Radiation, How Much Is Considered Safe for Humans?” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Accessed July 5, 2019. ­https://​­news​.­mit​.­edu​/­1994​/­safe​ -­0105. Sandman, Peter M. 2009. “The Communications Failures Lessons of Three Mile Island.” Power Magazine. Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­powermag​.­com​/­the​ -­communications​-­failures​-­lessons​-­of​-­three​-­mile​-­island. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2018. “The Nuclear Power Dilemma (2018).” Accessed June 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ucsusa​.­org​/­nuclear​-­power​/­cost​-­nuclear​-­power​ /­retirements. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1979. “1979 Annual Report.” NUREG0690. Accessed July 5, 2019. ­https://​­tmi2kml​.­inl​.­gov​/ ­Documents​/­4e​-­NRC​-­A nnual​ /­1979​%­20NRC​%­20Annual​%­20Report​%­20​( ­N UREG​- ­0690).pdf. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2018. “Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident.” Accessed July 5, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­n rc​.­gov​/­reading​-­r m​/­doc​ -­collections​/­fact​-­sheets​/­3mile​-­isle​.­html. Walker, Samuel J. 2004. Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2001. “Three Mile Island Accident.” Accessed July 5, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­world​-­nuclear​.­org​/­information​-­library​/­safety​-­and​-­security​/­safety​ -­of​-­plants​/­three​-­mile​-­island​-­accident​.­aspx.

Threshold Certification and Alternate Thresholds Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), reports have to be filed by facilities that manufacture, import, process, or use chemicals in quantities greater than the level established by the U.S.



Threshold Certification and Alternate Thresholds 591

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This information is usually filed as an annual report in March. The purpose of this law was to assist with information being provided to emergency planners, state and local governments, and the public regarding the chemical hazards in their communities. This law was prompted from the 1984 Bhopal disaster, in which a facility of the Union Carbide Company accidentally released methyl isocyanate, used in the manufacturing of pesticides, into the community, killing thousands of people. EPCRA created local emergency planning committees that report to the State Emergency Response Commission. These local committees work on the protection of the public from accidental spills with training, preparedness plans, and coordination of information in case of an emergency. The EPA manages the threshold certification and alternate thresholds for these chemicals. The EPA keeps a Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) that uses a Threshold Screening Tool to determine which facilities have to report annually to the EPA. It has established quantities of chemicals as thresholds; if exceeded, they need to be reported. It requires that facilities that have ten or more full-time employees and are included in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) with these listed chemicals report to the EPA. NAICS is used by the countries in North America to code businesses based on their activities. The EPA is responsible for creating and maintaining a list of chemicals that indicates the threshold limits for each substance. There are 595 designated toxic chemicals that are required to be reported as part of the TRI at the EPA. Facilities with over twenty-five thousand pounds of the 595 designated chemicals, or using ten thousand pounds of one of the 33 designated chemical categories must report their quantities (EPA 2018). Facilities can apply for alternate threshold of 1 million pounds per year to a chemical if it is calculated that the facility would have an annual reportable amount of the chemical not exceeding 500 pounds for quantities at the facility (EPA 2018). These chemicals are generally either cancer-causing or have other chronic, adverse acute, or environmental effects. The EPA updates this list, so chemicals required to be reported may change annually. Persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals have generally lower reporting thresholds than other TRI chemicals because of their stable and ability to remain in the environment and accumulate in the human body. Some of the common chemicals on the list include heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), refrigerants, ammonium salts, certain acids, dyes, and a variety of cleaning and disinfectant chemicals. Facilities are required to fill out forms for a threshold certification or alternate threshold. One issue associated with EPCRA is that when a company claims an identity of a chemical is a trade secret, that chemical does not necessarily need to be included in the threshold certification as part of the Confidential Business Information. No additional testing or monitoring is required under this law. It primarily focuses on reporting determinations and providing information to the public and first responders for emergency response. Kelly A. Tzoumis

592

Threshold Limit Values (TLV)

See also: Bhopal Disaster (1984); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986); Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Further Reading

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. TRI Threshold Screening Tool. July 28, 2018. Accessed April 8, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­toxics​-­release​-­inventory​ -­t ri​-­program​/­t ri​-­threshold​-­screening​-­tool.

Threshold Limit Values (TLV) Every chemical substance has a threshold limit value (TLV) associated with occupational exposure. This is sometimes referred to as the workday concentration level of a chemical substance. At this level, a human can receive daily exposure without adverse health impacts in the workplace. These limits are recommendations in the profession of industrial hygiene and not regulatory standards. The TLV includes the maximum daily exposure during a workday to hazardous substances, assuming a full eight-hour workday and week. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), under the U.S. Department of Labor, generally recommends these exposure limits, which are issued by American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), a nonprofit scientific organization that is associated with occupational and environmental health. This group publishes the TLV for more than seven hundred chemical substances and physical agents. They include more than fifty biological exposure indices (BEIs) for greater than eighty chemical substances (ACGIH 2019). The goal of both a TLV and BEI is to improve the protection of workers’ health. OSHA clearly states that TLV and BEI values are for use in the practice of industrial hygiene to control potential workplace hazards, not for compliance or enforcement actions (OSHA 2019). Permissible exposure limits (PELs) are the OSHA-established legal limits for exposure to a chemical occupational hazardous substance. PELs are a maximum upper exposure legal limit to a hazardous substance for an eight-hour exposure by an employee. These are very similar to TLVs and recommended exposure limits (RELs), except PELs are regulatory legal standards. RELs, while not legal standards, are considered by OSHA during the creation and updating of PELs. RELs are used by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), an organization in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as a recommended guideline for an exposure limit. These values, like TLVs and BEIs, are not regulatory standards. NIOSH provides RELs as a recommendation to OSHA for adoption into policy regulations. RELs are thought to be policy recommendations for revising and updating PELs. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).



Times Beach, Missouri 593

Further Reading

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 2019a. “About ACGIH.” Accessed April 8, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­acgih​.­org​/­about​-­us​/­about​-­acgih. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). 2019b. 2019 TLVs and BEIs. Signature Publications. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2019. “Policy Statement on Uses of TLVs and BEIs.” Accessed April 8, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​/­dsg​ /­annotated​-­pels​/­note​.­html.

Times Beach, Missouri(1982) In 1982, the small town formerly known as Times Beach, Missouri, was disincorporated and essentially abandoned as town as a result of toxic levels of the chemical by-product known as dioxin. The devastating floods that cost hundreds of millions of dollars also led to none of the residents remaining safe from the real and substantial threat posed by dioxin contamination. The incident sparked a high-intensity confrontation between the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Reagan administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Eventually, the disaster served as a harbinger of the internal strife experienced by the EPA that would lead to the resignation of Rita Lavelle, a nationwide administrator of the hazardous waste cleanup program, and Anne Burford Gorusch, the EPA administrator. However, even years after the contamination, the effects of dioxin still engender debate among scientists and medical professionals. The debate regarding the toxicity of dioxin spurred a dialog about the role of environmental regulation, including the financial costs to both private industry and taxpayers, and the human impact of evacuating residents from contamination sites. THE TOWN Times Beach, Missouri, was founded in 1925 and located by the Meramec River, less than twenty miles from St. Louis, Missouri. The original impetus for the founding of the town seems quite strange today. The town began as a newspaper marketing scheme; you could buy a small tract of land, and it came bundled with a six-month subscription to the now disbanded St. Louis Times. The developers originally hoped their marketing strategy would entice businessmen and other wealthy members of the St. Louis community to buy land and build houses , transforming Times Beach into a vacation town built on fishing and other recreation at the river, far from the hustle and bustle of the city. However, that optimistic and hopeful vision of Times Beach would never come to fruition. Instead, the town became the quintessential “small town,” exemplified by a tight-knit community mostly populated with the lower middle class and working class, a small spattering of restaurants and businesses, and limited financial resources for the town (Powell 2012). Even though Times Beach remained a small town, it still required some public services. One of the main public services involved road maintenance, but because

594

Times Beach, Missouri

the tax base remained limited, it did not have the resources to pave all the roads. This meant that some of the roads in the town were dirt. With the town’s limited resources, it used a chemical with an ingredient known as dioxin on the roads. When mixed with motor oil, the chemical suppressed the kicking up of dirt as cars traveled on the dirt roads. Unfortunately, for the town, its residents, and American taxpayers, dioxin is a persistent organic pollutant (POP) formed as an unwanted by-product of multiple industrial and manufacturing processes. From a biochemical perspective, dioxin imbeds inside fatty tissue, which makes it a particularly harmful toxic chemical and difficult to naturally remove from the human body. The World Health Organization (WHO 2016) concludes that “short term exposure of humans to high levels of dioxins may result in skin lesions, such as chloracne and patchy darkening of the skin, and altered liver function. Long-term exposure is linked to impairment of the immune system, the developing nervous system, the endocrine system, and reproductive functions.” As a result, most of the town suffered exposure to dioxin in considerable amounts just from the use of the dirt roads in town. However, the town’s problems were compounded by a natural disaster, and the dioxin problem went from a serious toxicological issue to a toxicological disaster. THE FLOOD What led to the disincorporation of the town was not the mere usage of dioxin as a dust suppressant; a flood deposited a considerable amount of soil throughout the town to the point where no residents could realistically avoid it. The flood itself caused a significant amount of damage throughout Missouri. As the New York Times (“Flooded Suburb” 1982) reported, “Floods that drove more than 35,000 people from their homes in the Mississippi Valley gushed into new territory yesterday while receding waters left mud-filled messes throughout some towns, with automobiles and debris piled against houses and trees. The preliminary estimate of damage is more than $500 million. Officials estimated that so far 25,000 people had been displaced by flood water in Missouri.” At the time, the level of dioxin found in the soil in Times Beach was undoubtedly toxic. Preliminary soil tests in some locations indicated that the soil concentrations of dioxin measured at eight parts per billion; at that time, even one part per billion was recognized as a human health hazard (Biddle 1982a). However, like most cases of natural disasters, residents resisted mandatory evacuation orders and often ignored them. This is understandable because the socioeconomic statuses of most of the residents would not have allowed them to just relocate and restart their lives. However, in this case, the defiance came not just from the townspeople but also from their elected leadership, with their mayor quoted in the New York Times (“Flooded Suburb” 1982) saying, “I told everyone who called me tonight the same thing. The only way I and my family are leaving is if they carry us out forcibly.” FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Even with the demonstrable suffering experienced by the town and its residents, the contamination quickly became an important case study on the



Times Beach, Missouri 595

ineffectiveness and inefficiency of federal government regulation. Early on, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a federal warning regarding the potential health effects of the contamination. However, at that point, no real standard existed for the toxicity levels of dioxin. In addition, to this day, the human health consequences of dioxin exposure still inspire considerable debate among scientists and medical professionals. In addition, previous governmental action did not inspire confidence with the residents. The federal government had conducted a study in 1974 in which it attributed the deaths of ninety-seven horses in stables to dioxin contamination. One flood cleanup worker told the New York Times (“Flooded Suburb” 1982), “Why didn’t they do this in ’74? Now all of a sudden we’ve had a flood and they’re going to kick us while we’re down.” When confronted with this argument, the EPA countered that although evidence existed that dioxin presented dangerous health effects for animals, the health effects on humans remained unclear. Eventually, Times Beach became one of the nation’s first Superfund sites. Superfund is the colloquial term used for an area designated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) passed into law in 1980. The legislation set up a $1.6 billion trust to fund the cleanup and rectify hazardous chemical contaminations across the United States. Eventually, the trust fund was increased to $8.5 billion in 1986. In February 1983, the federal government announced a plan to buy the entire town of Times Beach to ensure that all the residents received some compensation for their property losses caused by the contamination. With the cost of buying the town and the eventual costs associated with cleaning it up, the federal government estimated that it spent $33.3 million on the dioxin contamination in Times Beach, Missouri. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made clear that the move to purchase Times Beach because of the dioxin contamination did not constitute new policy and that it would not buy other towns designated as Superfund sites. In 1985, the entire town ceased to exist following a unanimous vote by its aldermen. It was, and remains, one of the few times that a town has voted to take itself out of existence.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DISPUTES WITH CONGRESS Times Beach, Missouri, also became a node for the partisan battle between the Reagan administration’s EPA and congressional Democrats. One of the more contentious points involved the disclosure of the soil test results from Times Beach. The battle intensified when Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee issued a hard deadline for the delivery of the soil test results. The EPA refused to meet the deadline, indicating that it was awaiting the final results of the soil samples and the quality control tests before submitting complete results to the committee. However, Chairman Dingell rejected this idea, implying that the EPA’s refusal to provide the committee preliminary results stemmed from a political rather than logistical concern.

596

Times Beach, Missouri

Normally, congressional committees hold oversight jurisdiction in their relevant issue areas. This includes the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents from government agencies. Although Congress may issue a criminal referral for contempt of Congress for failing to appear before the committee or to turn over documents, only the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) can pursue criminal charges for contempt of Congress. As a result, if the relevant committee’s majority is held by one party and the presidency is controlled by the other, a congressional committee has a tough time compelling action from the executive branch. Eventually, Times Beach served as a launching point for congressional investigations into the actions of high-ranking officials within the EPA. President Reagan dismissed a high-ranking administrator, Rita Lavelle, of the nationwide waste cleanup programs after she refused to resign. Although the EPA did not give a reason for her dismissal, media reports (Burnham 1983) said that her performance had not lived up to expectations, and she then wrote a memorandum attacking the EPA’s top lawyer for “systematically alienating the primary constituents of this Administration, the business community.” Eventually, the Reagan administration acquiesced to the demands of the House Energy and Commerce Committee concerning not only the documents of the tests from Times Beach but also other matters withheld from the committee. President Reagan decided to turn over all agency documents sought by Congressional committees. In addition, he accepted the resignation of the EPA administrator, Anne Gorsuch. CHANGING DIOXIN STANDARDS Even today, the risks involved with exposure to dioxin remains a matter of contentious debate. Although the Times Beach dioxin contamination response involved the assumption that it was a highly dangerous toxin akin to radioactive nuclear waste, that may not have been accurate. In June 1983, the American Medical Association (AMA) defiantly declared that “the news media have made dioxin the focus of a witch hunt by disseminating rumors, hearsay and unconfirmed, unscientific reports (Reinhold 1983a, 1983b). As a result, the lives and well being of people living in the contaminated areas have been unnecessarily and ignorantly damaged.” Eventually, other scientists and medical experts argued that the human health dangers of dioxin might have been overblown. The New York Times reported in 1991 that, “speaking last Tuesday in Columbia, Mo., the official, Dr. Vernon N. Houk of the Centers for Disease Control, said that if he knew in 1982 what he knows now about the level of dioxin’s threat, he would have never recommended that Times Beach . . . be evacuated” (Schneider 1991). Since then, more convincing and thorough studies have shown a dramatically less pronounced danger from dioxin than once thought. During the Times Beach dioxin contamination, the EPA contended that as little as one part per billion, which is a minuscule toxicity level, could lead to adverse human health effects. However, when the EPA conducted a scientific review of the standards, it



Times Beach, Missouri 597

dramatically raised the dioxin contamination level. As the New York Times reported, The World Health Organization supports the revised view of dioxin’s danger and suggests that the United States’ exposure standards are wrong. Earlier this year the group officially set a new limit for the daily intake of dioxin at 10 trillionths of a gram of dioxin per kilogram of body weight, a concentration that is 1,600 times greater than the level set by the Environmental Protection Agency and closer to the concentration considered scientifically accurate by Dr. Houk and others. (Schneider 1991)

However, some environmental interest groups and activists downplay the newer findings, arguing that they do not result from good science but the bending of environmental standards as a result of the political and financial influence of business groups. As Dr. Mary O’Brien, director of the Dioxin-Organochlorines Center, told the New York Times, “What’s being protected here is not people or the environment, but industries favored by the government. The government begins with the assumption that these industrial activities have to go on and they adjust the data to make the existing pollution practices acceptable” (Schneider 1991). However, no evidence surfaced that the change in the toxicity levels at the CDC or the EPA came from a political logic. In addition, it seems strange that the WHO, the EPA, and the CDC conspired together to change the accepted toxicity levels at the behest of business interests. This produced a serious debate regarding hyperregulation and the requirement of businesses to pay for the cleanup costs associated with the dioxin at Times Beach, Missouri. By 1991, the cleanup costs associated with the Times Beach contamination totaled $100 million, with another $150 million estimated to complete the cleanup. The American and Missouri taxpayers had footed the bill for a cleanup that might not have been necessary. Even more, all of the residents of Times Beach who were forced to pick up and move to other locations were likely forced out of their homes unnecessarily. However, what if the EPA had not forced the residents to move and their assessment of the dangers of dioxin had been accurate? In that case, the EPA would have faced considerable scrutiny for the health problems associated with not evacuating the residents. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Dioxins.

Further Reading

Biddle, Wayne. 1982a. “Toxic Chemicals Imperil Flooded Town in Missouri.” New York Times, December 16, 1982. Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​ /­1982​/­12​/­16​/­us​/­toxic​-­chemicals​-­imperil​-­flooded​-­town​-­in​-­missouri​.­html. Biddle, Wayne. 1982b. “Tug of War Develops over Access to Data on Toxin.” New York Times, December 5, 1982. Accessed April 24, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​ /­1982​/­12​/­05​/­us​/­t ug​-­of​-­war​-­develops​-­over​-­access​-­to​-­data​-­on​-­toxin​.­html. Burnham, David. 1983. “Reagan Dismisses High E.P.A. Official, Aide Refused Administrator’s Order That She Resign Job.” New York Times, February 8, 1983. Accessed July 2, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­1983​/­02​/­08​/­us​/­reagan​-­dismisses​-­high​-­epa​ -­official​.­html.

598

Tin and Tin Compounds (Tributyltin)

“One E.P.A. Buy-Out Is Not a Policy.” 1983. New York Times, February 25, 1983. Accessed July 2, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­1983​/­02​/­25​/­opinion​/­one​-­epa​-­buy​-­out​-­is​ -­not​-­a​-­policy​.­html. Powell, William. 2012. “Remember Times Beach: The Dioxin Disaster, 30 Years Later.” St. Louis Magazine, December 3, 2012. Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​ .­stlmag​.­com​/ ­Remember​-­Times​-­Beach​-­The​-­Dioxin​-­Disaster​-­30​-­Years​-­Later​/. Reinhold, Robert. 1983a. “A.M.A.’s Dioxin Stance News Analysis.” New York Times, July 4, 1983. Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­1983​/­07​/­04​/­us​/­ama​-­s​ -­dioxin​-­stance​-­news​-­analysis​.­html. Reinhold, Robert. 1983b. “Many Tainted Towns, U.S. Answer for Times Beach Is to Buy but Dioxin Questions Cover Missouri.” New York Times, February 24, 1983. Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­1982​/­12​/­30​/­us​/­many​-­questions​ -­but​-­few​-­answers​-­for​-­people​-­of​-­dioxin​-­periled​-­town​.­html. Schneider, Keith. 1991. “U.S. Backing Away from Saying Dioxin Is Deadly Peril, a New Assessment Begins, Top Health Authorities Believe There Is No Sound Evidence for Its No. 1 Ranking.” New York Times, August 15, 1991. Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­1991​/­08​/­15​/­us​/­us​-­backing​-­away​-­f rom​-­saying​-­dioxin​-­is​ -­a​-­deadly​-­peril​.­html. Smith, Hedrick. 1983. “Reagan’s E.P.A. Retreat: Capitulation on the Agency’s Chief and Data Gives the Democrats a Sharp Political Edge.” New York Times, March 10, 1983. Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­1983​/­03​/­10​/­us​ /­reagan​-­s​-­epa​-­retreat​-­news​-­analysis​.­html. “Some in Flooded Suburb Ignoring Advice on Dioxin Contamination.” 1982. New York Times, December 25, 1982. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​ /­1 982​/ ­1 2​/ ­2 5​/ ­u s​/ ­s ome ​- ­i n​- ­f looded​- ­s ubu rb ​- ­i g nor i ng​- ­a dvice ​- ­o n​- ­d ioxi n​ -­contamination​.­html. “U.S. Health Aide Says He Erred on Times Beach.” 1991. New York Times, May 26, 1991. Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­1991​/­05​/­26​/­us​/­us​-­health​-­aide​ -­says​-­he​-­erred​-­on​-­times​-­beach​.­html. World Health Organization (WHO). 2016. “Dioxins and Their Effects on Human Health.” October 4, 2016. Accessed April 24, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­news​-­room​/­fact​ -­sheets​/­detail​/­dioxins​-­and​-­their​-­effects​-­on​-­human​-­health.

Tin and Tin Compounds (Tributyltin) Tin is a soft, malleable metal with a silvery-white appearance. It exists naturally in Earth’s crust and is frequently used as a packaging material to internally coat containers for food, beverages, and aerosols. It is also an ingredient in brass, bronze, pewter, and some metal solders. Although tin is insoluble in water, it does react with chemicals such as chlorine, sulfur, and oxygen to form tin compounds that are referred to as inorganic stannous compounds. These are used in consumer products such as toothpaste, perfumes, soaps, food additives, and dyes. Tin can also combine with carbon to form dibutyltin, tributyltin, and triphenyltin, known as organic tin compounds, which are used as stabilizers in the manufacture of plastics, food packaging, plastic pipes, pesticides, paints, and pest repellents. Organic tin compounds (sometimes referred to as organotins) are also used as preservatives for wood and its products, such as paper, as well as leathers and electrical equipment.



Tin and Tin Compounds (Tributyltin) 599

During the 1960s, the compound tributyltin, a pesticide, was added to paints used on the inside bottom floors of ships because of its toxicity to nuisance aquatic species affecting the ships’ functions. These highly effective chemicals prevented the growth of algae and barnacles on ships’ hulls, marine structures, and fishing nets and equipment. Tributyltins are either a colorless or pale-yellow liquid with a unique chemical smell; they are slightly soluble in water and dissolve readily in organic solvents. In 2001, the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships prohibited the use of harmful organic tin compounds in ship paints. Most countries have restricted the use of tributyltin in paints as a result of its effects on shellfish and mollusks. Tin exposure to humans can occur through ingestion from contaminated food products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the use of organic tin compounds in coatings and plastic food packaging. The FDA also has set limits for the use of an inorganic tin compound, stannous chloride, as an additive for food. Metallic tin cannot be easily digested in humans, so it is considered to have low toxicity. Occupational routes of exposure are through mining, fossil fuel combustion, and the manufacture of tin compounds. Tin can geographically transport for some distance when produced in gases and fumes or attached to dust particles, which can migrate through wind or precipitation. Inorganic tin can also attach to soils. Ingestion of tin may result in gastrointestinal discomfort, anemia, and liver or kidney damage. Exposure to some organic tin compounds can cause eye or skin irritation and neurological problems that interfere with the brain. Excessive exposure can be deadly. Tributyltin exposure can occur through leaching from products treated with the pesticide. Exposure primarily occurs in occupational settings. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed regulations for these chemicals in both fresh- and saltwater environments. Tributyltin compounds enter the body by inhalation of air that contains them, ingestion of contaminated food or water, and through dermal contact. Inhalation can cause upper respiratory tract irritation, chest tightness, breathing problems, and effects on the nervous system, which include dizziness, headache, and tremors. Dermal contact can cause skin irritation and blistering and dermatitis. Eye contact can produce irritation. Tin has some interesting properties when released into the environment, depending on whether it is in an organic or inorganic compound form. Organic tin compounds do not occur naturally in the environment and bioaccumulate in the aquatic ecosystem, which can persist in water and soil for many years. Organic tin compounds may degrade to inorganic compounds because of sunlight and bacteria. Although metallic tin exposed to the environment can quickly form inorganic tin compounds, these newly formed compounds cannot be destroyed. Instead, the compound only changes form. Research studies have shown that organic tin compounds such as dibutyltin and tributyltin impact the immune system like endocrine disrupters, and along with triphenyltin, they have impacted the reproductive systems of laboratory test animals; however, no studies have examined impacts to humans. These chemicals are not listed as known carcinogens. Globally, tin is located in the regions of West Africa, Southeast Asia, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Russia. A smaller quantity of tin is found in

600

Tobacco Smoke

the United States, primarily in Alaska. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2018), approximately twenty-five companies consumed 90 percent of tin in the United States during 2016; the major uses for tin were tin plating, chemicals, and solder. Peru is the main tin supplier for the United States. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Endocrine Disruptors; Neurological Toxicity; Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Tin and Compounds.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed January 15, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­98. International Maritime Organization. 2001. “International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships.” October 5, 2001. Accessed January 16, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­i mo​.­org​/­en​/­About​/­Conventions​/ ­ListOfConventions​/ ­Pages​ / ­I nternational​- ­C onvention​-­on​-­t he​- ­C ontrol​-­of​-­Harmful​-­A nti​-­fouling​-­Systems​ -­on​-­Ships​- (­A FS).aspx. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. “Fact Sheet: Notice of Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document for Tributyltin (TBT)—Final.” January 2004. Accessed January 16, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­wqc​/­fact​-­sheet​-­notice​-­ambient​ -­water​-­quality​-­criteria​-­document​-­t ributyltin​-­tbt​-­final. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. “Tin: Statistics and Information.” Last modified September 24, 2018. Accessed January 15, 2018. ­https://​­minerals​.­usgs​.­gov​/­minerals​ /­pubs​/­commodity​/­tin.

Tobacco Smoke There are several ways to smoke tobacco, with cigarettes, cigars, and pipes being the most common delivery methods; however, more recently, water pipes (known also as hookahs) and vapor cigarettes (sold as e-cigarettes) have risen in popularity. A hookah is a type of large pipe with a water basin that is usually placed on the ground. It has inhalers attached from which tobacco smoke, or vapor, is inhaled after it passes over the water. Vapor cigarettes do not emit smoke; they use water vapor for delivery and have been used along with hookahs as popular substitutes for cigarettes. Communities in the United States have seen a rise in stores with smoking rooms for using hookahs and vaping. These smokeless products contain all the toxic chemicals as traditional cigarettes, plus they can contain others. All these types of smoking devices put the body at risk for exposure to toxic chemicals, many which cause cancer and often nicotine addiction. Smoking tobacco products is a serious health threat to both smokers and those nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2018), tobacco smoke contains a deadly mix of more than seven thousand chemicals, and hundreds of them are toxic. About seventy chemicals in tobacco smoke are known to cause cancer. More than 20 million Americans have died because of smoking since 1964, including approximately 2.5 million deaths due to exposure to secondhand smoke. In addition, 8.6 million people live with a serious illness caused by smoking, and, on average,



Tobacco Smoke 601

smokers die thirteen to fourteen years earlier than nonsmokers. It is well established through health studies that smoking causes stroke and coronary heart disease, the leading causes of death in the United States. Some of the toxic chemicals found in tobacco smoking products include nicotine (the addictive chemical in tobacco), hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, lead, arsenic, ammonia, benzene, carbon monoxide, a variety of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and possibly radioactive elements from fertilizers and contaminated soil. Toxic chemicals in cigar smoke have some similar ingredients to higher concentrations of some nitrogen compounds, such as nitrates, nitrites, and nitrosamines. These are some of the most potent carcinogens for humans. The U.S. perception and role of smoking tobacco products has changed dramatically over time. Until the last several decades, smoking cigarettes and pipes was portrayed as romantic in popular media or something that was done to relax at restaurants and after dinner. There are familiar scenes of glamorous movie stars, presidents, and statesmen smoking, a symbol of tobacco products being widely accepted as a cultural status symbol. People were allowed to smoke in public places—hospitals, schools, restaurants, government buildings, workplaces, airplanes, and especially bars and casinos. In the past, these places either had open smoking or segregated areas for smokers. Tobacco smoking is no longer considered a desirable social activity in the United States. A highlight of this change is how tobacco is managed by the federal government. Since the beginning of the United States, tobacco has been considered a crop, so it was primarily dealt with under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). More recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took the lead regulatory role and began issuing strong warnings from the surgeon general about tobacco’s harm, which were posted on all cigarette packaging. There has been significant controversy in the judicial system over litigation about the harms caused by smoking. Beginning in the 1950s, legal cases were filed against tobacco product manufacturers but were not successful in courts. In 1998, success began to come when attorneys general of forty-six states and four of the largest tobacco companies agreed to settle. The settlement made significant changes to the smoking policy in the United States, which included that children must no longer be marketing targets as in the past, such as the famous Joe Camel that had been an icon for marketing cigarettes to teens. Also, tobacco companies agreed to pay annual sums of money to states for health-care costs compensation. This included a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years. The settlement created the National Public Education Foundation, which focused on reducing youth smoking and providing education on smoking-related diseases. With restrictions for using tobacco products in the workplace and public spaces and national campaigns that have made the public more aware of its dangers, smoking is slowly declining in the United States. The CDC (2018) claims that “smoking causes about 90 percent of all lung cancer deaths, and that smoking causes about 80 percent of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.” Smoking is also the leading contributor to emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

602

Toner Cartridges

The benefits of ending smoking are well known. Studies have shown that within two to five years after quitting, stroke risk reduces to about that of a nonsmoker. Ten years after quitting, the risk for lung cancer drops by half. Pregnant women and people with asthma and allergies are urged not smoke tobacco products. Young people are strongly encouraged not to begin smoking because of the strong addictive qualities of nicotine. It can become a lifelong habit that threatens to significantly damage their health in adulthood. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); Secondhand Smoke; Tobacco Smoke.

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2018. “Smoking and Tobacco Use.” Office on Smoking and Health, March 8, 2018. Accessed September 6, 2017. ­https://​­w ww​.­cdc​.­gov​/­tobacco​/­index​.­htm. Class Action Lawsuits in the News. 2011. “Philip Morris Marlboro Lights Cigarettes Class Action Lawsuit.” June 13, 2011. Accessed September 6, 2017. ­http://​ ­classactionlawsuitsinthenews​.­com ​/­class​-­action​-­lawsuits​/­philip​-­morris​-­marlboro​ -­lights​-­cigarettes​-­class​-­action​-­lawsuit. Daynard, Richard A., Clive Bates, and Neil Francey. 2000. “Tobacco Litigation Worldwide.” British Medical Journal 320(7227) (January 8, 2000): 111–113. Accessed September 6, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pmc​/­articles​/ ­PMC1117367.

Toner Cartridges In the past couple of decades, as household incomes have increased and the prices of electronic devices such as laser printers, fax machines, and photocopiers have decreased, concerns about exposure to the toxic effects of the powders used in toner cartridges have also increased. Workers in the manufacturing of cartridges may have frequent exposure, as may office workers who often use these electronic products. Exposure can occur through direct skin or eye contact, respiration by inhalation, or accidental ingestion. There are many potential toxic dangers to toners and toner powder, including micro polyacrylate styrene, polyethylene/polypropylene paraffin wax, hydroxyl-aromatic-acid, ozone, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In addition, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has noted that chemicals such as cupric sulfate and rhodamine 6G are found in dyes and processing fluids used in photocopiers. Metals such as titanium, iron, chromium, nickel, and zinc have also been found in printer toners in relatively significant amounts. However, researchers have found that since there is no significant exposure of consumers to toners while using copiers and laser printers, these effects are unlikely to occur in humans. Case reports have shown that inhalation exposure to toner may be associated with symptoms of the upper and lower airways in sensitive subjects (Ewers and Novak 2006). Recently, photocopier and printer exposures have gained more attention owing to the use of engineered nanoparticles (ENP) in the toner formulations to improve product quality. While there is little known about the potential health effects from



Toner Cartridges 603

ENPs incorporated into toners, there is extensive evidence linking exposures to atmospheric PM2.5 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 mm) to increased mortality and morbidity due to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (Pirela et al. 2013). In addition to the potentially toxic chemicals and metals found in toner cartridges that may cause direct harm to humans, there is also the issue of the considerable amount of “e-waste,” including toner cartridges. E-waste is the largest-growing municipal waste stream in the United States. In the United States, over 375 million empty toner cartridges and ink cartridges are disposed of each year, and because they are made of polymers, their decomposition can take between 450 and 1,000 years (Vasudevan et  al. 2012). Adding to the problem, technological advances are shortening the life spans of many consumer electronics, which contributes to more e-waste being generated. Many efforts are being made throughout the developed world to curtail e-waste, particularly through the use of valuable metals and chemicals recovery. Unfortunately, developing countries face increasing challenges. Often, owing to inadequate waste management infrastructure, wastes are buried, burned in the open air, or dumped into surface water bodies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development has been working to improve its understanding of the quantity and flow of electronic devices from initial purchase to final disposition in the hope that such understanding will provide insight to decision makers about their impacts so that they will support efforts to encourage improvements in policy, technology, and beneficial use. Robert L. Perry See also: National Toxicology Program (NTP); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Ewers, Ulrich, and Dennis Nowak. 2006. “Health Hazards Caused by Laser Printers and Copiers.” Gefahrstoffe Reinhaltung der Luft 66(5): 203–210. Accessed July 23, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­researchgate​.­net​/­publication​/­268411555​_Health​_hazards​_caused​_by​_ laser​_ printers​_and​_copiers. Gminski, Richard, Katharina Decker, Christina Heinz, Albrecht Seidel, Mathias Könczöl, Ella Goldenberg, Bernard Grobéty, Winfried Ebner, Reto Gieré, and Volker MerschSundermann. 2011. “Genotoxic Effects of Three Selected Black Toner Powders and Their Dimethyl Sulfoxide Extracts in Cultured Human Epithelial A549 Lung Cells In Vitro.” Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 52(4): 296–309. Nnoroma, I. C., and O. Osibanjo. 2008. “Overview of Electronic Waste (E-Waste) Management Practices and Legislations, and Their Poor Applications in the Developing Countries.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52: 843–858. Pirela, Sandra, Ramon Molina, Christa Watson, Joel M. Cohen, Dhimiter Bello, Philip Demokritou, and Joseph Brain. 2013. “Effects of Copy Center Particles on the Lungs: A Toxicological Characterization Using a Balb/c Mouse Model.” Inhalation Toxicology 25(9): 498–508. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Preliminary Assessment of the Flow of Used Electronics in Selected States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.” Accessed July 25, 2018. ­https://​­nepis​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­Exe​ /­ZyPDF​.­cgi​?­Dockey​= ​­P100RMZE​.­pdf.

604

Toxaphene (C10H10Cl8)

Vasudevan, Hari, Vilas Kalamkar, and Ravi Terkar. 2012. “Remanufacturing for Sustainable Development: Key Challenges, Elements, and Benefits.” International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology 3(1): 84–89.

Toxaphene (C10H10Cl8) Toxaphene is a manufactured chemical not found in nature that is most often a solid but can be a gas. As a solid, it is an amber color with a waxy texture and pine-like smell usually associated with paint thinners such as turpentine. Toxaphene is made with chlorine gas; it is not a specific chemical but a mixture of over 670 different chlorinated chemicals. Toxaphene was widely used in the United States as a pesticide, specifically on cotton crops to protect against insects. It has been used as an insecticide on crops such as grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables and to control ticks and mites on livestock. It was also used for controlling insects on banana and pineapple crops in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Until the 1970s, toxaphene was often mixed with other chemicals to eliminate fish that were considered a problem to sport fishing in lakes and rivers in the northern parts of the United States and into Canada. Until 1982, when it was restricted for most uses by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it was one of the most heavily used pesticides. By 1990, the agency had banned all uses of the chemical, with some exceptions. Based on laboratory studies, it is considered a probable carcinogen by the EPA. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods of time and have dangerous, toxic impacts to human health and the environment. Toxaphene is considered a persistent organic pollutant (POP) because it lingers in the environment for extended periods of time. For instance, 50 percent of toxaphene can persist in the soil for up to twelve years after initial exposure. One of its more dangerous and toxic impacts is that it bioaccumulates in the fatty tissues of humans and wildlife. Because of this characteristic, it was part of the original “dirty dozen” chemicals outlined in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The dirty dozen was a list of twelve chemicals identified and called out by the convention as extremely toxic and associated with many human diseases and birth defects. In 1995, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) initiated an international assessment of these chemicals, and recommendations were made in 1997 by the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants was adopted in 2001 and began implementation worldwide in 2004. Animal studies have linked exposure to POPs to cancers, birth defects, impaired immune and reproductive systems, and significant harm in the central and peripheral nervous systems. The chemical can induce seizures. It also affects the liver, kidney, spleen, thyroid, and adrenal glands. Because it can be transported long distances in the environment, it has several pathways for human exposure through



Toxic and Hazardous Substances 605

inhalation and ingestion, particularly from eating contaminated fish and other foods. Toxaphene has been detected in soil and food, although it has rarely been found in drinking water, and then at only very low levels of concentration compared to in the environment. Fish and other seafood taken from contaminated water usually contain the highest levels of the pesticide. Although the chemical is a POP in the environment, it is rapidly broken down into other substances in the human body. Today, toxaphene is approved for very narrow uses in the United States. It can be used to control a disease called scabies in cattle. In the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, it may still be used on pineapples and bananas. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2017), toxaphene-like pesticides are still produced and used in other countries including India, parts of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Insecticides; Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2015. “Toxaphene.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated January 21, 2015. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­phs​/­phs​.­asp​?­id​= ​­546​&­tid​= ​­99. Stockholm Convention. 2008. “The Twelve Initial POPs under the Stockholm Convention.” Accessed September 18, 2017. ­http://​­chm​.­pops​.­int​/­TheConvention​/­ThePOPs​ /­The12InitialPOPs​/­tabid​/­296​/ ­Default​.­aspx. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. “Toxaphene.” Last updated January 2000. Accessed September 18, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​ /­2016​- ­09​/­documents​/­toxaphene​.­pdf.

Toxic and Hazardous Substances Toxic and hazardous substances is a general term that describes potentially adverse substances that can impact human health. In the legal terms and government policies in the United States, these are specifically separate substances that are often governed by different pieces of legislation and different lead federal agencies. Data on toxic and hazardous substances is made available to the public in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Safety data sheets (SDS) provide this information in the workplace to employees. One distinction that is frequently made between toxic and hazardous substances is how they impact human health. Toxic substances usually refers to substances that cause an adverse human health impact when a person comes into contact with it. Hazardous substances usually refers to substances that have explosive, flammable, or corrosive properties. These distinctions are not clearly different because many substances are both toxic and hazardous. Also, note that these are substances that may not also be chemicals. For instance, asbestos is a toxic fiber that causes cancer, but it is not a chemical.

606

Toxic and Hazardous Substances

TOXIC SUBSTANCES In June 2016, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which defines toxic substances. This was an update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) originally passed in 1976. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, asbestos, lead-based paints, and radon are just a few of the toxic substances that are regulated under this policy. The revisions to TSCA included chemical assessments, risk evaluations, and new riskbased standards that included additional criteria for protection of human health. Persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) were also addressed for additional assessment. The revisions include amending the requirement of the Mercury Export Ban. These chemicals are usually poisons and may include daily-use products such as gasoline, fuel oil, household cleaners, and personal care items that can cause human health impacts when they come in time contact with the body. Toxicity can come from radiation or physical, biological, and chemical properties of the substances. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are some of the primary agencies that make policies on toxic substances in protection of human health.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Hazardous substances are generally classified as acute or chronic. Hazardous substances may not be toxic (harmful to humans). Hazardous substances are at least one of these categories and often respond as multiples of these characteristics: an irritant, toxic, sensitizer, flammable/ignitable, reactive, or combustible. Under OSHA requirements, anyone potentially handling hazardous substances is required to be trained as a form of safety. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) addresses hazardous wastes for operating facilities. Pesticides are not formally referred to as hazardous but are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Also, drugs, foods, cosmetics, and tobacco products are regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Institute of Hazardous Materials Management (IHMM), a not-for-profit professional organization founded in 1984, provides certification training for handling hazardous substances. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) also have definitions of hazardous substances. In 1992, under the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, the United Nations set goals for member countries to label all hazardous chemicals with standard language and symbols on SDS. The United Nations issues the classification system for hazardous chemicals under what it calls the “Purple Book.” OSHA has adopted this system with its Hazardous Communication Standard, which has an SDS that contains sixteen sections. Kelly A. Tzoumis



Toxic Chemicals, Incineration of 607

See also: Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Global Harmonization System (GHS); Hazardous Waste; Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976); Safety Data Sheets (SDS); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976); Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Further Reading

Institute of Hazardous Materials Management (IHMM). 2018. “What Are Hazardous Materials?” Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­leg​.­state​.­m n​.­us​/­docs​/­2015​/­other​ /­150681​/ ­PFEISref​_1​/­IHMM​%­202012​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act.” September 18, 2018. Accessed April 11, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­laws​-­regulations​/­summary​-­toxic​-­substances​-­control​-­act.

Toxic Chemicals, Incineration of Toxic chemicals are critical constituents of hazardous wastes that are generated at the rate of two hundred million tons annually. Their presence in waste is the consequence of manufacturing and consuming cosmetics, detergents, furniture, glues, pharmaceuticals, paint and cleaning products, phones, televisions, pesticides, computers, gasoline, transformers, lightbulbs, and various synthetic materials. Toxic chemicals are present in all forms of hazardous waste: liquids, solids, contained gases, and sludges. Incineration is one the central alternatives to landfills and other types of treatment and disposal facilities. High-combustion incineration of hazardous wastes, including toxic chemicals, involves the controlled high-temperature burning of solid and hazardous wastes and the effective recovery of any residual pollutants. High-temperature incineration converts solid and liquid waste into ash, flue gas, and heat. Sometimes the heat generated by an incinerator is used to generate electricity. Incineration also has the benefit of reducing solid waste volumes entering landfills. Although incineration has significant benefits, it will produce significant health and environmental impacts when proper procedures are lacking or the latest incineration technology has not been deployed. According to the National Research Council (2000, 34), The typical waste-incineration facility includes the following operations: waste storage and feed preparation; combustion in a furnace, production of hot gases, and bottom ash residue for disposal; gas temperature reduction, frequently involving heat recovery via steam generation; treatment of the cooled gas to remove air pollutants, and disposal of residuals from this treatment process; and dispersion of the treated gas to the atmosphere through an induced-draft fan and stack.

It is important to note that incinerators, if improperly managed, can make hazardous waste more toxic by altering its form into air emissions and toxic ash that contain multiple toxic chemicals. During the incineration process, wastes (including those that contain toxic chemicals) are fed into the incinerator’s combustion chamber. As the wastes are heated, they are converted from solids and liquids into gases. These gases pass

608

Toxic Chemicals, Incineration of

through the flame and are further heated. Eventually, the gases become so hot that the chemicals in the form of organic and inorganic compounds in the gases break down into their constituent atoms. These atoms combine with oxygen and form stable gases that are released to the atmosphere after passing through air pollution control devices. For incineration to be an effective method for destroying wastes’ hazardous properties, combustion must be complete. Three critical factors must be present to ensure complete combustion in an incinerator: (1) very high temperatures in the combustion chamber, (2) an extended time frame to maintain the exposure of wastes to high temperatures, and (3) mechanisms to accelerate the turbulence, or degree of mixing, of the wastes and air. Operating conditions are specified in each incinerator permit to ensure complete combustion. Toxic chemicals are defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as any substance that may be harmful to the environment or hazardous to human health if absorbed through skin, inhaled, or ingested. Toxic chemicals found in solid and hazardous wastes in various solid and liquid states or that are produced though the incineration process include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins (persistent organic pollutants (POPs) found in PCBs), chlorides (salts), and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs). Destruction in high-temperature incinerators, including fixed hearth and rotary kiln combustors, are considered the best technologies to manage wastes containing both biological and chemical toxins. There are several advantages to using high-temperature incinerators: (1) regulations are already in place that require tracking mechanisms, (2) effective and appropriate emissions controls already exist, and (3) mandatory employee safety educational programs are already routine. Limitations of these technologies include their limited capacities to process sufficient quantities of waste and their remote locations. The public does not look fondly on the siting of incineration facilities in their communities; therefore, the only way to avoid public opposition is to site incinerators in remote locations. Unlike organic and inorganic chemicals, toxins in the form of metals (including lead and mercury) are more difficult to manage. Because metals do not combust, incineration is not considered an effective method of managing toxic metals. Regulatory legislation related to hazardous wastes, including those that are toxic chemicals, include the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). When Congress enacted RCRA in 1976, it directed the EPA to establish performance, design, and operating standards for all hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), including incinerators. The EPA promulgated both general facility standards that apply to all TSDFs and requirements for specific types of units (e.g., incinerators, landfills, and surface impoundments) in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 264–265. Subpart O applies to owners and operators of facilities that incinerate hazardous waste.



Toxic Release or Accident 609

To a large extent, the regulation of facilities that incinerate municipal solid waste, medical waste, or hazardous waste, including toxic chemicals, has been delegated by the EPA to the states, with the EPA providing oversight. Nevertheless, the EPA retains exclusive jurisdiction over incineration operations involving PCBs and hazardous wastes removed from Superfund sites. Today’s hazardous waste incinerators, operating under stringent EPA and state regulations, are high-technology devices that are carefully designed, controlled, and maintained to assure (1) the safe destruction of all hazardous chemical and organic constituents in the waste; (2) the control of emissions to safe levels, which are generally substantially below those standards met by manufacturing and other industries; and (3) the proper treatment and safe disposal of any residues that remain after high-temperature incineration. Although incineration is an important alternative to landfill disposal, the process of permitting incineration facilities invariably causes public controversy and opposition. The long-term solution to toxic chemical management is the increased use of recycling. Recycling will reduce the need for landfill disposal and the incineration of toxic chemicals. John Munro See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Dioxins; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

Cooper, Savannah. 2015. “Incinerating Hazardous Waste.” Environmental Protection, April 20, 2015. Accessed October 9, 2017. ­https://​­eponline​.­com​/­articles​/­2015​/­04​/­20​ /­incinerating​-­hazardous​-­waste​.­aspx. National Research Council. 2000. Waste Incineration and Public Health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Toxic Release or Accident Exposure to toxic chemicals, be it through air, water, or food, is an everyday experience throughout the world. Each year, approximately ten million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere (Worldometers 2019). Much of this exposure is from natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, and wildfires—particularly when such events damage areas where toxic chemicals are utilized and stored. A recent example is the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in Japan, where a 9.0 magnitude earthquake caused a tsunami that disabled the power supply and cooling of three nuclear reactors, which led to a highly radioactive meltdown that caused the deaths of over one thousand people. Growing concerns in recent years, especially among public and occupational health experts, involve the health reactions and illnesses encountered from the restoration and occupation of moldy indoor environments after hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical storms. Symptoms among first responders, unprotected

610

Toxic Release or Accident

workers, homeowners, and volunteers have included severe reactions of the airways, skin, mucous membranes, and internal organs (Johanning et al. 2013). However, the toxic effects from some of these natural hazards will very likely be exacerbated due to climate change. While toxic releases and accidents caused by natural hazards are common and will continue, for the purposes of this entry, we will focus on four of the world’s worst “man-made” toxic releases or accidents: Bhopal, Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, and Deepwater Horizon. We should note that each of these disasters is discussed in detail within this volume. BHOPAL The “Bhopal disaster” refers to events that occurred on the night of December 2 and morning of December 3, 1984, after approximately forty-one metric tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC) and other toxic gases leaked from the pesticide plant of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. In just a few hours, nearly four thousand people died, and over a half million were injured as a result of the disaster. What exactly was leaked into the atmosphere during the accident is not known. When MIC is exposed to heat of two hundred degrees Fahrenheit (which apparently occurred at Bhopal), it forms degraded MIC, which contains the more deadly hydrogen cyanide (HCN). Some of the victims’ blood and viscera had a cherry-red color, which is characteristic of acute cyanide poisoning (Broughton 2005). Two days after the accident, scientists from India’s Air Pollution Control Board found cyanide near the plant’s MIC tank. UCIL denied the possibility of cyanide poisoning, which many claimed was because the toxicity of cyanide is well known (as opposed to the unknown MIC) and would have expanded the scope of legal claims (Mukerjee 1995). Thirty-two years after the accident, in 2016, aquifers as far as nearly two miles away were still contaminated with toxic wastes. Clean-up efforts have been slowed owing to Dow Chemical’s purchase of UCC in 2001. Residents in the area have reported a large number of illnesses, as well as a large number of babies born with birth defects. Landowners near the plant sued UCC for causing injuries that were attributed to the plant’s inadequate waste management system. Bhopal’s residents await their justice (Sohrabji 2016).

CHERNOBYL “Chernobyl” refers to the commercial nuclear power plant accident that occurred in the early morning hours of April 26, 1986, near the town of Chernobyl in present-day Northern Ukraine. The reactor’s explosion was a result of faulty design and operator error. The accident created radioactive fallout that eventually affected thousands of people and contaminated land and livestock in Ukraine, Belarus, the Russian Federation, and countries in Northern and Eastern Europe. The lasting health consequences of this disaster are unknown.



Toxic Release or Accident 611

The accident’s sequence began when the plant’s management and specialists conducted an overnight experiment on reactor Unit #4 to test the turbine generator’s ability to power the cooling pumps as the generator was coming to a standstill after its steam supply had been cut off. Forty-five seconds after the experiment began, at 1:23:48 a.m., two explosions occurred in Unit #4 that destroyed the reactor hall and sent burning radioactive reactor core fragments onto the roofs of adjacent buildings, causing more than thirty fires. It is estimated that the steam and fires released at least 5 percent of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind. A Bq is the designation for a becquerel that represents a unit of radioactivity equal to one nuclear decay per second. Thus, if a substance has one nuclear decay per second, it has a radioactivity of 1 Bq. An EBq, which is 1,018 Bq, is often used to describe the stand units of radioactive decay. Approximately 14 EBq (14 × 1,018 Bq) of radioactivity was released during the next ten days, with the radionuclides iodine-131 and cesium-137 being among the most significant in terms of radiation affecting the public. These two radionuclides have half-lives of eight days and thirty years, respectively. Beyond the reactor fire and attempts to stabilize the reactor, decontamination of the surrounding buildings and forests would be a major undertaking. The initial solution concerning radioactive waste disposal was to bury the waste in an excavated pit. However, this would quickly prove to be inadequate. Eventually, there would be over eight hundred burial sites for contaminated soil, debris, and machinery. The amount of timber in the “red forests” (owing to their discoloration as a result of irradiation) was so enormous that even after much of it was buried, piles were left on the sides of roads for many years. In Belarus, about six thousand square kilometers of land were removed for economic use. In Ukraine, that figure was eighteen hundred square kilometers, with about 40 percent of forested area contaminated. For those who lived near the reactor, about 45,000 residents were evacuated from the closest town, Pripyat, on April 27, along with residents from 187 outlying settlements. Soviet authorities designated a thirty-kilometer radius as an exclusion zone, within which compulsory evacuation was completed within the first few days after the accident. Over the next three weeks, about 116,000 people who lived within the exclusion zone were evacuated and later relocated. A Sievert (Sv) is an unit of measure for radiation dose on the body. Sieverts are usually in small measured doses of ionizing radiation, so 1 mSv indicates 100 Sieverts. Soviet authorities established a criterion of 350 mSv lifetime radiation dose as the level to which an area was considered “contaminated.” In terms of assessing the long-term health effects of the Chernobyl disaster, one of the major difficulties was the lack of reliable public health information before 1986, particularly given the widespread mistrust of official information from the Soviet government. In 1989, researchers from the World Health Organization (WHO) found that several biological and health problems had been falsely attributed to radiation exposure from Chernobyl. In response, the Soviets requested that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) coordinate an international experts’ assessment of Chernobyl’s radiological, environmental, and health

612

Toxic Release or Accident

consequences in selected towns of the most heavily contaminated areas in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. A large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and had lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. The cancer was most likely not caused by direct radiation exposure but by the high levels of radioactive iodine that was deposited in pastures and then eaten by cows, where it concentrated it in their milk, which was subsequently drunk by children. Twenty years after the accident, in 2006, nearly five thousand cases of thyroid cancer had been diagnosed among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident. In addition, the WHO investigations suggested a doubling of the incidence of leukemia among the most highly exposed Chernobyl liquidators as well as a small increase in the incidence of premenopausal breast cancer in the most contaminated areas, which appeared to be related to radiation dose. Since the Chernobyl disaster, all of the RBMK reactors have been modified by changes in the control rods, adding neutron absorbers and consequently increasing the fuel enrichment from 1.8 to 2.4 percent U-235, making them more stable at low power. Automatic shutdown mechanisms operate faster, other safety mechanisms have been improved, and automated inspection equipment has been installed. According to a German nuclear safety agency report, a repetition of the 1986 Chernobyl accident is now “virtually impossible” (WNO 2018). In 2010, the Belarus government decided to resettle thousands of people in the former contaminated zones covered by the accident. In 2011, Chernobyl was declared a tourist attraction. EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL The disaster known as the Exxon Valdez oil spill began shortly after midnight on March 24, 1989, when the 987-foot tank vessel Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef, near Valdez, Alaska, spilling somewhere between eleven and thirty-two million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound. Up until that point, this was the largest environmental disaster in American history—until surpassed by the explosion and subsequent wellhead leak of British Petroleum’s (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster would test the abilities of local, national, and industrial organizations to respond to such incidents. The cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill took more than three years and cost in excess of $2.1 billion (Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 1994b). The environmental impact of this spill is still in question. The accident became an important rallying point for environmentalists and lawmakers, and it also prompted hundreds of scientific studies to look at the implications of the disaster on local people, the ecosystem, remediation practices, and oil spill responses. In the aftermath of the incident, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which required the U.S. Coast Guard to strengthen its regulations on oil tank vessels and oil tank owners and operators.



Toxic Release or Accident 613

In the wake of the disaster, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOSTC) was formed to oversee restoration of the injured ecosystem through the use of Exxon’s 1991 $900 million civil settlement. In November 1994, the EVOSTC adopted an official list of resources and services injured by the spill in its Restoration Plan. One of the continuing issues with the Restoration Plan is that, when it was drafted, the distinction between the effects of the oil spill and the effects of other natural and anthropogenic stressors on affected natural resources were not clearly delineated, nor was the definition of “recovery”; so, as time passes, the ability to distinguish the effects of oil from other factors affecting fish and wildlife populations has diminished (EVOSTC 1994a). Nevertheless, a substantial body of research has addressed wildlife injury and recovery following the spill, which has allowed for greater understanding of the timelines and mechanisms of population recovery following catastrophic spills (Essler et  al. 2018). Much of the research conducted in the wake of the spill would later be used to ameliorate the environmental damage inflicted by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL Deepwater Horizon was a deepwater offshore drilling rig operating in the Gulf of Mexico that had been leased to BP (formerly British Petroleum) from 2001 until September 2013. By 2009, the rig had drilled the deepest oil well in history, with a vertical depth of over thirty-five thousand feet. On April 20, 2010, a blowout on the rig led to an explosion and fire that not only caused the deaths of eleven crewmen but also the spillage, in eighty-seven days, of over four million barrels of oil—the largest oil spill in U.S. waters—directly affecting aviary and marine life and the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people who live along the Gulf Coast. The first efforts to control the spread of oil to gulf beaches and other coastal ecosystems used in situ burns, skimmers, floating booms, and dispersants. However, skimmers can only recover about 40 percent of an oil spill, and in the case of the Deepwater Horizon spill, they only recovered about 3 percent of the released oil. Similarly, booms require constant maintenance and can cause significant damage to wetlands and marshes. Dispersants sprayed by aircraft have the benefit of being able to treat large areas of water quickly (NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration 2019). Oil dispersants, at least in theory, are intended to break up oil slicks into small droplets, making it easier for oil-eating microbes to break them down. The small droplets are less buoyant, which also allows them to scatter throughout the water more easily. The use of dispersants was thought to be especially useful because if the oil slick were allowed to remain on the surface, it would be particularly dangerous to seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and early life stages of fish (i.e., fish eggs and embryos). The two primary chemical dispersants were Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A (NIH 2017), which were sprayed in unprecedented amounts, both underwater at the wellhead and on the surface, even though little research had been conducted on human health effects.

614

Toxic Release or Accident

Between the weeks of April 27 and May 10, well over three hundred thousand gallons of dispersant had been applied in the gulf, and spill workers were reporting nausea and headaches. Environmental groups then tried to pressure Nalco (Corexit’s manufacturer) to release the dispersants’ formula, but Nalco declined, citing intellectual property rights (National Commission 2011). It was known at the time, however, that according to the manufacturer’s safety data sheet (SDS), Corexit 9527 contained the toxin 2-butoxyethanol, which may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), the kidneys, or the liver. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, cleanup workers reportedly suffered health problems, including blood in their urine as well as kidney and liver disorders, attributed to 2-butoxyethanol (CBD 2019). In terms of the spill’s effects on marshes, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration was tasked with the responsibility of creating a restoration plan as part of the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA). The team used field and laboratory studies to demonstrate that oil had degraded the health of several coastal marsh plants and animals, reduced oyster cover, and increased erosion of marsh habitats. At least 350 miles of shoreline in Louisiana was affected, with several miles permanently lost (NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration 2016). In addition, the oil spill caused bleaching and tissue loss in deepwater coral reefs over an area three times larger than Manhattan. As for wildlife effects, thousands of animals were exposed to oil throughout their habitats. Veterinarians and scientists from the NOAA, along with other state and federal agencies, captured heavily oiled turtles twenty to forty miles offshore, including the endangered loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, green, and hawksbill turtles. Scientists determined that the spill had contaminated every type of habitat that marine animals occupy in the northern Gulf of Mexico and caused a wide range of adverse health effects, such as reproductive failure and organ damage. For bottlenose dolphins, the spill reduced their survival and reproductive success, leading to a 50 percent decline in their population (NOAA, National Ocean Service 2017). All told, the spill led to the largest and longest marine mammal unusual mortality event ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA, National Ocean Service 2017). The Health Hazard Evaluation Report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that cleanup responders had been exposed to benzene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as toluene, ethylbenzene, oxylene, xylene, and styrene—each of which is associated with adverse hematologic effects. As well, the long-term effects of the BP oil spill on exposed cleanup workers produced an increased prevalence of illness symptoms, such as shortness of breath, headaches, skin rash, chronic cough, weakness, dizzy spells, painful joints, and chest pain—even seven years after the accident (D’Andrea and Reddy 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis John Munro See also: Bhopal Disaster (1984); Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010); Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989); Toxic and Hazardous Substances; Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).



Further Reading

Toxic Release or Accident 615

Broughton, Edward. 2005. “The Bhopal Disaster and Its Aftermath: A Review.” Environmental Health 4(6). Accessed October 5, 2018. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1186​/­1476​- ­069X​ -­4 ​- ­6. Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). “Dispersants.” Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­biologicaldiversity​.­org​/­programs​/­public​_lands​/­energy​/­dirty​_energy​_development​/­oil​_and​_ gas​/­g ulf​_oil​_spill​/­dispersants​.­html. D’Andrea, Mark A., and G. Kesava Reddy. 2018. “The Development of Long-Term Adverse Health Effects in Oil Spill Cleanup Workers of the Deepwater Horizon Offshore Drilling Rig Disaster.” Frontiers in Public Health, April 26, 2018. Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­3389​/­f pubh​.­2018​.­00117​.. Esler, Daniel, Brenda E. Ballachey, Craig Matkin, Daniel Cushing, Robert Kaler, James Bodkin, Daniel Monson, George Esslinger, and Kim Kloecker. 2018. “Timelines and Mechanisms of Wildlife Population Recovery Following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.” Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 147(January): 36–42. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1994a. “Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan.” Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­evostc​.­state​.­ak​.­us​/­media​/­4005​/­1994restorationplan​ .­pdf. Exxon Valdex Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1994b. “Final Environmental Impact Statement.” Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­evostc​.­state​.­ak​.­us​/­media​/­4235​/­1994restorationplaneis​ .­pdf. Johanning, Eckardt, Pierre Auger, Philip R. Morey, Chin S. Yang, and Ed Olmsted. 2013. “Review of Health Hazards and Prevention Measures for Response and Recovery Workers and Volunteers after Natural Disasters, Flooding, and Water Damage: Mold and Dampness.” Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 19: 93–99. Accessed September 29, 2019 ­https://​­environhealthprevmed​.­biomedcentral​.­com​ /­articles​/­10​.­1007​/­s12199​- ­013​- ­0368​- ­0. Mould, R. F. 2000. Chernobyl Record: The Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing. Mukerjee, M. 1995. “Persistently Toxic: The Union Carbide Accident in Bhopal Continues to Harm.” Scientific American 272(6): 16–17. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (National Commission). 2011. “Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling: Report to the President.” Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­govinfo​.­gov​ /­content​/­pkg​/­GPO​-­OILCOMMISSION​/­pdf​/­GPO​-­OILCOMMISSION​.­pdf. National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2017. “Gulf Spill Oil Dispersants Associated with Health Symptoms in Cleanup Workers.” September 19, 2017. Accessed April 15, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nih​.­gov​/­news​-­events​/­news​-­releases​/­g ulf​-­spill​-­oil​-­dispersants​ -­associated​-­health​-­symptoms​-­cleanup​-­workers. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service. 2017. “Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Long-Term Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles.” Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­oceanservice​.­noaa​.­gov​/­news​/­apr17​ /­dwh​-­protected​-­species​.­html. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Response and Restoration. 2016. “Effects of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Coastal Marsh Habitat.” Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­response​.­restoration​.­noaa​.­gov​/­about​/­media​ /­where​-­find​-­orr​-­and​-­other​-­noaa​-­information​-­deepwater​-­horizon​-­oil​-­spill​.­html. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Response and Restoration. 2019. “What Have We Learned about Using Dispersants during the

616

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Next Big Oil Spill?” Accessed April 20, 2019. ­https://​­response​.­restoration​.­noaa​ .­gov​/­about​/­media​/­what​-­have​-­we​-­learned​-­about​-­using​-­dispersants​-­during​-­next​-­big​ -­oil​-­spill​.­html. Norman, Colin. 1986. “Chernobyl: Errors and Design Flaws” Science 233(4768): 1029–­ 1031​.­ Sohrabji, Sunita. 2016. “Bhopal Victims Launch Final Try to Get Union Carbide to Clean Up Mess.” India West. Accessed November 1, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­indiawest​.­com​ /­news​/­global​_ indian ​/ ­bhopal​-­v ictims​-­launch​-­f inal​-­t ry​-­t o​-­get​-­u nion​-­carbide​-­t o​ /­article​_108e7564​- ­43a7​-­11e6​-­8537​- ­47e43bb75108​.­html. World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. “Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident: An Overview.” Accessed September 7, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­ionizing​_radiation​ /­chernobyl​/ ­backgrounder​/­en. World Nuclear Organization. 2018. “Chernobyl Accident 1986.” Accessed September 7, 2018. ­http://​­w ww​.­world​-­nuclear​.­org​/­i nformation​-­library​/­safety​-­and​-­security​/­safety​-­of​ -­plants​/­chernobyl​-­accident​.­aspx. Worldometers. 2019. “Toxic Chemicals.” Accessed September 29, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­worldometers​.­info​/­view​/­toxchem.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)(1976) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed by the Congress on September 28, 1976, and signed into law by President Gerald Ford on October 11, 1976; the law went into effect on January 1, 1977. As originally stipulated, the TSCA authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to secure information on all new and existing chemical substances (which numbered about seventy thousand at the time) and to control any of the substances that were determined to cause unreasonable risk to public health or the environment (EPA n.d.-c). BACKGROUND Prior to the passage of the TSCA, the federal regulation of chemical substances was under the jurisdiction of several different agencies and programs. Although there were several chemicals, particularly pesticides, that had been regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) of 1938 and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947, there were several thousands of chemicals left largely unregulated, including asbestos, benzene, formaldehyde, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (Vogel and Roberts 2011). In 1971, President Nixon’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a report that defined the need for comprehensive legislation that would regulate a broader set of chemicals whose manufacture, processing, distribution, use, and disposal had previously not been adequately regulated under other environmental statutes (Schierow 2009). In all, the CEQ reported four important findings about toxic risk: (1) that toxic substances were entering the environment; (2) the effects of these substances were largely unknown; (3) that there were few legal mechanisms to address these effects; and (4) that new regulatory



Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 617

authority was necessary to protect public health and the environment (Eichenberger 2015). Pushback from industry concerning costs, the scope of chemical screening, and the relationship to other regulatory laws would stall more immediate legislative action. However, in the wake of such environmental episodes as the contamination of the Hudson River (and other waterways) by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the threat of stratospheric ozone depletion from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, and the contamination of agricultural produce by polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) in the state of Michigan, there was a greater impetus for legislative action concerning the matter (Schierow 2009). TSCA POLICIES In its original conception of the TSCA, Congress attempted to create a comprehensive system for evaluating and regulating chemicals, prior to their introduction into commerce, that were thought to pose an “unreasonable risk” to public health and the environment. To that end, the EPA was given broad authority to issue regulations that were designed to collect health and safety information on, require testing of, and control exposure to chemical substances and mixtures. For many, the fact that drugs, cosmetics, foods, food additives, pesticides, and nuclear materials were left exempt from the TSCA (EPA n.d.-b) was problematic. In the case of food additives, for example, these substances were left under the regulation of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, which established a list of seven hundred food additives that were exempt from the testing that the law required of manufacturers before introducing new food additives to the market. In essence, the substances were already designated as generally regarded as safe (GRAS) (Krimsky 2017). One of the major responsibilities for the EPA under the new act was to maintain the TSCA Substances Inventory (usually termed simply as “the Inventory”), which was a list of approximately seventy thousand existing chemicals that were already on the market. Chemicals that were not already listed on the Inventory were considered “new chemicals” under TSCA that had to go through a review process before they could be added to the Inventory and become “existing chemicals” (EPA n.d.-b). TSCA policy dictated that data be developed that showed the effects of chemical substances and that those data should be provided by the manufacturers of those chemical substances and mixtures. The goal behind this policy was that chemical manufacturers would largely bear the responsibility of ensuring that chemicals were closely scrutinized before going on the market (Schierow 2009). Congressional hearings prior to the passage of the TSCA revealed that some chemical manufacturers knew about the carcinogenic effects of chemicals used in their process, but they intentionally withheld that information from the public and regulators to avoid liability (Eichenberger 2015). One of the biggest problems for the EPA was that there was a catch-22 when it came to testing requirements: the EPA was required to make findings about risk and exposure prior to issuing a test rule, but it then gave regulators no mechanism to generate the information needed to make those findings (Eichenberger 2015).

618

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Under the new authority given to the EPA by the TSCA (particularly in Title I Sec. 6) the EPA was allowed to take action against manufacturers, including restricting or banning the manufacture, importation, processing, distribution, use, or disposal of any chemical substance that presented an “unreasonable risk” of injury to human health or the environment (EPA n.d.-b). However, one of the more immediate problems with the act was that the EPA repeatedly used the term “unreasonable risk” but never properly defined it. According to Eichenberger (2015, 129), the EPA usually interpreted the unreasonable risk standard to require “a balancing of the consideration of both the severity and the probability that will occur against the effect of the final regulatory action on the availability to society of the benefits of the chemical substance.” Because there were several thousand chemicals initially covered by the TSCA that were already on the market, Congress established a special interagency committee to help the EPA determine which of the chemicals should be considered first. The new Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) was charged with recommending to the EPA which should be tested, and what kind of test rules should be developed. The EPA was then required to publish a Federal Register notice within twelve months to either propose a test rule or provide reasons for not doing so (Schierow 2009). Section 8 of the TSCA allowed the EPA to require reports from the chemical manufacturers (as mentioned above) to prove the chemical identify, molecular structure, and names; categories of use; amount manufactured; description of any by-products; existing environmental and health data; the number of individuals likely to be exposed during the manufacturing process and the likely duration of that exposure; and the manner in which the chemicals were to be disposed (Schierow 2009). Manufacturers were, of course, concerned about confidentiality and trade secrets related to their products. Under Section 14 of the TSCA, the EPA was required to grant a confidentiality request if the requesters demonstrated that they had taken reasonable measure to protect the information, that the information had not been reasonably attainable by other persons, that there was no statutory requirement to disclose, and that such disclosure would harm either the business in question or deter the government’s ability to get information in the future. Once the confidentiality was designated, the information had to be protected and could only be released to other agencies, government contractors, or to protect the public’s health (Eichenberger 2015). As the TSCA was put into law, there was much concern that there would be duplication of several rules and regulations that were already in effect. TSCA Section 9 provided that the EPA was to consult and coordinate with the head of other appropriate executive departments or agencies to “achieve maximum enforcement of TSCA while imposing the least burden of duplicative requirements” (EPA n.d.-e). To enhance this coordination across agencies and programs, the EPA meets with other federal agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to share information on chemicals of potential mutual concern (EPA n.d.-e).



Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 619

In terms of regulating imported chemicals, in its original mandate, the TSCA, as well as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), required importers to certify that such chemicals either complied with TSCA requirements (i.e., a positive certification) or, if not otherwise clearly identified as a chemical excluded from TSCA, were not subject to TSCA (a negative certification). A negative certification was required for some products when they were not clearly identified, including any pesticide, food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, source material, special nuclear material, and firearms and ammunition. No certification was required for chemicals that were part of articles (unless required by a specific rule under the TSCA), and no certification was required for tobacco or tobacco products (EPA 2019d). The requirements for exports under the TSCA were not as stringent. Under Section 12(b), any person who exported or intended to export a chemical substance or mixture that was subject to certain TSCA regulations was required to notify the agency. The EPA, in turn, was to provide information about such exported chemical and the EPA’s related regulatory actions to the importing government (EPA n.d.-e). As for the role of states under the new TSCA, there was little that they could do—this was a federal law. There was no provision for the states to implement the TSCA’s basic regulations, and the TSCA did not provide any kind of special access for state officials to confidential business information that was reported to the EPA. However, states were allowed to petition the EPA to issue rules exempting state or local governments if compliance was not thought to cause a violation of federal law or if the state’s laws provided a higher degree of protection than the federal requirements and did not unduly burden interstate commerce (Schierow 2009). As for individuals, under Section 19 of the TSCA, they were allowed to petition for judicial review of specified rules within sixty days of issuance under TSCA. The courts were also directed to set aside specified rules if they were not supported by “substantial evidence” in the rulemaking record taken as a whole (Schierow 2009). PROBLEMS WITH THE TSCA One of the immediate difficulties with the implementation of the TSCA was that, despite its intention to give the EPA greater authority to regulate chemicals prior to their entry into the market, the act allowed existing chemicals to be grandfathered in. As Eichenberger (2015, 131) notes, between 1979 and 1982, the EPA had identified several thousand chemicals already in commerce and had included them in the Inventory, but it had never subjected the chemicals to testing, data collection, or regulation. Another issue with the original TSCA was the separate criteria for introducing new chemicals to the market—something that became quite burdensome for the EPA. Chemical manufacturers were required to notify the EPA by submitting a premanufacture notice (PMN) before marketing their products. The issue was that the PMN did not require the manufacturer to produce a minimum amount of

620

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

public health and safety data. In addition, there were no penalties associated with a lack of data. In 2003, the EPA found that 85 percent of the PMNs lacked data on health effects (Krimsky 2017). As newer chemicals were being developed, the EPA was simply not up to the task of its regulatory responsibilities under the TSCA. According to a 2013 U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, between 1976 and 2013, the EPA, under its TSCA authority, had only banned five existing chemicals: fully halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, hexavalent chromium, and asbestos—the latter of which was overturned by the courts (Krimsky 2017). Because there was such a backlog of chemical testing to be done, the EPA had to prioritize its efforts by choosing a subset of chemicals based on preliminary toxicological information, production volume, and exposure (Krimsky 2017). Two of the factors that have impeded the EPA’s ability to regulate under the TSCA are the time it takes to validate methods for acquiring health and safety data and the difficulties of evaluating findings that do not lend themselves to traditional toxicology methods. For instance, in the study of low-dose exposures, the meaning of low dose has not been clear, nor how low-dose effects should be tested (Krimsky 2017). One issue is that, for some chemicals, including endocrine-disrupting compounds, effects are found at low doses but not at high or intermediate doses. Therefore, standard toxicology methods for human safety by extrapolating from high-dose testing may not be appropriate (Krimsky 2017). Unease with the EPA’s ineffectiveness was common for both chemical industry advocates and environmentalists. The former identified the need for reform to increase public confidence, keep pace with science, and increase both product innovation and uniformity of regulations. The latter group wanted more reforms to increase effective regulation and to reduce risks that the chemical industry could possibly pose to public health and the environment (Eichenberger 2015). Owing largely to both the public’s and chemical industry’s unease with the TSCA, public confidence continually waned; thus, some states passed their own chemical laws. As well, pressure grew in the marketplace to deselect certain products without sound scientific testing. After years of negotiation and with input from industry, environment, public health, animal rights, and labor groups, Congress passed the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (often shortened to Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act or LCSA) to reform the TSCA. The stated intention of the LCSA was to protect public health and the environment as well as to support economic growth and manufacturing (ACC 2017) John Munro Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

American Chemistry Council. 2017. “The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act: A More Effective Way to Regulate Chemicals in Commerce.”



Toxic Waste and Race in the United States 621

Accessed September 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­lcsact​.­com​/­w p​-­content​/­uploads​/­2017​/­12​ /­LCSA​-­Learn​-­More​.­pdf. Eichenberger, Colin P. 2015. “Improving the Toxic Substances Control Act: A Precautionary Approach to Toxic Chemical Reaction.” Air Force Law Review 72: 123–159. Krimsky, Sheldon. 2017. “The Unsteady State and Inertia of Chemical Regulation under the US Toxic Substances Control Act.” PLoS Biology 15(12): e2002404. Schierow, Linda-Jo. 2009. “The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): Implementation and New Challenges.” Congressional Research Service. Accessed August 30, 2019. ­h ttps://​­ w ww​.­a cs​.­o rg​/­c ontent​/­d am ​/­a csorg​/­p olicy​/­a csonthehill​/ ­b rief ings​ /­toxicitytesting​/­crs​-­rl34118​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-a. “Basic Information on TSCA Import-Export Requirements.” Accessed September 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­t sca​-­i mport​-­e xport​-­r equirements​/ ­b asic​-­i nformation​-­t sca​-­i mport​-­e xport​ -­requirements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-b. “Learn about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” Accessed September 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­assessing​ -­and​-­managing​-­chemicals​-­under​-­tsca​/­learn​-­about​-­toxic​-­substances​-­control​-­act​-­tsca. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-c. “Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Federal Facilities.” Accessed September 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­enforcement​/­toxic​-­substances​-­control​-­act​-­tsca​-­and​-­federal​-­facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-d. “TSCA Requirements for Importing Chemicals.” Accessed September 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­tsca​-­import​ -­export​-­requirements​/­tsca​-­requirements​-­importing​-­chemicals​# ­negative. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d.-e. “TSCA Section 9 Relationship to Other Federal Laws.” Accessed September 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­assessing​ -­a nd​-­managing​- ­chemicals​-­u nder​-­t sca​/­t sca​-­section​-­9 ​-­relationship​- ­other​-­federal​ -­laws. Vogel, Sarah A., and Jody A. Roberts. 2011. “Why the Toxic Substances Control Act Needs an Overhaul, and How to Strengthen Oversight of Chemicals in the Interim.” Health Affairs 30(5). Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­healthaffairs​ .­org​/­doi​/­f ull​/­10​.­1377​/ ­hlthaff​.­2011​.­0211.

Toxic Waste and Race in the United States(1987 and 1990) The United Church of Christ (UCC) Commission for Racial Justice issued two major groundbreaking reports that correlated race and income with toxic waste landfills. Rev. Benjamin Chavis, former head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), connected the civil rights movement to exposure of environmental pollution along with concerns from religious ministries. Under his leadership, the UCC published Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States (1987; 1990), with a twenty-year anniversary update report in 2007 (UCC 2007). The 1987 report (UCC 1987) was the first statistical national study to correlate hazardous waste facilities with race. These reports are major pieces of research that statistically link race and income (class) to environmental pollution for Hispanic and African American people, low-income people, and people of color overall. The reports were provoked by the 1983 Warren County, North Carolina, landfill protests and follow-up research by

622

Toxic-Free Legacy (TFL) Coalition

the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report in 1983, which left some methodological questions because it was mainly a small sample of four hazardous waste landfills. The 1987 and 1990 reports assisted with bringing important research to spur the signing of Executive Order 12898. Unlike the modern environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which focused on environmental pollution, the environmental justice (EJ) movement of the 1990s included issues of race and income that were previously not in focus. In the 1980s, professors at the University of Michigan worked with local EJ groups to begin discussions and introduce research to the EJ policy agenda. President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 (1994, 7629), which specifically outlines an EJ community as “minority, low-income, tribal and indigenous populations or communities in the US that potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risks due to exposures or cumulative impacts, or greater vulnerability to environmental hazards.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken the lead in the implementation of EJ. The 2007 report was prompted by the continued and growing concern of the overburdened communities in areas such as Louisiana, on the Mississippi River, which is referred to as “cancer alley”; the Latino communities in Los Angeles; the tribal lands that have contaminated soils and water; and the areas affected by several natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. These are just a few examples that have continued to keep EJ issues on the agenda. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Cancer Alley (Louisiana); Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Executive Order 12898 (1994); Overburdened Community; Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests (1983).

Further Reading

Executive Order 12898. February 11, 1994. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register 59: 32, 7629. United Church of Christ (UCC). 1987. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New York: Commission for Racial Justice. United Church of Christ (UCC). 1990. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. New York: Commission for Racial Justice. United Church of Christ (UCC). 2007. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty. Cleveland, OH: Justice and Witness Ministries. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1983. “Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities.” June 1, 1983. GAO/RCED-83-168.

Toxic-Free Legacy (TFL) Coalition The Toxic-Free Legacy (TFL) Coalition is a Seattle-based alliance of over sixty Washington State health, environmental, and community organizations, including the American Lung Association, the Audubon Society, Earth Island Institute, and the Nature Conservancy. The TFL Coalition is coordinated and led by Toxic-Free



Toxic-Free Legacy (TFL) Coalition

623

Future (TFF), with a steering committee that also includes Earth Ministry, Arc of WA, and Progreso: Latin Progress. Although based in Seattle, the TFF lobbies at the national, state, and local levels. In the past two decades, the coalition has helped pass many laws concerning toxic chemicals. In 2003, the TFL Coalition and TFF helped establish the nation’s first program to phase out the use of some persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals. The coalition’s efforts helped advance legislation to phase out mercury and led to state action plans on lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and flame retardants made with polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). In 2008, the TFF helped establish the strongest standards in the nation for lead, cadmium, and phthalates in products for children through passage of the Children’s Safe Products Act, which required makers of children’s products to disclose harmful chemicals in their products. In 2010, the coalition and TFF won a ban on the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA). In 2016, they helped with the passage of the Toxic-Free Kids and Families Act, a ban on new-generation toxic flame retardants in furniture and children’s products. In 2018, they helped win passage of a law to keep toxic nonstick PFAS chemicals (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) out of paper food packaging. The coalition also helped win passage of a first-in-the-nation ban on toxic PFAS in firefighting foam. Much of the TFL Coalition and TFF’s work is in conducting original research. In recent years, TFF has published such studies as “On the Money” (2010), which investigated the extent to which thermal receipt paper containing BPA has permeated the market; “What’s On Your List? Toxic Chemicals in Your Shopping Cart” (2014); “Something’s in the Air” (2015), which measured the flame retardants in the air that Washington residents breathe; and “Hiding in Plain Sight: Toxic Flame Retardants and Home Furniture” (2016), which found that 44 percent of home furniture surveyed in major furniture stores contained, or was likely to contain, toxic flame retardants. In 2018, researchers from TFF and Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) examined whether replacing flame-retarded nap mats with flame-retardant free mats affected indoor levels of flame retardants. They found that, after the swap, the levels of four different flame retardants decreased by 40–90 percent, showing that switching nap mat foam could cut children’s exposures to harmful flame retardants. As part of its public information efforts, the TFF’s website provides information on what the TFL Coalition feels are some of the most pressing chemicals of concern today and what the public can do to protect themselves and the environment from these chemicals. The TFF’s legislative priorities and a blog that gives news updates are included on the website. As is true of many environmental groups, the TFL Coalition has its share of detractors, who claim the coalition often takes credit for ideas produced outside of Washington State and is simply a tool for multi-million-dollar foundations that fund these state-focused, antichemical franchises across the United States. Robert L. Perry

624

Toxicity Labels

See also: Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2); Flame Retardants in Children’s Clothes.

Further Reading

Johnson, Drew. 2015. “Exposing the Secrets of the Washington Toxics Coalition: The Evergreen State Environmental Group Is a Well-Disguised Front Group for National Anti-Chemical Activists.” Washington State Wire, June 27, 2015. Accessed July 26, 2018. ­https://​­washingtonstatewire​.­com​/­exposing​-­secrets​-­washington​-­toxics​-­coalition​ -­evergreen​-­state​-­environmental​-­g roup​-­well​-­disguised​-­f ront​-­g roup​-­national​-­anti​ -­chemical​-­activists. Stolber, Tasha, 2018. “Study: Giving Children Flame-Retardant Free Nap Mats Reduces Harmful Exposures.” Environmental Working Group, May 21, 2018. Accessed July 26, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ewg​.­org​/­news​-­and​-­analysis​/­2018​/­05​/­study​-­giving​-­children​ -­flame​-­retardant​-­free​-­nap​-­mats​-­reduces​-­harmful​#.­W1thgNJKjIU. Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition. “Research.” Accessed July 26, 2018. ­https://​­toxicfreefuture​ .­org​/­science​/­research.

Toxicity Labels In the United States, there are several federal agencies involved with chemical labeling. These are the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the US Department of Transportation (DOT). Labeling is not centralized to one agency because toxic chemicals are used in a variety of products and need labels understandable to professionals in specific industries, emergency responders, and the public. Systems of labeling have evolved over time to include both visual graphics and written information. The CPSC, an independent regulatory body in the United States, oversees the implementation of the Federal Hazardous Substance Labeling Act of 1960, which required certain hazardous household products to have warning labels. This was later renamed the Federal Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA) in 1966 and is one of the major requirements for toxicity labeling today. The law requires warning labels for household substances deemed hazardous. These substances were categorized as having any characteristic of being toxic, corrosive, irritating, a strong sensitizer, flammable or combustible, pressure generating, or radioactive. The law further outlines toxic chemicals as those that have the capacity to produce personal injury or illness to humans through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any human body surface. Products are classified as toxic if linked to cancer, birth defects, or neurotoxicity. CPSC also has the authority to regulate or ban hazardous substances, toys, or other products intended for use by children. This occurs if a product is considered extremely dangerous and labeling would not be sufficient to protect public health. Some examples of children’s products regulated under FHSA include all toys, cribs, rattles, pacifiers, bicycles, and children’s bunk beds. The purpose for labeling toxic substances is to provide immediate information on the hazardous household product’s packaging so that consumers can safely use and store them. If an accident occurs, it also gives consumers and emergency



Toxicity Labels 625

responders immediate first aid steps to follow. Products used or stored in a garage, shed, carport, or other building part of the household are also included. Many chemicals and products are not regulated by CPSC; those require different labeling. These include pesticides, foods, drugs, cosmetics, tobacco products, and industrial chemicals. Special provisions were included under the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials Act for labeling toxic art materials. One of the largest reforms in labeling currently being implemented in the United States and approximately sixty-five other countries is the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). This was developed by the United Nations to standardize toxic chemical information globally, with the goal of common labeling symbols and language to both protect public health and the environment and decrease barriers in chemical trade between countries. GHS was proposed in 1992 at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, with the goal for worldwide implementation in 2000. The GHS labeling criteria includes the identification of hazard classes. Most importantly, the GHS makes the labels uniform; for example, all symbols, warning words, and hazard statements are the same. The GHS also created uniform safety data sheets (SDS) for these chemicals; they have the same information as the labels and additional details on the toxic chemical. GHS includes a set of guidelines for the manufacture, storage, transport, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous substances. As with most international agreements, the GHS is a voluntary system. There is no legally binding treaty or protocol of obligations placed on countries. The United States was an active participant in the development of GHS and adopted it in 2003. In 2012, OSHA completed the revision of its Hazard Communication Standard, commonly known as HazCom 2012, which provides the policy on labeling toxic substances under their purview. HazCom 2012 required changes to labels and the conversion of material safety data sheets (MSDS), formerly used for communicating dangers, to SDS under the GHS. The most noticeable changes brought by GHS are to the safety labels, SDS, and some classifications of chemicals. The SDS are now uniform across countries in format and content. They are divided into sixteen sections with a structured format. The new GHS labels also look different, with six standardized elements and graphics that include specific language, depending on the chemical classification. Another major labeling requirement is associated with chemicals referred to as pesticides and other intended poisons to animals, insects, and plants, which are regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA includes the product label, subject to specific guidelines required under FIFRA, as part of the licensing and registration process for pesticides. The label provides critical information about how to handle and safely use and dispose of the pesticide to avoid human and environmental harm. The EPA has not adopted GHS for pesticide classification and labeling. It explains that, in most cases, GHS hazard statements and pictograms should not appear on pesticide product labels sold and distributed in the United States. Currently, the agency uses two pictograms, a skull and crossbones for the most severe categories of acute toxicity and a flame symbol for certain highly flammable

626

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)

pesticides, that are different from GHS, which has many more pictograms for more detailed labeling (EPA 2017). In 2012, the EPA issued a notice that chemicals are also required to meet GHS labeling and OSHA’s SDS standards; the EPA recommended pesticide registrants include in their SDS the hazard information required on the pesticide label per FIFRA requirements, with a brief explanation of the differences between that information and the GHS SDS. Other products with toxic labeling include food, drugs, and smoking products as well as cosmetics, which are covered by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the labeling and classification of nuclear materials. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1972); Global Harmonization System (GHS); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). n.d. “Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) Requirements.” Accessed September 14, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­cpsc​.­gov​ / ­B usiness​ - -­M anufacturing​ / ­B usiness​ -­E ducation ​ / ­B usiness​ - ­G uidance​ / ­F HSA​ -­Requirements. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). n.d. “Foundation of Workplace Chemical Safety Programs.” Accessed September 14, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­osha​.­gov​ /­dsg​/ ­hazcom​/­global​.­html. UN Economic Commission for Europe. n.d. “About the GHS: Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).” Accessed September 14, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­unece​.­org​/­t rans​/­danger​/­publi​/­ghs​/­ghs​_welcome​_e​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Pesticide Labels and GHS: Comparison and Samples.” Last updated February 16, 2018. Accessed September 14, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​ /­pesticide​-­labels​/­pesticide​-­labels​-­and​-­ghs​-­comparison​-­and​-­samples.

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a searchable database publicly available online to the public and emergency responders. It contains comprehensive information about toxic chemicals the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified as potential risks to human health and the environment if released in air, water, or land and the facilities that manage them. Each facility that has or uses these toxic chemicals is required to report into the TRI system. This database allows the public to be aware of the risks in their communities. TRI was created by Congress in Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 as part of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA). In 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12856, which required federal facilities to comply with Section 313. This order established toxic chemical release reporting by all federal facilities that meet TRI threshold reporting criteria, regardless of their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.



Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 627

TRI is considered one of the most effective accomplishments for public health and environmental protection implemented in recent years. Its information has been used to develop regulations and guidance by the EPA, which is responsible for implementing and maintaining the database. Congress and environmental advocates saw the need for a publicly accessible database of chemical information in response to one of the worst chemical disasters in history. This tragedy took place in India and was televised across the world’s news media. On December 3, 1984, a Union Carbide pesticide plant located in Bhopal, India, accidentally released forty-two tons of deadly methyl isocyanate gas (cyanide gas) that exposed over five hundred thousand people in the surrounding community. The accident occurred when water entered a methyl isocyanate gas tank and leaked a cloud of toxic cyanide gas into nearby impoverished communities. Some refer to this event as one of the impetuses for the environmental justice (EJ) movement that is partially based on the premise that low-income communities are exposed to larger risks from contaminants than other communities. News reports claim that the government of India has underreported the deaths from this exposure at five thousand people (Elliott 2014). The accidental release contaminated the seventy-acre site where the facility was located and is still being remediated today. John Elliott (2014), a journalist who has been reporting the health impacts to the people of India, reports that no consolidated record exists to show the acute or long-lasting impacts from this release. He reports that some groups estimate that the actual death total is closer to thirty thousand people. After the 1984 Bhopal disaster, communities in the United States became more aware of the need for information about chemicals and potential releases that could occur in their neighborhoods. This laid the groundwork for the EPCRA in creating the TRI database in addition to requiring local emergency response teams to deal with chemical spills and releases. Today, the TRI is accessible through the EPA online portal. The 692 chemicals included are typically carcinogens and those chemicals that cause acute or chronic human health or environmental effects. One criticism is that not all toxic chemicals used in the United States are included. Facilities that manufacture, process, or use chemicals in amounts regulated by the EPA must report TRI information on each chemical. The industries required to report are those using chemicals for mining, utilities, manufacturing, beverage and tobacco products, textile mills, apparel, leather and wood products, paper and printing, plastics, metals and machinery, computer and electronics, furniture, transportation, household goods, crop and agricultural processes, and hazardous waste. The database includes aggregate chemical release information as well as relative risk information data from 1987 to the present day. It provides the opportunity for people to search by location, chemical name, and industrial classification codes (known as SIC codes) and by locations near tribal lands; however, in 2006, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an agency reporting to the president, replaced the SIC code system with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). NAICS codes are updated every five years. As of 2017, OMB has revised the NAICS codes to a six-digit number on the TRI reporting forms.

628

Transuranic (TRU) Waste

Each facility also has a Risk Screening Environmental Indicator report and a Pollution Prevention report. These reports and data are easily readable online as well as available to download. Once a search is performed, the user can get the address and name of the facility as well as a map of the facility’s location and yearly information on the chemicals the facility manages. The reports also indicate the amount of chemicals that have been released, treated, recycled, or used in energy recovery. Information in the TRI is reported in simple bar charts and tables for the public and is updated annually on July 1 by the chemical facilities directly into the TRI database. The EPA also created the program My Right-to-Know Application, or myRTK, which can geographically display all nearby facilities that report to the TRI, in additional to the air, water, and hazardous waste permits issued by EPA. It is a recent tool developed for mobile devices in both English and Spanish. The EPA enforces the requirements for reporting into the TRI. The agency can issue civil penalties, including monetary fines, and require correction of violations. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Bhopal Disaster (1984); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986); Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism.

Further Reading

Elliott, John. 2014. “India: After Thirty Years, Bhopal Is Still Simmering.” Newsweek, December 1, 2014. Accessed January 17, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­newsweek​.­com​/­india​ -­after​-­30​-­years​-­bhopal​-­still​-­simmering​-­288144. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “My Right-to-Know Application.” Toxics Release Inventory Program. Last updated March 15, 2017. Accessed January 17, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­toxics​-­release​-­inventory​-­t ri​-­program​/­my​-­right​ -­k now​-­application. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program.” Last updated July 10, 2018. Accessed January 17, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­epa​.­gov​/­toxics​-­release​-­inventory​-­t ri​-­program.

Transuranic (TRU) Waste Transuranic waste, commonly referred to as TRU waste, is defined by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as waste containing radioactive elements that have atomic numbers higher than uranium in the periodic table of elements, which includes neptunium, plutonium, and americium. This characteristic caused the waste to be named transuranic, meaning “beyond uranium.” It is primarily produced from recycling spent fuel or using plutonium to fabricate nuclear weapons. TRU waste is classified as either “contact-handled” or “remote-handled” based on the amount of radiation dose measured at the surface of a waste container. According to the NRC (2018), contact-handled waste has a radiation dose rate no greater than 200 millirem (mrem) per hour, while remote-handled waste can have a dose rate up to 1,000 mrem per hour. About 96 percent of the waste disposed is contact-handled (Exchange Monitor 2019).



Trichloroethylene (TCE) (C2HCl3) 629

Post–World War II, TRU waste had its genesis as a major source of waste that needed management and disposal for protection of human health and the environment. This waste is particularly a threat to human health if inhaled or ingested and less so from dermal contact. One element in TRU can include plutonium. This element generally does not penetrate skin and can be handled with some easy protection. The most dangerous threat to human health is inhalation and ingestion, with even a small amount being able to cause lethal impacts. One of the more concerning problems with TRU elements such as plutonium is that they are not processed or broken down in the human body. So, organs and tissues continue to be exposed to radiation poisoning for many years after the entrance into the human body. TRU waste can be radioactive for extremely long periods of time, tens of thousands of years in some cases, which like high-level nuclear waste (HLW) requires intergenerational disposal protection; handling of the waste is critically important. In the United States, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was established by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of the TRU waste. DOE is considered the owner of the waste. With the failure to open Yucca Mountain for HLW, the only operating deep-geologic repository in the world is located twenty-one hundred feet below the surface in an ancient salt deposit near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The underground repository is carved out of a salt bed that is two thousand feet thick and was formed 250 million years ago (WIPP 2019). The National Academy of Sciences had determined that the disposal of this type of radioactive waste would be best contained in salt deposits. On March 25, 1999, WIPP opened and accepted the first shipments of TRU wastes. The facility is reported to have received 311 TRU shipments in 2018 (Exchange Monitor 2019). WIPP was temporarily closed from a radiation release in 2014, with 2018 being its first full year of reopening. It resumed taking shipments in April 2017 and scheduled about 400 shipments for 2019 (Exchange Monitory 2019). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW); Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW); Uranium.

Further Reading

Exchange Monitor. 2019. “WIPP Received 311 Waste Shipments in 2019.” January 16, 2019. Accessed April 14, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­exchangemonitor​.­com​/­wipp​-­received​ -­311​-­waste​-­shipments​-­2018. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2018. “Transuranic Waste.” Last updated July 6, 2018. Accessed January 16, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­n rc​.­gov​/­reading​-­r m​/ ­basic​ -­ref​/­glossary​/­t ransuranic​-­waste​.­html. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). 2019. “The Nation’s Only Deep Geologic Repository for Nuclear Waste.” Accessed April 14, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­wipp​.­energy​.­gov.

Trichloroethylene (TCE) (C2HCl3) Trichloroethylene (TCE; C2HCl3) is a highly volatile, nonflammable organic compound with a unique sweet odor that appears colorless. It is produced from acetylene and ethylene and can be a liquid or gas. The International Agency for Research

630

Trichloroethylene (TCE) (C2HCl3)

on Cancer (IARC) considers TCE to be a potential cause of kidney cancer. Exposure can occur through dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion. It is considered a widespread environmental contaminant common in groundwater from industrial manufacturing pollution. In liquid form, it evaporates readily and does not dissolve in water. It is an ingredient in refrigerants and is used as a degreasing solvent in industrial processes, in extracting caffeine for decaffeinated coffee, and in the textile industry with cotton and other fabrics. It was a major chemical used in dry cleaning. TCE was also used in surgical procedures requiring light anesthesia and as an analgesic in dentistry for tooth extractions. It is also a component of a variety of products, such as paints, paint removers, varnishes, pesticides, and adhesives. The gas form is used to degrease metal. Occupational industrial exposure is one of the primary pathways for human exposure. TCE in the workplace may cause scleroderma (a systemic autoimmune disease) in some people; however, people can be exposed to TCE as a pollutant in the air, water, or soil. It has been found in drinking water in the United States. TCE in soil can migrate into groundwater, where it can last for long periods because of its inability to come in contact with air. In surface water, it breaks down slowly over time and is primarily removed via evaporation. TCE can migrate through air and water into spaces under buildings to cause indoor air pollution that exposes people outside industrial processes. Those not associated with TCE uses in industry are more likely to be exposed to TCE from contaminated drinking water or air exposure. It has been used recreationally by adolescents as an agent inhaled from products. Burning TCE produces irritants and toxic gases. Prolonged exposure to high concentrations of the vapor can lead to cardiotoxicity and neurological impairment. Exposure to TCE may produce headaches and dizziness. Higher exposures can be lethal. Repository exposure causes neurological damage in the face and with hearing, sight, and balance. TCE can readily enter the bloodstream from dermal contact and result in rashes and skin irritation. With higher concentrations or prolonged exposure, TCE may be stored in body fat for a brief period. Once it reaches the liver, TCE is broken down into other chemicals. According to the National Institutes of Health (NCBI 2018), there is strong evidence that trichloroethylene may cause kidney cancer and some evidence that it causes liver cancer and malignant lymphoma (a blood cancer). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2017) recommended a ban on TCE in the dry cleaning sector. TCE is regulated by the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, but as of 2017, the Trump administration has announced that action will be indefinitely postponed. TCE was first produced in 1864, but it was not commonly used until the early 1900s. It has been produced in the United States since 1925. The first known report of TCE in groundwater was given in 1949 by two English public chemists. They described two separate instances of well contamination by industrial releases of TCE. Kelly A. Tzoumis



Tuberculosis (TB) 631

See also: Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016); Neurological Toxicity; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2016. “Trichloroethylene (TCE).” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated November 4, 2016. Accessed April 16, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­toxfaqs​/­tf​.­asp​?­id​= ​­172​&­tid​= ​­30. Hogue, Cheryl. 2017. “Trump Administration Delays Bans of Toxic Solvents.” Chemical & Engineering News, December 20, 2017. Accessed April 16, 2018. ­https://​­cen​.­acs​ .­org​/­articles​/­95​/­web​/­2017​/­12​/­Trump​-­administration​-­delays​-­bans​-­toxic​.­html. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Trichloroethylene, CID=6575.” PubChem Database. Accessed April 16, 2018. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​ .­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­compound​/­t richloroethylene. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Fact Sheet on Trichloroethylene (TCE).” Last updated December 13, 2017. Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​ ­19january2017snapshot​.­e pa​.­gov​/­assessing​-­a nd​-­managing​- ­chemicals​-­u nder​-­t sca​ /­fact​-­sheet​-­t richloroethylene​-­tce​_.­html.

Tuberculosis (TB) As of 2016, tuberculosis (TB) was the ninth-leading cause of mortality globally—despite recent improvements in diagnoses and treatments. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are around ten million new cases of TB each year, of which greater than 95 percent occur in low- and middle-income countries. In 2018, there were 9,025 TB cases reported in the United States (CDC 2016c). Beyond its impact on public health, TB also presents specific economic challenges. Global health-care spending on TB reached $6.9 billion in 2017, and approximately $12 billion was lost due to TB-related reductions in workforce participation and productivity (Popovic et al. 2019). TB is primarily caused by a bacterium known as Mycobacterium tuberculosis. These bacteria usually attack the lungs, but they can also attack any part of the body, such as the kidney, spine, and brain. The TB bacteria are put into the air when a person with TB in the lungs or throat coughs, speaks, or sings. People nearby may breathe in these bacteria and become infected. TB is not spread by shaking someone’s hand, sharing food or drink, touching bed linens or toilet seats, sharing toothbrushes, or kissing (CDC 2016a). Not everyone infected with TB becomes sick, and as a result, there are two TB-related conditions: TB infection (LTBI) and TB disease. Throughout the world, most individuals infected by TB have a clinically latent infection for a lifetime, and approximately 5–10 percent of them will develop the active disease. The precise mechanism of reactivation is still unknown, but it is believed that reactivation tends to occur when the host immune response is compromised (Lai et al. 2016). Persons with an HIV infection, substance abusers, and those who have a severe kidney disease, low body weight, had organ transplants, and diabetes have an increased risk of TB (CDC 2016a). It has long been observed that some inhaled toxicants are associated with pulmonary infection. For example, published studies from over a century ago reported

632

Tuberculosis (TB)

associations between tobacco smoking and TB. In a series of observations between 1858 and 1902 in Paris, researchers found that TB mortality was inversely associated with the number of windows per household. Most indoor pollution results from burning and heating solid fuels, such as agricultural residues, dung, straw, wood, and coals (Rajaei et al. 2018). Since the Paris study, there have been many studies showing an association between indoor air pollution and TB. For example, among residents of Mexico City, cooking with a biomass stove was associated with a 2.4-times higher odds of developing TB (Hwang et al. 2014). Similarly, it is now well known that active tobacco smokers are at increased risk for TB infection, progression to active TB, and worse treatment outcomes including mortality Such evidence has led the WHO to affirm tobacco smoking as a significant TB risk factor (Blount et al. 2017). In terms of toxicology, ambient air pollution is an established risk factor for community-acquired pneumonia; however, studies linking ambient air pollution to other pulmonary infections such as TB are limited. The effects of ambient air pollution on TB treatment outcomes remain uncertain. For example, few studies have found a statistically significant association between distance to the nearest major road or freeway and smear positivity among patients with pulmonary TB (Blount et al. 2017). Occupational air pollution (often termed “silicosis”) has been shown to be associated with an elevated risk of TB (Rajaei et al. 2018). One Russian study found that seasonal fluctuation in the development of TB occurred mostly in winter months. Climatic factors such as relative humidity, ambient air temperature, and wind velocity as well as atmospheric pollution (with dust, nitric oxide, nitric dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide) were found to affect the incidence of tuberculosis (Shilova and Glumnaia 2004). One meta-analysis, published in 2012, concluded that the body of evidence on associations between indoor air pollution (IAP) and TB has grown significantly. The researchers noted that although there are some limitations in the individual studies, the pooled estimates suggest that there is an association between IAP and TB, and they add that the potential impact of any causal relationship between TB and IAP is very large, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia, where the prevalence of both IAP exposure and TB is high (Sumpter and Chandramohan 2012). As for treatment of TB, in its latent form, there are four treatment regimes, all of which include isoniazid (INH) or rifampin (RPT). As for the TB disease, it can be treated by taking several drugs for six to nine months. There are ten drugs currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating TB. Of the approved drugs, the first-line anti-TB agents that form the core of treatment regimens are the aforementioned INH and RIF as well as ethambutol (EMB) and pyrazinamide (PZA) (CDC 2016b). For those who have the TB disease, if they stop taking the drugs too soon, they can become sick again; if they do not take the drugs correctly, the TB bacteria that are still alive may become resistant to those drugs. TB that is resistant to drugs is more difficult and more expensive to treat (CDC 2016b). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Tobacco Smoke.



Further Reading

Tuberculosis (TB) 633

Blount, Robert J., Lisa Pascopella, Donald G Catanzaro, Pennan M. Barry, and Paul B. English. 2017. “Traffic-Related Air Pollution and All-Cause Mortality during Tuberculosis Treatment in California.” Environmental Health Perspectives 125(9). Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­ehp​.­niehs​.­nih​.­gov​/­doi​/­f ull​/­10​.­1289​/ ­EHP1699. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016a. “Basic TB Facts.” Accessed November 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­tb​/­topic​/ ­basics​/­default​.­htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016b. “Treatment for TB Disease.” Accessed November 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­tb​/­topic​/­t reatment​/­tbdisease​ .­htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2016c. “Tuberculosis (TB).” Accessed November 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­cdc​.­gov​/­tb. Hwang, Seung-sik, Sungchan Kang, Ji-Young Lee, Ji Sun Lee, Hee Jin Kim, Sung Koo Han, and Jae-Joon Yim. 2014. “Impact of Outdoor Air Pollution on the Incidence of Tuberculosis in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea.” Korean Journal of Internal Medicine 29(2): 183–190. Accessed November 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​ .­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pmc​/­articles​/ ­PMC3956988​/. Lai, Ting-Chun, Chen-Yuan Chiang, Chang-Fu Wu, Shiang-Lin Yang, and Ding-Ping Liu. 2016. “Ambient Air Pollution and Risk of Tuberculosis: A Cohort Study.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 73(1): 56–61. Popovic, Igor, Ricardo J. Soares Magalhaes, Erjia Ge, Guy B. Marks, Guang-Hui Dong, Xiaolin Wei, and Luke D. Knibbs. 2019. “A Systematic Literature Review and Critical Appraisal of Epidemiological Studies on Outdoor Air Pollution and Tuberculosis Outcomes.” Environmental Research 170: 33–45. Accessed November 1, 2019. ­https://​­doi​.­org​/­10​.­1016​/­j​.­envres​.­2018​.­12​.­011. Rajaei, Esmaeil, Maryam Hadadi, Majid Madadi, Jafar Aghajani, Mohanad Mohsin Ahmad, Poopak Farnia, Jalaledin Ghanavi, Parissa Farnia, and Ali Akbar Velayati. 2018. “Outdoor Air Pollution Affects Tuberculosis Development Based on Geographical Information System Modeling.” Biomedical and Biotechnology Research Journal 2: 39–45. Shilova M. V., and T. V. Glumnaia. 2004. “Influence of Seasonal and Environmental Factors on the Incidence of Tuberculosis.” Probl Tuberk Bolezn Legk 2: 17–22. Accessed November 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pubmed​/­15137122. Sumpter, Colin, and Daniel Chandramohan. 2012. “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Associations between Indoor Air Pollution and Tuberculosis.” Tropical Medicine and International Health 18(1): 101–108.

U Underground Injection Underground injection wells are generally used to store fluid (e.g., hazardous wastes) in porous geologic formations. The practice was primarily started by the petroleum industry as a way to dispose of brine water produced during oil and gas drilling operations. By the 1950s, chemical companies were injecting industrial wastes. Up until then, most toxic waste was simply dumped directly into lakes and rivers. As more chemicals were disposed of, it became necessary to use deeper injection wells. The construction of such wells is based on the type and depth of the injected fluid: deeper wells have multiple layers of protective casing and cement, and shallow wells employ a simpler construction (EPA 2020). The Regulation of injection wells is under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which oversees the construction, operation, permitting, and closure of such wells. In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which required the EPA to develop minimum federal requirements for injection practices. To that end, the EPA developed and implemented the Underground Injection Control (UIC) rules and regulations with six classes of wells (EPA 2019). Class I wells are used to inject hazardous and nonhazardous fluids below the lowermost underground sources of drinking water (USDW). Some examples of industry use of these wells include petroleum refining; metal, chemical, food, and pharmaceutical production; and municipal wastewater treatment. Class I hazardous waste wells are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Most of these wells are located at industrial facilities, the majority of which operate in Texas and Louisiana. Class II wells (e.g., disposal wells, enhanced recovery wells, and hydrocarbon storage wells) typically inject brine fluids that are produced during oil and gas production. The EPA estimates that there are over two billion gallons of fluid injected in the United States every day. There are approximately 180,000 such wells in the United States, most of which operate in Texas, California, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Class III wells are used fluids to dissolve and extract minerals involved in the mining of uranium, salt, copper, and sulfur. The majority of Class III wells are uranium extraction wells that use in situ leaching (ISL). A solution known as lixiviant is injected long enough to dissolve the uranium ore, and then it is brought to the surface via a production well (EPA 2020). Class IV wells were used to dispose of hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above a geologic formation that contains a USDW. In 1984, the EPA banned the

636

Underground Injection

use of these wells, which may now only operate as part of an EPA- or state-authorized groundwater cleanup action. As of 2016, there were still twenty Class IV wells operating in the United States (EPA 2020). Class V wells are used to inject nonhazardous fluids underground. These types of wells are most commonly shallow disposal systems, such as stormwater or agricultural drainage wells, or septic system leach fields (EPA 2020). Class VI wells are used to inject carbon dioxide (CO2) into deep rock formations. This process of long-term storage is usually referred to as geologic sequestration (GS). The use of underground injection wells is often considered a vital part of the nation’s economy, with several industries relying on it to dispose of waste. Many scientists and regulators also see the practice as one that lessens dependency on other more expensive or environmentally harmful alternatives, such as burning waste, treating wastewater, recycling, or dumping. In the past decade, the use of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” (which allows operators to drill horizontally and then pump a water/sand/chemical additives mixture at high pressure to create microfractures that release gas and oil), has been a boon to the U.S. oil industry, which in turn, has reduced dependency on foreign oil. The fracking process is not without controversy. Many see the practice as an enduring public health problem. A 2010 congressional study found that although many chemicals used in fracking are common and generally harmless (e.g., salt, coffee, citric acid, and walnut hulls), many others were toxic or known human carcinogens, including benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene (Urbina 2011). Much of the controversy is focused on the (mis)use of Class II wells, in particular. In many instances, fluid from injection wells has traveled horizontally and migrated into groundwater through abandoned water and oil wells—something that has been linked to hundreds of water contamination cases in the United States and Canada (Berlekamp 2013). According to a ProPublica report (Lustgarten 2012), safeguards are sometimes being ignored or circumvented, and state and federal regulators often fail to confirm what pollutants go into injection wells. Regulators therefore typically rely on an honor system wherein companies are supposed to report what they are injecting, and whether they have violated any rules. The ProPublica report also noted that, in a three-year period, operators injected waste into Class II wells at pressure levels they knew could fracture rock and lead to leaks more than one thousand times, and in at least 140 cases, companies injected waste illegally or without a permit. Beyond the question of pollution, another more controversial issue is whether the use of injection wells has increased earthquakes in the United States. Researchers at the University of California–Santa Cruz compiled and analyzed data from around the world for earthquakes clearly associated with injection wells and found that a single injection well can cause earthquakes at distances more than six miles from the well (UCSC 2018). Similarly, researchers from Tufts University found that the practice of subsurface fluid injection used in fracking and wastewater disposal for oil and gas exploration could cause significant, rapidly spreading earthquake activity beyond the fluid diffusion zone (Tufts University 2019). Robert L. Perry



Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) 637

See also: Benzene (C6H6); Hazardous Waste; Oil; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Berlekamp, Lauren. 2013. “The Toxic Legacy of Waste Injection Wells.” EcoWatch, July 5, 2013. Accessed July 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ecowatch​.­com​/­the​-­toxic​-­legacy​-­of​ -­waste​-­injection​-­wells​-­1881772695​.­html. Lustgarten, Abrahm. 2012. “The Trillion-Gallon Loophole: Lax Rules for Drillers That Inject Pollutants into the Earth.” ProPublica, September 20, 2012. Accessed July 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­propublica​.­org​/­article​/­t rillion​-­gallon​-­loophole​-­lax​-­r ules​-­for​ -­drillers​-­that​-­inject​-­pollutants. Tufts University. 2019. “Computer Model Suggests Earthquakes Are Triggered Well Beyond Fluid Injection Zones.” May 2, 2019. Accessed July 2, 2019. ­https://​­phys​ .­org​/­news​/­2019​- ­05​-­earthquakes​-­t riggered​-­fluid​-­zones​.­html. University of California–Santa Cruz (UCSC). 2018. “Injection Wells Can Induce Earthquakes Miles Away from the Well.” August 30, 2018. Accessed July 2, 2019. ­https://​­phys​.­org​/­news​/­2018​- ­08​-­wells​-­earthquakes​-­miles​.­html. Urbina, Ian. 2011. “Chemicals Were Injected into Wells, Report Says.” New York Times, April 16, 2011. Accessed July 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​/­2011​/­04​/­17​/­science​ /­earth​/­17gas​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. “General Information about Injection Wells.” Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­uic​/­general​-­information​ -­about​-­i njection​-­wells​#:˜:text=An%20injection%20well%20is%20used,or%20 water%20mixed%20with%20chemicals.

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Underground storage tanks (USTs) have been and continue to be widely used across the United States as a means to store liquids below the surface. The definition of USTs from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a single tank or combination of containers that include connected underground pipes containing regulated hazardous chemicals or petroleum where at least 10 percent is below surface level. In the United States, many of the sites labeled as brownfields (potentially contaminated lands) and Superfund sites have USTs. These tanks are used in local gasoline stations, by industry, and by the military for fuel and chemical storage. Before the 1980s, the tanks and pipes were not made of long-term corrosion-resistant materials, as they are today. They were made of steel or composite materials, and no leak detection or secondary controls for containing a spill were included. Tanks leaked into the soil and groundwater, and because the substances produced vapors, the contamination often entered occupied buildings. The greatest potential threat from a leaking UST is the contamination of groundwater and the surrounding soil. USTs are primarily regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In 1984, Congress addressed the concerns of groundwater contamination from leaking USTs by amending the Solid Waste Disposal Act and requiring the EPA to develop a comprehensive plan and program to deal with these

638

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

leaking tanks. This led to the EPA setting regulations as minimum standards for new tanks and required upgrades in addition to the replacement or closure of deteriorated tanks. It specifically required an upgrade revision for USTs to include spill preventions and equipment for leak detection. This upgrade was necessary to make information available in a more expeditious manner when a tank failed. The regulations allowed for a ten-year period to provide enhanced upgrades; however, many tanks were removed during this period, with alternative storage moved to aboveground. These environmental protection upgrades were further enhanced in 2015. In addition to the revised regulations on USTs, in 1986, Congress established the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund under the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act. This fund was to assist with corrective and remedial actions for USTs when there was an urgency or difficulty in getting reimbursement from the UST owner. LUST was financed by a tax of one-tenth cent per gallon of motor fuel. In 2005, Congress passed the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act, which expanded the uses of LUST to include training for operators, cleanup of fuel additives releases, and secondary containment as well as other provisions. In 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the EPA needed to take steps to better ensure the effective use of the public funding set up for leaking USTs. Some of the concerns focused on the funds not being used by states to only remediate UST leaks but other sources as well, deficient monitoring of the funds, and financial assurance coverage by tank owners. Under the Obama administration, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated $200 million to assess and clean up leaks from USTs. The vast majority of this funding was allocated to states and territories in the form of assistance agreements to address USTs within their jurisdictions. As of September 2017, the EPA has estimated that approximately 555,000 USTs nationwide store petroleum or hazardous substances. These tanks are located at approximately two hundred thousand sites, and since 1984, more than 1.8 million USTs have been removed or closed operations. The EPA has estimated that approximately 84 percent of the remaining active USTs are in compliance with the upgraded environmental protections for leakage and spill prevention; however, it also reports that there have been over five hundred thousand releases as of 2017. The EPA designed the UST program to be implemented by states. Most states have been approved to implement UST environmental protections or have made agreements with the EPA. The source of current regulations on USTs is located in the U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 82, Subchapter IX, which includes the amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act and provisions made in 2005 under the Energy Policy Act. States have a variety of assistance programs to address USTs. Several have UST funds to assist tank owners and operators to help pay for remediation. States have also used a tax on motor fuel to fund this effort. Today, the UST program is largely managed at the state level. Thirty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have approved state programs. These states may have more stringent UST requirements than the federal program.



Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 639

Another major source of USTs that can threaten groundwater is located on tribal lands. The EPA estimates that of the more than 560 federally recognized tribes, over half have ten or fewer active USTs. It also estimates that about twenty tribal nations have thirty or more USTs. Approximately 60 percent of the USTs on tribal lands are located in the Navajo nation. In 1988, the EPA issued the UST Program Indian Lands Strategy with a series of interim policies until 1993, when it issued a final policy on USTs located on tribal lands. Because federally recognized tribal nations are sovereign entities, they are not subject to state laws for USTs. As a result, unless a state acts as a tribal nation’s agent pursuant to a formal agreement, the EPA and the tribe are responsible for implementing and enforcing the UST program on tribal lands. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976).

Further Reading

Office of Land and Emergency Management. 2018. “UST Program Facts.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 2018. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​ /­2017​-­11​/­documents​/­ust​-­program​-­facts​.­pdf. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Management. 1993. “UST/LUST National Native American Lands Policy Statement.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Directive 9610.15. July 7, 1993. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­sites​/­production​/­files​/­2014​ -­02​/­documents​/­d9610​.­15​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Underground Storage Tanks (USTs).” Last updated May 21, 2018. Accessed April 17, 2018. h­ ttps://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­ust. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2007. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: EPA Should Take Steps to Better Ensure the Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups. Publication number GAO-07-152, February 22, 2007. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. ­https://​­www​.­gao​.­gov​/­assets​/­260​/­256329​ .­pdf.

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), established in 1969, is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to provide scientific research that can be employed toward solving pressing environmental and social problems. Although started by scientists, the union’s membership also includes citizen advocates, educators, and members of the business community. As of 2017, the UCS had nearly 125,000 members and an operating revenue of just over $40 million (UCS 2018b). The UCS is a member of the national governing board of the Sustainable Energy Coalition. Philanthropedia, a website devoted to analyzing and ranking the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations, identified the UCS as the third-highest “high-impact” nonprofit working nationally in the field of climate change out of a total of 128 nonprofits that it considered (Shapiro 2012). The UCS had its beginnings in March 1969 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). A group of politically dissident scientists and engineers,

640

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)

stirred into action by student protests against the Vietnam War, declared they were against scientific research supportive of U.S. military technologies and advocated that such research be directed toward more peaceful ends. In its early years, the UCS pushed for tighter regulation of nuclear power. This push became more popular after the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The push continued through the 1980s and is considered one of the UCS’s early success stories, along with its prominent role in opposing the deployment of antisatellite weapons and missile defense systems. The first UCS report exposed problems within the Nixon administration’s plans for an antiballistic missile system and helped build public support for the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. In the 1990s, the UCS broadened its campaign issues beyond nuclear power and nuclear weapons to clean energy, clean cars, cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and safer food and agriculture. The UCS would be instrumental in getting California to approve the largest solar energy program in U.S. history. Continuing in its advocacy against weapons systems, UCS activists were instrumental in generating public awareness of problems with the B-2 stealth bomber, which would result in limiting its production. In the early 2000s, the UCS played a major role in pressuring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban the use of certain agricultural antibiotics because of concerns about their overuse in animals. In more recent years, the UCS won a victory in Congress with the unanimous passage of a bill that explicitly afforded whistleblower protection to scientists and others who expose the distortion or suppression of federal scientific data. In addition, the UCS’s report Ripe for Retirement, the first study of its kind, identified 353 coal-fired power plants across the country as prime candidates for closure due to their inability to compete with modern, cleaner alternatives. Within a year of the report’s release in 2012, 20 percent of the coal generators named announced plans to close or convert to natural gas. Also, in 2012, the UCS launched its Center for Science and Democracy, which has sought to make science a tool for racial equity and justice, particularly among African American and Hispanic communities. Robert L. Perry See also: Chernobyl Disaster (1986); Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Three Mile Island Accident (1979).

Further Reading

Charles, Dan. 2009. “From Protest to Power: An Advocacy Group Turns 40.” Science 323: 1279. Hively, William. 1988. “Profile: Union of Concerned Scientists.” American Scientist 76(1): 18–20. Shapiro, James A. 2012. “Union of Concerned Scientists Launches a New Center for Science and Democracy.” HuffPost. Accessed June 15, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­huffingtonpost​.­com​/­james​-­a​-­shapiro​/­union​-­of​-­concerned​-­scient​_b​_1946734​.­html. Sustainable Energy Coalition. 2018. “National Governing Board.” Accessed June 15, 2018. ­http://​­sustainableenergy​.­org​/­about​/­national​-­governing​-­board.



United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 641

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2018a. “Our History and Accomplishments.” Accessed June 15, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ucsusa​.­org​/­about​/­history​-­of​-­accomplishments​ .­html​#.­WyRfVadKiUk. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2018b. “2017 Annual Report: Science for a Healthy Planet and Safer World.” Accessed June 15, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­ucsusa​.­org​/­sites​ /­default​/­files​/­attach​/­2017​/­11​/­annual​-­report​-­2017​.­pdf.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(Rio Earth Summit 1992) On June 3–16, 1992, more than 178 nations, hundreds of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and stakeholders from around the world gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (or Rio Earth Summit). This was a historic conference because it was a clear focus by the United Nations on sustainable development as a universal goal for implementation. The goal was to provide a comprehensive plan of action to build a global partnership for improving human lives and protection of the environment, which is embodied in the Agenda 21 Report that resulted from the conference. In September 2000, eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were adopted with the goal of eliminating extreme poverty by 2015. As part of this Earth Summit, the Commission on Sustainable Development was created in December 1992 to report and monitor the progress at the local, state, national, and regional levels. These commitments were reaffirmed with the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, from August 26 to ­September 4, 2002. These MDGs were further advanced at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (known as Rio+20), in the same location, on June 20–22, 2012, as a continued and more focused effort on sustainable development. This was twenty years after Rio, which is symbolized in the title of the conference. One result from Rio+20 was the need to revise the MDGs. The revisions resulted in seventeen new Sustainable Develop Goals (SDGs). This conference helped to create the UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development as well as the report The Future We Want (United Nations 2020). In 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with the seventeen SDGs at its core, from the UN Sustainable Development Summit that was convened in September 2015. Unlike the previous MDGs. The new SDGs highlight in more detail the concerns about climate change, poverty, human health, and inequality and several issues not previously addressed in the MDGs. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change.

Further Reading

United Nations. 2020. “Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform.” Accessed January 23, 2020. ­https://​­sustainabledevelopment​.­un​.­org​/­sdgs.

642

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) On May 15, 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed into law an act of Congress that established the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Although it was not originally given cabinet status, President Grover Cleveland signed a bill on February 9, 1889, elevating the USDA to the cabinet level. Upon its creation, the USDA was charged with collecting agricultural data, introducing new plants and animals, testing agricultural equipment, and analyzing soils, grains, fruits, plants, and vegetables. Today’s USDA is responsible for developing policy and enforcing rules and regulations regarding food production and conservation and promoting agricultural trade, rural development, nutrition, food safety, natural resource protection, and agricultural research. The department is made up of twenty-nine agencies and offices with nearly one hundred thousand employees. Most of the efforts of the USDA are concerned with food distribution and nutrition. Much of the USDA’s budget goes toward its largest agency, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which provides food and nutrition education to those in need. The FNS administers fifteen federal nutrition assistance programs, including Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and school meals. FNS programs typically serve one in four Americans during the course of a year. The FNS has also helped to develop dietary guidelines for Americans with the HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. In terms of public health and safety, the USDA is responsible for inspecting domestic products, imports, and exports; conducting risk assessments; and educating the public about the importance of food safety. Food inspections are primarily conducted by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which ensures that the nation’s meat, poultry, and processed egg supply is safe and properly labeled. By the end of the twentieth century, and after several public health scares concerning Escherichia coli O157:H7, the USDA has increasingly sought to prevent further outbreaks. The department adopted a zero tolerance policy for six additional strains (E. coli O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145) of the pathogen in raw beef products. Enforcement to detect these pathogens began in March 2012. Additional foodborne illnesses related to Salmonella and Campylobacter have led the USDA to implement more stringent standards in order to reduce the occurrence of these pathogens in poultry. The department, under its “test and hold” policy, requires facilities to hold products until microbiological testing can determine it is safe to release meat, poultry, and egg products for public consumption. In order to keep the public informed of potential foodborne illnesses, the USDA created the Public Health Information System, a comprehensive database that allows the agency to identify public health trends and food safety violations at the nearly sixty-two hundred plants where the FSIS has conducted operations. In recent years, the USDA has faced allegations of having too-close ties to powerful agricultural companies such as Monsanto. In particular, the USDA has been accused of scientific censorship (Food and Water Watch 2016).

Uranium 643

Further Reading

Food and Water Watch. 2016. “USDA Censoring Anti-Monsanto Science?” Accessed July 7, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­foodandwaterwatch​.­org​/­news​/­usda​-­censoring​-­anti​-­monsanto​ -­science​- ­0. USDA. 2018a. “FY 2019 USDA Budget Summary.” Accessed July 7, 2018. ­https://​­www​ .­usda​.­gov​/­sites​/­default​/­files​/­documents​/­usda​-­f y19​-­budget​-­summary​.­pdf. USDA. 2018b. “Health and Safety.” Accessed July 7, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­usda​.­gov​/­topics​ /­health​-­and​-­safety. USDA. 2019. “About FNS.” Accessed July 1, 2020. h­ ttps://​­www​.­f ns​.­usda​.­gov​/­about​-­f ns.

Uranium Uranium is a radioactive element found naturally in rocks, soil, air, water, and volcanic eruptions and as a result of nuclear testing that causes a background radiation in the atmosphere. When found in nature, uranium is in a mineral form that is mildly radioactive. When uranium is used to make a metal, it is a silver color with a gray surface that has comparable strength to steel and denseness similar to lead. It is an element with a large nucleus that exists in nature in a mixture of three isotopes: 234U, 235U, and 238U. The most common isotope in nature is 238U, where it comprises 99 percent of natural uranium. To obtain the other isotopes, additional mining of the naturally occurring uranium ore found below the earth’s surface is required to capture the more desired 234U and 235U isotopes. Isotope 235U is the useful fuel for nuclear power plants and weapons. The three uranium isotopes are considered identical in terms of their chemical profiles, but they have important distinctions in how long they remain radioactive, which is referred to as the half-life. The half-life of a radioactive isotope is the amount of time needed for half of the isotope material to give off its radiation. These materials then change into another element with less radioactivity. One of the problematic qualities of uranium isotopes is that the half-lives are very long, which causes significant concern about managing nuclear waste and spent fuel from nuclear reactors or weapons over time. For instance, the half-lives are around two hundred thousand years for 234U, seven hundred million years for 235U, and five billion years for 238U, according to calculations by the World Nuclear Association (WNA 2018). Often, the mixture of the three isotopes together is called “depleted uranium,” which possesses more 238U than the other two isotopes and yields less radioactivity than natural uranium. Another mixture of the uranium isotopes is enriched uranium, where there are more 234U and 235U isotopes than natural uranium. Enriched uranium is more radioactive than natural uranium, which is used to make the enriched uranium because it is the more desired mixture. Depleted uranium is the by-product or waste from the enrichment process. The enriched uranium is the one required for fuel in nuclear power plants; however, depleted uranium has specific uses that are beneficial. It can be used on airplane control surfaces as a shield to protect against ionizing radiation, as a component of ammunitions to help them penetrate enemy armored vehicles, as armor in some parts of military vehicles, or as a counterbalance for helicopters (WNA 2018).

644 Uranium

During World War II, the role of uranium ore to make a nuclear fission weapon was discovered. Because of its heavy nucleus, scientists used the element to split an atom, which then generated powerful energy as an explosion. The race to split the uranium atom took place between the scientists in Germany and the United States. Mining the natural uranium ore occurred in very specific locations in the United States, commonly called the Four Corners. This area includes Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. Other uranium sources around the world include Canada, Australia, and the Congo region of Africa. Excess mining had to occur because of low concentrations of the desired uranium isotopes within the rocks, even in areas where it could be mined. The mined materials had to be taken to special processing plants to extract and create the enriched uranium needed for weapons. The remaining material from this process is called mill tailings. These materials are considered contaminants because they are reimaging radioactive materials, such as radium and thorium, that were not removed in processing. The end product of the mining and milling stages of uranium ore is the chemical called uranium oxide (U3O8). This is the form in which uranium is sold. For most of the world’s reactors, the next step in making the fuel is to convert the uranium oxide into a gas, uranium hexafluoride (UF6), which enables it to be enriched. Enrichment increases the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope from its natural level of 0.7 percent to 5 percent. After enrichment, the UF6 gas is converted to uranium dioxide (UO2), which is formed into fuel pellets. These fuel pellets are placed inside thin metal tubes, known as fuel rods, which are assembled in bundles to become the fuel elements or assemblies for the core of a commercial nuclear energy reactor. A typical power reactor can contain about fifty thousand fuel rods with over eighteen million pellets of radioactive uranium (WNA 2018). About 11 percent of the world’s electricity is generated from uranium in nuclear reactors. This amounts to over twenty-five hundred billion kilowatt-hours each year, as much as from all sources of electricity worldwide in 1960 (WNA 2018). France has been one of the most dependent countries on nuclear power for its energy source; over 75 percent of its energy is nuclear. The most likely source of uranium exposure to humans and the environment is from living near uranium mining, processing, or manufacturing facilities. In the United States, the majority of uranium mining took place during World War II on the Navajo lands. When the mining ceased after the war, these mines were often left without reclamation. Kidney failure and respiratory and blood disorders were attributed to the exposure from these mining and weapons testing activities. In addition, the overburden from the mines was taken and used in building houses and roads around the tribal nations. Because of the exposure of the Navajo miners as well as other people to uranium testing and processing, Congress established a compensation policy for those individuals who could prove they had health problems from exposure to the radiation. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 established an administrative program for claims related to atmospheric nuclear testing and uranium industry employment. The attorney general of the



U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) 645

United States is required to make determinations regarding whether claims satisfy statutory eligibility criteria. According the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ 2018), the United States conducted nearly two hundred atmospheric nuclear weapons development tests from 1945 to 1962. These tests were supported by tens of thousands of uranium workers. Classes of workers were created along with set lump sum payments. For instance, uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters were allowed up to $100,000 in compensation. On-site participants at atmospheric nuclear weapons tests areas were allowed $75,000 in payments. People who lived downwind of the Nevada Test Site (referred to as “downwinders”) could apply for $50,000. The residents of the Four Corners region of the United States have filed the majority of claims. The tribal nations that have been involved with exposure from uranium include members of the Navajo, Hopi, Yavapai, Apache, and Spokane nations. Today, based on 2015 information, the worldwide production of uranium is approximately 60,496 tonnes (metric tons), primarily in Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia (WNA 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; High-Level Nuclear Waste (HLW); Low-Level Nuclear Waste (LLW); Native American Impacts; Transuranic (TRU) Waste.

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2011. “Uranium.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated March 3, 2011. Accessed January 17, 2018. ­https://​ ­w ww​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxsubstance​.­asp​?­toxid​= ​­77. Los Alamos National Laboratory. 2013. “Uranium.” Periodic Table of Elements: LANL. Last updated July 23, 2013. Accessed January 17, 2018. ­http://​­periodic​.­lanl​.­gov​/­92​ .­shtml. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Uranium, CID=23989.” PubChem Database. Accessed January 17, 2018. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​ .­gov​/­compound​/ ­Uranium. U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 2018. “Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.” Last updated October 2, 2018. Accessed January 17, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­justice​.­gov​/­civil​ /­common​/­reca. World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2018. “Uranium Enrichment.” Updated June 2018. Accessed January 17, 2018. ­http://​­www​.­world​-­nuclear​.­org​/­information​-­library​ /­nuclear​-­f uel​- ­cycle​/­conversion​- ­enrichment​-­and​-­fabrication ​/­u ranium​- ­enrichment​ .­aspx.

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) is an independent federal agency with an annual budget of approximately $11 million. The organization is not a regulatory body, nor does it have any guiding environmental legislation it implements. Its mission is to provide technical and scientific

646

U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)

leadership on improving chemical safety, which includes policy advocacy for safety and protection in the workplace. It accomplishes this mission through independent investigations focused on protecting humans and their environment. The board investigates the causes of major accidents in chemical facilities and oil refineries and makes recommendations to the federal government and the industrial sector to prevent future incidents. CSB’s ultimate vision is to help prevent chemical disasters. Five presidential appointees confirmed by the U.S. Senate comprise the executive members along with a staff of about fifty employees. These board members serve for five years. The members qualify for these positions based on their scientific and technical backgrounds in the field of chemical safety, and they often serve as representatives of the federal government during accidents and releases to the community. They also conduct hearings and investigations into accidents along with the technical staff of the organization. Reports issued by the CSB assist industry and the public in implementing prevention and improving practices. One of the more well-known investigations the board conducted at the request of Congress was the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in 2010. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 created the CSB, which began full operation in January 1998. Based on that legislation, it is clear that Congress intended the board to have independence and authority separate from the executive branch agencies to fully investigate accidents with the purpose of learning for the future. The board works with other agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Its investigation reports generate recommendations to federal, state, and local regulatory agencies as well as the private sector. Currently, the Trump administration has decided to defund the CSB. It has not been fully supported by several presidents in the past. President George H. W. Bush was unsupportive of the organization when it was created in 1990. Likewise, President Bill Clinton was reluctant to utilize the agency, primarily due to the degree of independence it has from the executive branch. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Further Reading

Early, Steve. 2017. “A Dangerous Idea: Eliminating the Chemical Safety Board.” New York Times, July 24, 2017. Accessed September 8, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­nytimes​.­com​ /­2017​/­07​/­24​/­opinion​/­a​- ­d angerous​-­idea​- ­eliminating​-­t he​- ­chemical​- ­safety​-­board​ .­html. Johnson, Jeff. 2017. “US Chemical Safety Board Faces Death Sentence.” Chemical & Engineering News 95(21) (May 22, 2017): 30. Accessed September 8, 2017. ­http://​ ­cen​.­acs​.­org​/­articles​/­95​/­i21​/ ­US​- ­Chemical​-­Safety​-­Board​-­faces​.­html. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). n.d. “History.” Accessed September 8, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­csb​.­gov​/­about​-­the​-­csb​/ ­history.

V Vaccination Controversy Vaccination against disease is considered one of the top medical achievements of the twentieth century. Vaccinations have literally saved millions of adults and children from the ravages of diphtheria, polio, tetanus, and pertussis as well as measles, mumps, rubella, and, more recently, the flu and shingles. Widespread use of vaccinations first began in England during the early eighteenth century with the smallpox vaccination discovered by Edward Jenner. Through experimentation, Jenner established that a child could be protected from smallpox if he infected the child with fluid from a cowpox blister. British authorities passed the Vaccination Act of 1853, ordering mandatory vaccination for infants up to three months old; the Vaccination Act of 1867 extended this age requirement to fourteen years, adding penalties for vaccine refusal. Almost immediately, anti-vaccination groups stirred the public, who in turn demanded the right to control their bodies and those of their children. The Anti-Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League formed in response to mandatory vaccination laws as well as numerous journals that focused on the dangers of vaccination. Demonstrations and general vaccine opposition led to the development of a commission designed to study vaccination. In 1896, the commission ruled that vaccinations protected against smallpox, but it partially relented by removing penalties for failure to vaccinate. The Vaccination Act of 1898 removed penalties and included a “conscientious objector” clause; parents who did not believe in the vaccination’s safety or efficacy could obtain an exemption certificate. ANTI-VACCINATION ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES Great Britain was not alone in the growth and influence of antivaccination movements. At the end of the nineteenth century, smallpox outbreaks in the United States led to both pro-vaccine campaigns and anti-vaccine movements. The AntiVaccination Society of America was formed in 1879 following a visit by leading British anti-vaccinationist William Tebb. The creation of the New England AntiCompulsory Vaccination League (1882) and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City (1885) also soon followed his visit. The American anti-vaccinationists waged court battles to repeal vaccination laws in several states, including California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. They mostly lost these battles, which brought individual rights directly into confrontation with the ability of the government to promote public health and safety.

648

Vaccination Controversy

In 1902, following a smallpox outbreak, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, mandated all city residents be vaccinated against smallpox. City resident Henning Jacobson refused vaccination on the grounds that the law violated his right to care for his own body. The city filed criminal charges against him. After losing his court battle locally, Jacobson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1905, the court found in the state’s favor, ruling that the state could enact compulsory laws to protect the public in the event of a communicable disease. This was the first U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the power of states in establishing and enforcing public health laws. VACCINATION CONTROVERSIES Anti-vaccination positions and vaccination controversies are not limited to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the mid-1970s, controversies over the safety of the pertussis (DTP) immunization erupted in Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America. In the United Kingdom, opposition resulted from a report from the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children in London alleging that thirty-six children had suffered neurological conditions following DTP immunization. Television documentaries and newspaper reports drew public attention to the controversy. An advocacy group, the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children (APVDC), also promoted public interest in the potential risks and consequences of DTP. The U.S. controversy began with media attention on the alleged risks of DTP. A 1982 documentary, DPT: Vaccination Roulette, described alleged adverse reactions to the immunization and minimized the benefits. The 1991 book A Shot in the Dark outlined potential risks of vaccinations. Angry readers of the book formed victim advocacy groups, but the counterresponse from medical organizations, including the Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), quieted the movement. Although the media storm instigated several lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, increased vaccine prices, and caused some companies to stop making DTP, the overall controversy affected immunization rates far less than in Great Britain (History of Vaccines 2018).

CONTROVERSIES IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY The controversy over vaccines continues in the United States despite numerous studies demonstrating the efficacy and safety of vaccines. As recently as 2015, hundreds of parents protested over proposed legislation in Sacramento, California, designed to restrict the ability of families to opt out of vaccinations. Despite the concerns of parents, Governor Jerry Brown signed off on one of the strictest school vaccination laws in the country in June 2015. During his signing statement, the governor stated, “Science is clear that vaccines dramatically protect against a number of infectious and dangerous diseases.”



Vaccination Controversy 649

Starting July 1, 2016, all children enrolled in a public or private school or day care must have been vaccinated against whooping cough, measles, and other diseases, regardless of the parents’ religious or other beliefs. Those parents who refused vaccinations were restricted to homeschooling or enrolling their children in an independent study program away from school grounds (Perkins 2015). The law recognized that unvaccinated students presented a serious health risk to other students. CAUSES OF ANTI-VACCINE MOVEMENTS Despite the preponderance of scientific evidence that vaccines are generally safe and protect individuals from a range of potentially deadly diseases, anti-vaccination sentiments remain unabated in various segments of society; even highly educated parents are susceptible to anti-vaccine messaging. Anti-vaccine sentiments appear to be supported by a series of core beliefs: • • • • • •

The government cannot be trusted. The pharmaceutical industry cannot be trusted. Vaccines may cause side effects, including autism (which, importantly, has been disproved through numerous scientific studies). Vaccines are fundamentally unsafe. Vaccines are unneeded to protect health. Unvaccinated children pose little risk to other students.

Core beliefs are important predictors of anti-vaccination attitudes. Ironically, studies consistently show that parental decisions to delay or refuse childhood vaccination schedules were more common among highly educated, high-income, older, married Caucasian mothers (Freed et al. 2010). John Munro See also: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Further Reading

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. “Ten Great Public Health Achievements—United States, 1900–1999.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48(12) (April 2, 1999): 241–243. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­cdc​ .­gov​/­m mwr​/­preview​/­m mwrhtml​/­00056796​.­htm. Freed, Gary L., Sarah J. Clark, Amy T. Butchart, Dianne C. Singer, and Matthew M. Davis. 2010. “Parental Vaccine Safety Concerns in 2009.” Abstract. Pediatrics 125(4) (April 2010): 654–659. Gowda, C., and A. J. Dempsey. 2013. “The Rise (and Fall?) of Parental Vaccine Hesitancy.” Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 9(8): 1755–1762. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pmc​/­articles​/ ­PMC3906278. History of Vaccines. 2018. “History of the Anti-Vaccination Movements.” Last updated January 10, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­historyofvaccines​.­org​/­content​/­articles​/ ­history​-­anti​ -­vaccination​-­movements. Perkins, Lucy. 2015. “California Governor Signs School Vaccination Law.” NPR, June 30, 2015. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­npr​.­org​/­sections​/­thetwo​-­way​/­2015​/­06​ /­30​/­418908804​/­california​-­governor​-­signs​-­school​-­vaccination​-­law.

650

Vapor Vacuum Extraction of VOCs

Wolfe, Robert M., and Lisa K. Sharp. 2002. “Anti-Vaccinationists Past and Present.” British Medical Journal 325(7361) (August 24, 2002): 430–432. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pmc​/­articles​/ ­PMC1123944.

Vapor Vacuum Extraction of VOCs Vapor vacuum extraction is an in situ (in place) technique that can be used in remediation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in both water and soil. In soil, it is referred to as soil vapor extraction (SVE), and in groundwater, it is called air sparging, which is often combined with a pump-and-treat system at the contaminated site. These technologies are simple to implement at the site and are cost-effective compared to other remediation approaches. The approach requires treatment of the contaminant gases aboveground to remove the pollutant. SVE is considered an effective remediation technology and has been widely used. Approximately one-quarter of Superfund projects involving the removal of VOCs have involved SVE (EPA 2010). These techniques are considered part of the “Green Remediation Best Management Practices” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2010), which can be designed and implemented with optimally efficient use of resources and placement of environmental safeguards. The EPA (2010) recommends how the implementation of these techniques, through the efficient use of electricity and sustainable use of water and reduced waste generation, can make these green remediation options. The technology involves vacuum pumps that are placed on an installed extraction well that is drilled deeper than three feet underground. A vacuum pressure is used to remove the chemicals. These pumps increase the flow of air, which volatizes the chemicals from the soil. The chemicals are pulled to the surface and treated. This technique can prevent the migration of pollutants into the groundwater, and it can be used on piles of contaminated excavated soil as well. The vacuum pump is applied to a combined network of surface pipes to induce volatilization of the chemicals from the excavated soils. SVE cannot be used on metals, heavy oils, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or dioxins. Dense soils, such as those associated with clays and silts, are not suited for this technology. Air sparging requires an installed well in the soil below the water table. Then, an air compressor pumps air into the well underground. The air bubbles move through the groundwater and carry the volatized chemical, transformed into vapors, to the soil above the water table. These bubbles move both horizontally and vertically through the treatment area. The mixture of air and contamination chemicals is transferred from a dissolved or adsorbed state to a vapor. These technologies have some requirements for application at a site. For instance, the soils need to be permeable so that vapor can flow and be extracted. The groundwater depth should not be too shallow because the system will not be effective in volatizing the chemicals. Soils with high pollutant content require greater vacuum pressure. These remediation techniques require monitoring to ensure the system is operating. Both systems pose little to no risk to the



Vinyl Chloride (CHCl=H2C) 651

community or site workers. The vapors from the extraction are completely contained and separated from the environment and then treated before any release. SVE has been used extensively in Alaska to treat petroleum-contaminated soils for chemicals such as benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. Heavier fuels, such as diesel and kerosene, are less effective to remediation using SVE. It is also a technology used with leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs). Although it is not effective with heavier or less volatile compounds, it can be extremely effective with those compounds that contain lighter or more volatile chemicals. According to the EPA (2012), both SVE and air sparging have been effective in remediating many acres of contaminated soils from dry cleaning facilities using perchloroethylene (commonly known as perc) and other VOCs. These techniques are an efficient way to remove chemicals that lie above and below the water table. Some advantages of SVE include the short treatment times, from six months to two years, and reasonable costs of operation in comparison to other treatment options, such as pump and treat. The technique can be used in a variety of locations, such as under buildings or areas that cannot be easily excavated. It also has easy installation and proven effectiveness. Limitations are based on the permeability of the soils and the volatility of the contaminants. The depth of the contaminant and moisture content of the soil are also limitations to using this technique. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Groundwater Contamination; Gasoline; Pump and Treat; Tetrachloroethylene (Perc); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

St. John Mittelhauser & Associates. 2018. “Soil Remediation with Soil Vapor Extraction.” Video. May 31, 2018. Accessed October 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​ ?­v​= ​­zfoLX0CcgZI. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. “Green Remediation Best Management Practices: Spoil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging.” Fact Sheet. EPA 542-F10-007. March 2010. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­clu​-­in​.­org​/­greenremediation​ /­docs​/­gr​_factsheet​_sve​_as​_032410​.­pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. “A Citizen’s Guide to Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging.” Fact Sheet. EPA-542-F-018. September 2012. Accessed September 26, 2018. ­https://​­clu​-­in​.­org​/­download​/­Citizens​/­a​_citizens​_ guide​_to​_soil​ _vapor​_extraction​_and​_air​_sparging​.­pdf. U.S. Forest Service. 2002. “Treatment of Petroleum Contaminated Soils.” Missoula Technology and Development Center, September 23, 2002. Accessed September 26, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­fs​.­fed​.­us​/­t​-­d ​/­pubs​/ ­htmlpubs​/ ­htm02712801​/­section12​.­htm.

Vinyl Chloride (CHCl=H2C) Vinyl Chloride (CHCl=H2C), which is known chemically as chloroethene, chloroethylene, ethylene monochloride, or monochloroethylene, is a highly flammable, colorless gas that is used in industry. It is a chlorinated hydrocarbon and volatile organic compound (VOC) that evaporates readily and has a sweet smell. The chemical can exist in liquid form only under low temperatures or at high pressures. Vinyl chloride is the foundational building block of polyvinyl resins such as

652

Vinyl Chloride (CHCl=H2C)

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and plastics. Vinyl chloride is a manufactured chemical primarily used to make plastics. These plastics can be used in a variety of environments because they are strong and durable. Since the mid-1970s, vinyl chloride has mainly been used in the manufacture of PVC and plastics. PVC is most often used in construction materials, such as water pipes that carry and store drinking water, window frames, siding, flooring, wallpaper, window blinds, and shower curtains. It is also used to make a variety of plastic products, such as wire and cable coatings and packaging materials. Other uses include furniture and automobile upholstery, wall coverings, housewares, and automotive parts. In the past, industry used vinyl chloride as an aerosol propellant in spray cans and in some cosmetics. When burned, vinyl chloride can produce toxic chemicals, such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, and phosgene. Vinyl chloride is a known carcinogen that is released into the air and water from industrial manufacture of the chemical. People are exposed through its manufacture and from leakage exposures at hazardous waste sites. It may also be released from the breakdown of other organic compounds, such as trichloroethane, trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene (perc), and is found in low concentrations in tobacco smoke. In the 1970s, vinyl chloride was suspected as a carcinogen because of the high rates of liver cancer for workers who had been exposed to the chemical; it has recently been determined that a mutation originating in blood vessel cells that feed the liver was responsible. Because vinyl chloride is a volatile organic compound VOC, it evaporates easily in liquid form. Vinyl chloride in water or soil evaporates rapidly if it is near the surface. In the air, it breaks down in a few days, resulting in the formation of several other chemicals, including hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, and carbon dioxide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the amounts of vinyl chloride, particularly in drinking water. Major sources of vinyl chloride in drinking water come from leaching PVC piping and discharge from plastics factories. In 1974, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) created strict regulations regarding employee exposure. Likewise, the EPA adopted strict regulations in the Vinyl Chloride National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants of 1976 for air and water emissions as well as allowable levels of residual vinyl chloride in PVC resins. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Trichloroethylene (TCE) (C2HCl3); Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2006. “Vinyl Chloride.” Toxic Substance Portal. Last updated January 21, 2015. Accessed September 7, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­phs​/­phs​.­asp​?­id​= ​­280​&­tid​= ​­51. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). n.d. “Vinyl Chloride, CID=6338.” PubChem Database. Accessed September 7, 2017. ­https://​­pubchem​.­ncbi​.­nlm​.­nih​ .­gov​/­compound​/ ­Vinyl​-­chloride. U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2017. “Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC).” Tox Town, May 31, 2017. Accessed September 7, 2017. ­https://​­toxtown​.­nlm​.­nih​.­gov​/­text​_version​/­chemicals​ .­php​?­id​= ​­84.



Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 653

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a group of chemicals that evaporate easily in air and often contain sulfur or nitrogen. They are considered organic because they contain carbon chains; however, they can contain other elements, such as oxygen, and halogens, such as fluorine, chlorine, and bromine. VOCs can be emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids. Some common industrial chemicals classified as VOCs are benzene, vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene (TCE), and formaldehyde. Some may be toxic, with human exposure at home, at work, or in the environment. VOCs have been used in a wide range of products with a long history of use in the United States. They have been used in manufacturing plastics and as components in lighter fluid, adhesives, paints, gasoline, refrigerants, pesticides, and dry cleaning fluids. The VOC perchloroethylene (perc) is used in dry cleaning fabrics. Several art supplies (e.g., markers), photographic processing, copiers, and printers emit VOCs. Most people are unaware that these chemicals are also in moth repellents, air fresheners, wood preservatives, aerosol sprays, degreasers, and automotive products. In the environment, VOCs can be found in the air, groundwater, and drinking water, and they can enter the air from burning fossil fuels, such as gasoline, wood, coal, or natural gas, and from diesel emissions. Leaking storage tanks, industrial releases, landfills, and urban runoff are all sources that can impact the environment. People can also be easily exposed to VOCs from paint thinners and strippers and glues used in the home or at work. Those with chronic exposure to cigarette smoke or automobile emissions are also at risk. These chemicals can be occupational risks for workers producing or using VOCs, who often experience long-term exposure. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2017), concentrations of many VOCs are consistently higher indoors. They are estimated to be up to ten times higher than outdoors and are emitted by a wide array of products, numbering in the thousands. The exposure pathway is important in the toxicity of these chemicals because they may have limited to no health impacts at lower concentrations with a finite exposure but more toxic impacts at chronic, long-term exposures and higher concentration levels. Short-term exposure can cause dizziness, fatigue, allergic reaction, and irritation to the lungs and eyes. Chronic exposure can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, and nervous system. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) classified the VOCs benzene, TCE, and formaldehyde as carcinogens, which are regulated by the EPA. Other VOCs, such as perc, are considered “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens.” VOCs are frequently classified as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) by the EPA; they can combine with nitrogen oxides from automobiles to form ambient ozone pollution. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Benzene (C6 H6); Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); Formaldehyde (CH2O); Gasoline; Halogens; Ozone Hole; Trichloroethylene (TCE) (C2HCl3); Vapor Vacuum Extraction of VOCs; Vinyl Chloride (CHCl=H2C).

654

Vulnerable Population Impacts

Further Reading

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008. “Volatile Organics.” Toxic Substances Portal. Last updated August 14, 2008. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­atsdr​.­cdc​.­gov​/­substances​/­toxchemicallisting​.­asp​?­sysid​= ​­7. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2005. “Reducing Worker Exposure to Perchloroethylene (PERC) in Dry Cleaning.” Accessed August 19, 2017. ­https://​­w ww​.­osha​.­gov​/­dsg​/­g uidance​/­perc​.­html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “Volatile Organic Compounds’ Impact on Indoor Air Quality.” Last updated November 6, 2017. Accessed October 2, 2017. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­indoor​-­air​-­quality​-­iaq​/­volatile​-­organic​-­compounds​ -­impact​-­indoor​-­air​-­quality.

Vulnerable Population Impacts Humans are complex animals that can have different and unique responses to the exposure of contaminants. While standards for public health and exposures are predicted and estimated for a healthy human, there are populations within society that have more risk when exposed to a contaminant. These populations are commonly referred to as vulnerable populations. These populations, for a variety of reasons, have less ability to be resilient against toxic chemicals. Some of the vulnerability factors include socioeconomics, specifically income, racial or ethnic minority status, age, and gender. Age is an important factor because the exposure to an environmental contaminant during the development of a human can have permanent impacts into adulthood and even cause death. Females are particularly vulnerable to endocrine disruptors during maturation, and the health of a pregnant female and her fetus are also uniquely vulnerable as compared to the general population. This vulnerability occurs in the younger developmental years but also in the older years, when humans have more susceptibility to adverse health impacts. It is well known that there are higher health risks to low-income and minority populations from the factors of being located in overburdened or environmental justice (EJ) communities in combination with the lack of health-care resources. In the United States, EJ and overburdened communities based on income, minority status, and ethnicity are protected by Executive Order 12898. Several studies have linked race and income to pollution exposures, which are higher than the general population. Other factors of vulnerability are related to the health or genetic composition of the individual. For instance, people with disabilities may have specific vulnerabilities. For instance, any individual with a compromised immune system likely has a much higher risk from exposure to environmental or work-related pollutants. Likewise, individuals with conditions such as asthma or allergies are more likely to be impacted during high air pollution days in urban areas or have seasonal impacts. The risk is increased for individuals with chronic health illnesses when exposed to environmental pollution that can be processed by populations without these preexisting conditions. Genetics also play a role in preexisting conditions. For instance, women who have the breast cancer gene are strongly encouraged to avoid smoking because of their higher risk.



Vulnerable Population Impacts 655

Overall, members of vulnerable populations are more at risk because of inadequate access to health care by location, discrimination, or cost availability. It has been reported that “nearly 1 in 5 members of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual and Queer (LGBTQ) community has avoided seeking medical care because they have faced or fear facing discrimination. Within the LGBTQ community, there are also significant racial differences. For instance, black transgender women are disproportionately burdened with HIV” (Joszt 2018). The geographical locations of vulnerable populations also play a factor in risk. For instance, “American Indian and Alaska Native people have long experienced lower health status when compared with other Americans. They have lower life expectancy (5.5 years less than the all-races population) and their inadequate education, higher poverty rates, and cultural differences have also led to a disproportionate disease burden” (Joszt 2018). Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Asthma; Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Executive Order 12898 (1994); Overburdened Community; Tobacco Smoke; Toxic Waste and Race in the United States (1987 and 1990).

Further Reading

Ebi, K., R. Kovats, and B. Menne. 2006. “An Approach for Assessing Human Health Vulnerability and Public Health Interventions to Adapt to Climate Change.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114(12): 1930–1934. Joszt, L. 2018. “5 Vulnerable Populations in Healthcare.” American Journal of Managed Care, July 20, 2018. Accessed January 24, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­ajmc​.­com​/­newsroom​ /­5​-­v ulnerable​-­populations​-­in​-­healthcare. University of New Zealand. 2018. “What Are Vulnerable Populations?” August 6, 2018. Accessed January 23, 2019. ­http://​­www​.­ehinz​.­ac​.­n z​/­i ndicators​/­population​ -­v ulnerability​/­what​-­a re​-­v ulnerable​-­populations.

W Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests (1983) The 1983 Warren County protests were a series of demonstrations caused by two actions. The first action was the dumping of oil contaminated with the highly dangerous and hazardous chemical group known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) on a 240-mile stretch of road in rural North Carolina. The chemicals were dumped on the side of the road because the owner of a PCB-manufacturing company decided that it did not want to abide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation regarding the costs of properly disposing of PCBs. The second action involved the locating and burying of the contaminated soil in a part of rural North Carolina. However, the location where the contaminated soil was buried was close to a potential groundwater source and could have caused (and likely did) contamination of the groundwater with these highly toxic and dangerous chemicals. After the location of the landfill site was chosen, it sparked considerable political protests from environmental activists from across the nation. However, because the location was also remarkably close to a severely economically disadvantaged area, where the vast majority of the residents were from a previously discriminated against ethnic or racial minority, it also served as a lightning rod for the environmental justice (EJ) movement. The EJ movement was unlike the modern environmental movement that had taken place earlier in the 1960–70s, which was overwhelmingly upper middle class and white with little inclusion of issues concerning the African American community. However, other individuals, led by the governor of North Carolina, decried the accusation of racism regarding the location of the site, claiming that the sites were chosen by science and regulators more than from political considerations. One of the more sobering facts regarding the 1983 Warren County protests was that even with this monumental combining of forces by the environmental movement and the civil rights movement and efforts from scientists on the other side, it would take more than twenty-five years from the original dumping of the PCB-contaminated oil before the area would be considered cleaned up and detoxified. And in one of the more interesting turns of fate in political history, the North Carolina governor, who was largely castigated and decided not to run for reelection immediately following the protests, was welcomed back by both the Democratic Party and the voters in 1992, when he won a nonconsecutive term as governor and then a fourth term, increasing his vote count in the 1996 North Carolina gubernatorial election.

658

Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests

The 1983 Warren County protests involved environmental interest groups protesting the actions of the local government of Warren County as well as the state government of North Carolina. At issue was the creation and establishment of a PCB soil dump site that would coincide with a landfill found in Warren County, North Carolina, just south of Warrenton, North Carolina. PCBs are by-product of producing and manufacturing electronics. The inclusion of PCB-contaminated environments can lead to potentially devastating public health risks, and that says little regarding the effects that the contaminated water and soil can place on the local environment and aquatic habitat. According to the Mayo Clinic (2019), “PCBs can pose serious health risks to people who frequently eat contaminated fish. They can be transferred from a mother to her unborn baby, increasing the risk of preterm delivery and low birth weight. They may also be transferred from mother to baby through breast milk, and exposure has been associated with learning defects.” According to the EPA (2019), the possible public health effects for humans from PCBs are even more severe than the Mayo Clinic’s assessment: “PCBs are considered probable human carcinogens and are linked to other adverse health effects such as low birth weight, thyroid disease, and learning, memory and immune system disorders.” The potential health effects from PCBs are great, and the Hudson River, which operates as both a transportation hub and a water source for millions of individuals, suffered from contamination of PCBs. Although the federal government, through regulatory rules of the EPA, banned both the production and manufacture of products that contain PCBs in 1979, there were still PCBs throughout the United States that had not been correctly and effectively remediated. THE TRAGEDY OF WARD PCB TRANSFORMER COMPANY In this case, if the actions of the original contaminators were not so dangerous, the events would have served better as a comedy than a tragedy. In 1978, the EPA instituted new rules regarding the disposal of PCBs because of the inherent and overwhelming danger that they can cause to both the environment and public health. One of the main regulations required that PCBs be disposed of properly, and those companies that used PCBs would need to pay access fees for the proper disposal of the chemicals. Not surprisingly, this is the policy for the disposal of dangerously toxic and hazardous chemicals throughout the United States, even including large-scale disposers of motor oil. In addition, individual disposers of chemicals contaminated with PCBs also had a limit for how much they could dispose of per trip to the disposal plant. Unhappy with both the time limits and the cost of disposing of chemicals contaminated with PCBs, Robert J. Burns, a business associate of the owner of the PCB-manufacturing company Ward PCB Transformer Company of Raleigh, North Carolina, figured that it would be more cost-effective to merely dump PCB-contaminated oil on a 240-mile stretch of road in North Carolina. Although the two were not initially held accountable for the dumping of the contaminated



Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests 659

oil, a federal court eventually sentenced the owner to two and a half years and Robert J. Burns to one and a half years of prison time (Shipp 1981). After the dumping, state and local regulators encountered serious public health and environmental problems. First, the stretch of road where the two individuals dumped the contaminated soil by a roadway was not a busy thoroughfare but nonetheless a road that did experience traffic. No matter how busy, motorists often stopped on the side of the road to stretch their legs, to change a baby’s diaper, or to do a host of other things, and people were exposed to the PCBs just from standing on the side of the road. The other and the perhaps more serious problem was that the PCBs were dumped as an oil on top of soil on that stretch of road. As a result, any particulates thrust in the air had the ability to not just be soil, but soil contaminated with PCBs. Even more, air conditioning systems on both older and more modern automobiles use some air from the outside to generate cool or warm air inside the car. And although most, if not all, cars have a cabin filter for the air conditioner, these are usually meant to pick up normal air particulates, not dangerous and potentially toxic chemicals. Even though these risks to the population are obviously dangerous and severe, there was a substantial environmental and wildlife impact from the dumping as well. Because the PCBs were a part of the soil, they likely poisoned and contaminated the local wildlife as well. This would not be immediately felt, but the PCBs could work their way up the food chain to humans at some point. When it was discovered that PCBs had contaminated the soil sediment in the Hudson River in the 1970s, it became obvious that eating the fish from the river could lead to potentially dangerous scenarios for humans. As a result, there were warnings and prohibitions on consuming fish from the Hudson River. State and local public health and environmental regulators foresaw that the same type of event could occur with other wildlife on the 240-mile stretch of highway where the PCBs from Ward PCB Manufacturing were dumped. REMEDYING THE CONTAMINATED SOIL The emergency required that state and local regulators find a way to take care of the PCB-contaminated sediment in a way that reduced the potential public health, environmental, and wildlife risks. Undoubtedly, the solution would require considerable resources, but it would also require some political skill. That is because no community wants to be located close to a dumping ground for potentially toxic chemicals that would likely poison not just humans but also the local plant and wildlife. However, because the solution required political influence to determine the new remediation site, it led to problems with the location of the site. It was a real political problem because the state legislature and the governor of North Carolina found that the idea of setting a PCB landfill remained widely and wildly unpopular because of the sheer size that would be needed and because of some of the requirements the EPA placed on the development of the landfill.

660

Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests

Eventually, the political interests involved did allow for the excavation of the contaminated PCB soil and other liquids that contained PCBs as well. However, regulators and scientists very quickly realized that the landfill also contained other materials that when mixed and allowed to sit with the PCBs caused additional environmental and public health dangers. One of the major problems with the site was that it remained relatively close to potential groundwater sites. If the PCB oil and water somehow found their way into the groundwater, they would also find their way into the public water system. Warren County scientist Dr. Charles Munchi had tried to explain to regulators that, although the groundwater potential is dangerous, mixing the toxic chemicals could also cause PCBs to be released into the air, resulting in damage to communities up to fifteen miles away. THE POLITICAL FALLOUT Citizens were infuriated by the decision making of the governor of North Carolina, James Baxter Hunt. When individuals from the area decided to protest the decisions on the PCB and Warren County landfills, the governor remained remarkably unmoved by the potential problems. On December 20, 1978, Governor Hunt made a public announcement that infuriated the members of the community already upset over the landfills and the actions taken, saying, “Public sentiment [will] not deter the state from burying the PCBs in Warren County.” The governor’s recalcitrance spurred public and hostile protests to the landfill. Individual protesters began lying down on roads to prevent the cleanup crews from moving the potentially contaminated sediment back to the location where the state planned to dump it. One of the major drivers of the protests involved the realization of environmental justice (EJ). Environmental justice involves the recognition that when an area tends to have a nonwhite or economically disadvantaged majority, dumpsites suspiciously show up in those communities and not in more affluent white neighborhoods. The area where the landfill was to be established was relatively close to a community of eighteen residents, where 69 percent of the residents were nonwhite, and the area was considered economically disadvantaged by almost any measure. As many of the protesters highlighted in their rallying cries, the PCB landfill was not just a case of a lack of EJ, it was also a case of extreme environmental racism. These rallying cries were relatively successful, as minorities not just from North Carolina but from all areas of the South joined to protest the location of the landfill. And the rallying cries were not only limited to the South. The Washington Post Editorial Board (1982) also weighed in: “Whatever the merits of the Warren County controversy, but we can also celebrate the marriage of civil rights activism with environmental concerns. Environmental choices, like economic ones, have profound consequences for all races and classes. Accounting for all of those diverse interests takes both science and politics. It is good to see a broadening of the traditionally white, upper-middle-class environmental movement.”



Warren County, North Carolina, Environmental Protests 661

AN OPPOSING VIEW TO THE CLAIMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM For the opposition’s part, they largely argued that the PCB landfill site had very little to do with politics, and they strongly refuted the claim that the location of the landfill came as a result of racism. Also, some of the more nuanced opinions on the landfill included one that said there is obviously bias that tends to result in landfills and other negative environmental outcomes in areas that are predominantly populated by people of color or those suffering extreme economic hardship, but in this case, the science and economics dictated the location of the landfill, not politics and not race. One of the other underreported angles of the 1983 Warren County environmental protests included the political tenure of Governor James Baxter Hunt. Although he took a lot of criticism in front of the camera for the decision making regarding the landfill, he did not really suffer politically from the controversy. In 1978, he won reelection rather easily, but in 1982 he did not seek reelection. However, the controversy did not hurt his political stock too drastically. In 1992, he ran for a third term as governor, winning 53 percent of the vote, and in 1996, he won reelection for his fourth term as governor with an increase of his vote percentage to 56 percent statewide. Eventually, after a lot of wrangling in both the courts and the political arena, the PCB landfill and the 240-mile stretch of road where Ward PCB Manufacturing was located were certified as detoxified and cleaned up. However, those proclamations would not be fully completed in 2003. Part of the Warren County 1983 protests’ lasting contributions was really a tragedy. A selfish act led to the taxpayers largely footing the bill for millions of dollars. It also resulted in the development of a landfill that likely endangered the lives of many Americans. However, the silver lining of the Warren County protests is that it served as a call to action for many in the environmental protest movement, and it also connected to the poor and those previously racially discriminated against in a way that the environmental movement had not before. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

Lebalme, Jenny. 1987. A Road to Walk: A Struggle for Environmental Justice. Durham, NC: Regulator Press. Mayo Clinic. 2019. “I’ve Heard That Salmon Is High in Dangerous PCBs. So What Are PCBs and What Risk Do They Pose?” Accessed December 19, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­mayoclinic​.­org​/­healthy​-­l ifestyle​/­nutrition​-­a nd​-­healthy​-­e ating​/­expert​-­a nswers​ /­fish​-­and​-­pbcs​/­faq​-­20348595. Shipp, Randy. 1981. “Two in North Carolina Get Jail for PCB Offenses.” Christian Science Monitor, June 24, 1981. Accessed December 19, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­csmonitor​ .­com​/­1981​/­0624​/­062427​.­html.

662

Wasserman-Nieto, Kimberly

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Legacy Management. 2019. “Environmental Justice History.” Accessed December 21, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­energy​.­gov​/­lm​ /­services​/­environmental​-­justice​/­environmental​-­justice​-­history. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Hudson River Cleanup.” Accessed December 5, 2019. ­https://​­www3​.­epa​.­gov​/ ­hudson​/­cleanup​.­html. Washington Post Editorial Board. 1982. “Dumping on the Poor.” The Washington Post. Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­washingtonpost​.­com​/­archive​/­politics​/­1982​ /­10​/­12​/­dumping​-­on​-­the​-­poor​/ ­bb5c9b8c​-­528a​- ­45b0​-­bd10​-­874da288cd59​/.

Wasserman-Nieto, Kimberly(1977–) Kimberly Wasserman-Nieto is the executive director of the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) in Chicago, Illinois. Born to two community activists from Little Village, she has been active in the organization since 1998 and has worked as a community organizer supporting the building of a public park, community gardens, and the revitalization of her neighborhood. LVEJO embodies the environmental justice (EJ) mission of providing for human rights where people live, work, and play. Thus, Wasserman-Nieto has led the organization on a variety of community campaigns, from access to public transit to the closure of a coal-fired power plant in the community of Little Village and another in the nearby neighborhood of Pilsen. Little Village is a Hispanic community in Chicago located on the southwest side of the city in a major industrial corridor. It is a major cultural hub for the Mexican community in Chicago. It is 85 percent Latino with an average median income that falls below the average for Chicago, classifying it as a low-income community based on Census estimates. It is considered an EJ community of Chicago because of the disproportionate impacts to the community members from the overburden of health risks from environmental contaminants. Wasserman-Nieto was the recipient of the Goldman Environmental Prize for North America because of her leadership on EJ issues in Little Village. She led the campaign to close the Crawford Coal Plant and the Fisk Coal Plant in the nearby Pilsen neighborhood owned by the Midwest Generation Power Company. When her three-month-old son suffered his first asthma attack, she began working with community members on the elimination of fossil fuel emissions in her neighborhood, where she found that respiratory health problems were more common than she realized. As widely reported in the local news, in 2000, a Harvard School of Public Health study linked emissions from nine coal-fired power plants to premature deaths, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks (Wernau 2002). Little Village was one of the communities most impacted because of its high density of population and having the greatest number of children in the Chicago area. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Asthma; Coal and Coal-Fired Power Plants; Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO).

Further Reading

Goldman Environmental Foundation. 2019. “Kim Wasserman: 2013 Goldman Prize Recipient North America.” The 30 Years Goldman Environmental Prize. Accessed March 2, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­goldmanprize​.­org​/­recipient​/ ­kimberly​-­wasserman.



Water Contamination (Surface) 663

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. “Environmental Issues in Chicago’s Little Village and Pilsen Neighborhoods.” EPA in Illinois, June 12, 2018. Accessed March 27, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­il​/­environmental​-­issues​-­chicagos​-­little​ -­village​-­pilsen​-­neighborhoods. Wernau, Julie. 2002. “Fisk, Crawford Coal Plants Had Long History, as Did Battle to Close Them.” Chicago Tribune, September 2, 2002. Accessed March 27, 2019. ­h ttps://​­www​.­c hicagotribune​.­c om​/ ­b usiness​/­c t​-­x pm​-­2 012​- ­0 9​- ­0 2​- ­c t​- ­b iz​- ­0 902​ -­crawford​-­fisk​-­20120902​-­story​.­html.

Water Contamination (Surface) Water is uniquely vulnerable to contamination in large part because it is a universal solvent, meaning it is able to dissolve more substances than any other liquid on earth. Surface water from freshwater sources accounts for more than 60 percent of the water consumed in American homes (Denchak 2018). Unfortunately, approximately half of the rivers and more than a third of the lakes in the United States are unfit for swimming, fishing, or drinking (Denchak 2018). The primary sources of surface water contamination include agriculture, construction, municipal wastes, resource extraction production, and industry (Walker et  al. 2019). Natural emission sources, such as salt grains, mineral dust, volcanic ash, and forest fire smoke particles, can also lead to surface water contamination (Calvo-Flores et al. 2018). Throughout the world, agriculture is the biggest consumer of global freshwater resources, with farming and livestock production using about 70 percent of the earth’s surface water supplies. In the United States, agricultural production is the primary source of contamination in rivers and streams, the second-largest source in wetlands, and the third primary source in lakes (Denchak 2018). Agricultural pollution often occurs in the form of excessive or inappropriate uses of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, pathogens, salts, oil, grease, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and irrigation practices and has resulted in soil erosion, habitat alteration, soil salinization, and animal waste contamination (Laitos and Ruckriegle 2013). The increased use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers has led to many instances of eutrophication, where the fertilizers’ nutrients cause algal blooms that then cause animal deaths from the lack of oxygen in the water. Since the 1940s, the amount of nitrogen available for uptake in aquatic systems has more than doubled (Walker et al. 2019). The high concentration of nitrates, particularly in drinking water, has been known to cause methemoglobinemia, a potentially fatal disease in infants (Laitos and Ruckriegle 2013). Similarly, eutrophic water often contains cyanobacterial toxins (cyanotoxins) that can affect both humans and wildlife (Walker et al. 2019). More problematic, there are persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBTs) chemicals in agricultural runoff that biomagnify within aquatic ecosystems and often accumulate in the sediments of surface water bodies (Walker et al. 2019). Many PBTs are found in agricultural pesticides; research has found that insecticides, along with nutrients and habitat degradation, are an important driver for biodiversity loss in agriculturally impacted aquatic ecosystems (Stehle and Schulz 2015).

664

Water Contamination (Surface)

Historically speaking, one of the most commonly used PBT compounds was dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), an organochlorine pesticide that was in use from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Even though most organochlorine pesticides, including DDT, have been replaced with less environmentally persistent compounds, such as organophosphate, carbamate, and synthetic pyrethroid pesticides, these newer pesticides are also more acutely toxic (Walker et al. 2019). Another class of toxic compounds often found in surface water is polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were widely used in hundreds of industrial applications, including electrical insulation, hydraulic equipment, paints, plastics, and rubber products (Walker et al. 2019). Beyond their being environmentally persistent, they are also extremely lipophilic, meaning that they can bioaccumulate and biomagnify in aquatic environments. Owing to these properties, fish are very susceptible to the accumulation of PCBs, which in turn means the birds that eat fish are also susceptible. Humans who consume these animals can also be exposed (Walker et al. 2019). Intestinal microorganisms (enteric pathogens), which originate from nearly all animals, are a common source of surface water contamination. This issue is particularly problematic after periods of heavy rain when the amount of suspended matter and pathogens increases to the point that enteric organisms can sometimes exceed that found in raw sewage (Walker et al. 2019). In New York City, for example, about 60 percent of storm runoff and sewage flows through the same piping systems (i.e., combined sewer overflow [CSO]) on its way to the city’s fourteen wastewater treatment plants. When rain exceeds a tenth of an inch per hour, relief structures allow a combination of urban runoff and raw sewage to bypass the water treatment plants, discharging directly into local waterways at up to 460 locations throughout the five boroughs (Chaisson 2017). Across the United States, it is estimated that 40 percent of rivers and estuaries fail to meet ambient water quality standards owing to pathogens in the form of fecal coliform bacteria (Walker et al. 2019). An increasing problem concerning surface water contamination, particularly in the United States, is the use of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Such operations generate approximately one hundred times as much manure as municipal wastewater treatment plants, and they often contribute significant levels of pathogens that can infect humans (Walker et al. 2019). Surface water contamination from heavy metals is a worldwide problem. Metals can enter aquatic systems through the weathering of soils and rocks and from volcanic eruptions, and many metals enter rivers through human activities. The primary anthropogenic sources of heavy metal are mining and smelting activities, disposal of untreated and partially treated effluents, metal chelates from different industries, and heavy metal–containing fertilizers and pesticides (Adesiyan et al. 2018). The most common heavy metal pollutants are arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and mercury. What makes the metals so problematic is that they typically lodge in bottom sediments, where they can remain for several years, and unlike some organic pesticides, heavy metals cannot be broken down into less harmful components in the environment (Lenntech 2019).



Water Contamination (Surface) 665

Particularly during the twentieth century, paper processing was a major source of surface water contamination. There are significant amounts of solid waste effluents from pulp and paper mills, including bark, reject fibers, lime mud, boiler and furnace ash, wood sterols, resin acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and the alkyl derivatives of all of these (Manda, Blok, and Patel 2012; Sumathi and Hung 2004). Heavy metals have also been found in mill effluent. Some studies have found accumulations of heavy metals in crop fields irrigated with paper mill effluent, with copper seeming to be the main contributor (Devi et al. 2009). An additional issue related to pulp and paper mill effluent is the high number of coliforms. Escherichia coli (E. coli) and other coliforms can be found naturally in soil, bark, and in both healthy and decaying wood. Coliforms grow in paper mill process streams as a result of high temperatures, high carbohydrate levels, low dissolved oxygen levels, and low fixed nitrogen levels (Long et al. 2012). The list of substances that have been identified from surface waters is, of course, quite lengthy. New contaminants continue to appear. For example, pharmaceuticals have been discovered in sewage effluents for many years, but only recently have their environmental risks begun to be studied. There is a similar issue with fluorinated surfactants, a large class of compounds that are common to many consumer products. As of 2018, the number of described organic and inorganic substances exceeded 127 million (Calvo-Flores et al. 2018). Illicit drugs (IDs) are among the latest group of emerging pollutants to be identified in aquatic systems worldwide. IDs have been identified as contaminants in wastewater from municipal sewage treatment plants in several European countries and in the United States. The residues from IDs persisting in users’ urine can reach the treatment plants in detectable amounts, escaping degradation, the result of which is that these substances are still detectable in treated water and can contaminate surface waters (Calvo-Flores et al. 2018). Similarly, stimulants such as caffeine and nicotine have often been found in groundwater and surface waters. Currently, nicotine is prohibited as a pesticide for organic farming in the United States (Calvo-Flores et al. 2018). Another group of emerging pollutants is personal care products, typically composed of complex mixtures of chemicals in multiple forms, such as creams, lotions, gels, solids, semisolids, stabilizers, emulsifiers, pH regulators, biocides, and dyes. The chemicals in these products are numbered in the thousands. Among the compounds that are of increasing concern are biocides, which are often used in body soaps, household cleaners, and lip glosses and have been shown to increase antimicrobial drug resistance (Calvo-Flores et al. 2018). Many personal care products also contain dichlorophene and chlorophene, which are used in the formulation of hair tonics, dressings, foot powders, and sprays. Dichlorophene is especially toxic to the endocrine system in that it mimics estrogen, which can lead to hormone imbalances in both men and women. Because of their occurrence in wastewater effluents and their ability to bioconcentrate, both of these compounds are considered to be bioavailable to fish (Calvo-Flores et al. 2018).

666

Water Contamination (Surface)

Parabens, another antimicrobial, have been used in the manufacture of several products because of their fungicidal and bactericidal properties. Although these compounds are biodegradable, they are common in surface water and sediments, owing to their continuous release into recreational, domestic, urban, and industrial wastewaters and leakage of municipal wastewater mains (Calvo-Flores et al. 2018). REGULATION OF SURFACE WATER CONTAMINATION One of the first federal laws that ostensibly dealt with water contamination in the United States was the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, which prohibited the discharge of refuse into navigable waters or their tributaries without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, that law was primarily adopted to protect navigation and was not necessarily intended toward making water aesthetically or functionally clean. Prior to World War II, water pollution control was primarily under the regulatory jurisdiction of state and local governments, although the federal government often provided technical and financial support to the states. Because water pollution was largely under state and local control, there were no federally required goals, objectives, limits, or guidelines (Copeland 2006). It was not until 1948 that Congress would begin to address the issue on a fuller scale. That year, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) was passed, which would seek to expand the federal government’s role in pollution regulation and to take action to abate interstate pollution. By the late 1960s, there was a widespread public perception, particularly in the wake of the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire, that federal standards concerning water quality were largely ineffective. Pollutant discharges from municipal waste systems had grown larger, and fish kills had reached record levels (Andreen 2013). By the end of the decade, nearly half the states had not adopted the water quality standards set by the 1965 Water Quality Act, and even if they had, the federal government still had a great deal of difficulty in enforcing standards in that it would have had to prove which particular polluter was responsible for violating the act’s standards. As well, the federal government usually lacked the scientific data concerning the location, volume, or composition of industrial discharges—something made even more difficult if several possible polluters were involved (Glicksman and Batzel 2010; Andreen 2013). Congress responded to the public’s concerns of water safety with the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972—more popularly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Rather than continuing a reliance on state water standards, this was largely new and had as its objective the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. It had two major goals: (1) zero discharge of pollutants by 1985 and (2) waters were “fishable” and “swimmable” by mid-1983 (Copeland 2006). Similarly, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in December 1974. In its original form, the SDWA established a cooperative program



Water Contamination (Surface) 667

among local, state, and federal agencies and required the establishment of primary drinking water regulations to ensure safe drinking water for consumers. States were given the lead role in implementation and regulation (Tiemann 2017). At that time, however, few states had the capability of implementing the regulations. The EPA then began to customize drinking water programs for each state (Kimm et al. 2014). The new regulations were the first to apply to all public water systems in the United States and covered both chemical and microbial contaminants (Pontius 2003). The standards set by the SDWA were applicable to all systems serving more than twenty-five customers or having fifteen service connections (Kimm et al. 2014). Several amendments were added during the ensuing decades. FUTURE ISSUES An increasing public concern is what effects global climate change will have on surface water availability and quality. In recent years, as laboratory equipment has become increasingly advanced, there is more focus on the micropollutants often found in pesticides, medicines, microplastics, and nanoparticles. Climate change may lead to severe water shortages in some areas (which may mean concentrated levels of pollutants), and increased flooding in other areas may cause wastewater management systems to be overwhelmed. As quantity and quality issues with surface water become increasingly difficult to manage, more complex water treatments will be necessary (e.g., advanced oxidation, membrane-based cleaning). Inevitably, this means that advanced treatments will lead to higher costs. The same processes may also have various unwanted environmental side effects (Ingildsen and Olsson 2016). Robert L. Perry See also: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

Further Reading

Adesiyan, Ibukun Modupe, Mary Bisi-Johnson, Omolara Titilayo Aladesanmi, Anthony I. Okoh, and Aderemi Okunola Ogunfowokan. 2018. “Concentrations and Human Health Risk of Heavy Metals in Rivers in Southwest Nigeria.” Journal of Health and Pollution 8(19): 180907. Accessed December 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­journalhealthpollution​.­org​/­doi​/­10​.­5696​/­2156​-­9614​-­8​.­19​.­180907. Andreen, William L. 2013. “Success and Backlash: The Remarkable (Continuing) Story of the Clean Water Act.” Journal of Energy & Environmental Law 4: 25–37. Calvo-Flores, Francisco G., Joaquín García, and José A. Doblado. 2018. Emerging Pollutants: Origin, Structure and Properties. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. Chaisson, Clara. 2017. “When It Rains, It Pours Raw Sewage into New York City’s Waterways.” National Resource Defense Council. Accessed December 1, 2019. ­https://​ ­w ww​. ­n rdc​.­o rg​/­s tories​/ ­w hen​- ­i t​- ­r ains​- ­i t​- ­p ours​- ­r aw​- ­s ewage​- ­n ew​-­york​- ­c itys​ -­waterways.

668

Water Contamination (Surface)

Copeland, Claudia. 2006. “Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act.” Congressional Research Service Report. Accessed December 1, 2019. ­https://​ ­d igitalcommons​.­u nl​.­e du​/­c rsdocs​/ ­36​/ ?­u tm​_ source​= ​­digitalcommons​.­u nl​.­e du​ %­2Fcrsdocs​%­2F36​&­utm​_medium​= ​­PDF​&­utm​_campaign​= ​­PDFCoverPages. Denchak, Melissa. 2018. “Water Pollution: Everything You Need to Know.” National Resource Defense Council. Accessed December 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­n rdc​.­org​ /­stories​/­water​-­pollution​-­everything​-­you​-­need​-­k now. Devi, Ningombam Linthoingambi, Ishwar Chandra Yadav, Q. I. Shihua, Surendra Singh, and S. L. Belagali. 2009. “Physicochemical Characteristics of Paper Industry Effluents—A Case Study of South India Paper Mill (SIPM).” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 177: 23–33. Glicksman, Robert L., and Matthew R. Batzel. 2010. “Science, Politics, Law, and the Arc of the Clean Water Act: The Role of Assumptions in the Adoption of a Pollution Control Landmark.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 32: 99–138. Ingildsen, Pernille, and Gustaf Olsson. 2016. “Approach.” In Smart Water Utilities: Complexity Made Simple, 26–59. London: IWA Publishing. Kimm, Victor J., Joseph A. Cotruvo, Jack Hoffbuhr, and Arden Calvert. 2014. “The Safe Drinking Water Act: The First 10 Years.” Journal of American Water Works Association 106(8): 84–95. Laitos, Jang, and Heidi Ruckriegle. “The Clean Water Act and the Challenge of Agricultural Pollution.” Vermont Law Review 37: 1034–1070. Lenntech. 2019. “Metals in Aquatic Freshwater: The Way Freshwater Ecosystems Deal with an Excess of Metals.” Accessed December 1, 2019. ­https://​­www​.­lenntech​ .­com​/­aquatic​/­metals​.­htm. Long, Sharon C., Jamie R. Stietz, Jeremy Olstadt, Curtis J. Hedman, and Jeanine D. Plummer. 2012. “Characterization of Paper Mill Effluent Using Indicators and Source Tracking Methods.” Journal of American Water Works Association 104(3): E150–E161. Manda, B. M. Krishna, Kornelis Blok, and Martin K. Patel. 2012. “Innovations in Papermaking: An LCA of Printing and Writing Paper from Conventional and High Yield Pulp.” Science of the Total Environment 439: 307–320. Pontius, Frederick W. 2003. “History of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).” In Drinking Water Regulation and Health, edited by Frederick W. Pontius, 71–104. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Stehle, Sebstian, and Ralf Schulz. 2015. “Agricultural Insecticides Threaten Surface Waters at the Global Scale.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(18): 5750–5755. Sumathi, Suresh, and Yung-Tse Hung. 2004. “Treatment of Pulp and Paper Mill Wastes.” In Handbook of Industrial and Hazardous Wastes Treatments, edited by Lawrence K. Wang, Yung-Tse Hung, Howard H. Lo, and Constantine Yapijakis, 2nd ed, 469–513. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Accessed December 1, 2019. ­https://​­doi​ .­org​/­10​.­1201​/­9780203026519. Tiemann, Mary. 2017. “Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements.” Congressional Research Service. Accessed December 1, 2019. ­https://​­documents​.­deq​.­utah​.­gov​/­water​-­quality​/­ground​-­water​-­protection​ /­underground​-­injection​-­control​/­general​/ ­DWQ​-­2018​- ­001025​.­pdf. Walker, D. B., D. J. Baumgartner, C. P. Gerba, and K. Fitzsimmons. 2019. “Surface Water Pollution.” In Environmental and Pollution Science, 3rd ed, 261–292. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.



Women for a Healthy Environment (WHE) 669

WE ACT for Environmental Justice WE ACT for Environmental Justice (WE ACT), formerly the West Harlem Environmental Action, is an advocacy group that addresses the issues of environmental justice (EJ) and racism. The group started in 1988 when three community members in West Harlem, a neighborhood of New York City, worked with a litigator to improve their air quality. The WE ACT mission is to build health communities for low-income people of color with meaningful participation in the creation of fair environmental health and protection policies. Their motto is to address the pollution where people of color live, work, play, and pray. Today, WE ACT is a coalition of over forty EJ organizations with sixteen staff members and is located in New York City and Washington, DC. It is the leader of the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change. Its campaigns have included the creation of the West Harlem Piers Park and new bus pollution standards that led New York City transit to shift from diesel fuel to hybrid vehicles. Located in the northern Manhattan area of New York City, WE ACT has actively worked on environmental policies for the state of New York and has expanded into national policies. Currently, the organization sponsors Uptown Chats, a speaker series to connect the community with policy makers and leaders. It has collaborated with the Corbin Hill Food Project to gain access to fresh fruits and vegetables. They have created a food share drop-off site at a local community center for residents. To assist residents with affordable clean energy, WE ACT has a campaign called Solar Uptown Now to bring solar power to the community. They have partnered with Solar One and the local housing assistance board to facilitate the installation of new solar power panels on low- to moderate-income multifamily dwellings. WE ACT has been active in the Northern Manhattan Climate Action Plan, which focuses on resilience measures for climate change that may impact poor and working-class residents. WE ACT has analyzed how the decreased funding levels at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) impacts vulnerable communities. The group has worked on issues regarding asthma and healthy and sustainable public housing. Like other EJ organizations, WE ACT includes issues of clean air, climate justice, jobs, healthy homes, and sustainable land use as part of its work. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Executive Order 12898 (1994); Overburdened Community.

Further Reading

WE ACT for Environmental Justice. 2019. “Who Are We.” Accessed April 12, 2019. ­https://​­w ww​.­weact​.­org.

Women for a Healthy Environment (WHE) Women for a Healthy Environment (WHE) is a Pittsburgh-based public service, nonprofit organization that “educates and empowers women to act as ambassadors about environmental risks so that they can make healthy choices for

670

Women for a Healthy Environment (WHE)

themselves and their families and advocate for change for a better tomorrow for all” (WHE 2018). WHE has its roots in the environmental advocacy efforts of Teresa Heinz Kerry—the widow of the late Pennsylvania senator H. John Heinz III and current wife of onetime presidential candidate and Massachusetts senator John F. Kerry. In 1996, as chair of the Heinz Endowments and the Heinz Family Philanthropies, Heinz Kerry convened the first Women’s Health & the Environment Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. An overriding concern at the time was that there was little scientific research or policy discussion regarding the potential environmental causes of rising rates of various types of illness, particularly those affecting women. Following the 2007 Women’s Health & the Environment Conference, a number of women were asked to volunteer their expertise to determine how to best educate and involve women about issues related to women’s health and the environment. From these volunteer efforts, Women for a Healthy Environment was created. The group still hosts these conferences, which have been continually sponsored by Heinz Kerry and the Heinz Endowments as well as the Magee-Women’s Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC).

AREAS OF ISSUE ADVOCACY There are four major areas of issue advocacy for the WHE. The first area is the group’s focus on prenatal and infant care. WHE provides information on nutrition and diet for mothers and infants and admonishes women to choose products that are listed as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and bisphenol A (BPA) free and to beware of toys that contain toxic plastic softeners (phthalates), PVC, and fragrances. Similarly, the second area relates to food education and personal care, wherein women are encouraged to understand possible toxins in typical foods and to understand potential health issues related to products used for personal hygiene and cosmetics. In particular, women are encouraged to support WHE’s Fragrance Free Initiative. The third area of concern involves the potential toxic hazards found in household cleaning products and in-home furnishings. In particular, WHE notes that many home furnishings contain flame retardants that are linked to thyroid, reproductive, developmental, and liver problems. In early 2015, WHE trained several community ambassadors as part of the group’s Healthy Homes program to represent the organization by delivering educational materials to various neighborhoods throughout Pittsburgh. The fourth area of environmental issue advocacy is community health, and it is perhaps WHE’s broadest area of concern. Owing to Pittsburgh’s proximity to the Marcellus Shale formation and the extractive industries related to it, this issue has become more important for WHE’s advocacy efforts. The group’s efforts have focused on the negative impacts of natural gas exploration and extraction on surface water and groundwater, wastewater pollutants, air pollution, and displacement of plant and animal species. Robert L. Perry



Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) 671

See also: Bisphenol A (BPA) (C15H16O2); Phthalates.

Further Reading

Women for a Heathy Environment (WHE). 2018. “Who We Are.” Accessed June 13, 2018. ­http://​­womenforahealthyenvironment​.­org​/­who​-­we​-­are​.­html.

Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) is a nonprofit advocacy group whose mission is to eliminate toxic chemicals that harm human health, specifically in women. Formed in 1995 by a group of women in Missoula, Montana, the organization takes on the well-known environmental justice (EJ) approach of defining the environment as the place where people live, work, and play. As a result, the organization is specifically concerned about exposure to toxic chemicals for women, particularly young girls, women of color, and women of reproductive age, which they claim have been overlooked by studies that are more focused on acute studies of occupational chemical exposures. WVE has a staff of eleven and is headquartered in Missoula. They acknowledge the lack of women in leadership positions in the larger environmental organizations and state that women’s health is influenced by a complex web of social, political, environmental, and economic impacts as well as by physiology. They take a more social justice perspective on understanding toxic chemicals by including dimensions of class and race along with toxic chemicals impacts on women. The organization employs several approaches in reaching its mission. It uses commissioned research, educational awareness, and government advocacy to impact change on public policies, consumer behaviors, and corporate practices. They work with other organizations and elected officials to get protections for women from a variety of toxic chemicals, both in the home and workplace. Many of the policies they build campaigns around include eliminating toxic chemicals linked to breast cancer, birth defects, children’s asthma, women’s reproductive health problems, and learning disabilities. As part of its menstrual equality movement—along with other organizations that include Detox the Box, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Black Women for Wellness, Turning Green, Period Equity, the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights, and Seventh Generation—WVE recently organized a rally and lobby day in Washington, DC, about women’s right to safe feminine care products. The organization provides a list of the top fifteen toxic chemicals that women are most likely to encounter. WVE views the impacts of toxic chemical exposure on women as affecting them differently than men. They point out that many chemicals accumulate in fat, and women typically have a higher percentage of fat than men. A variety of toxic chemicals in the household and food may be acting as endocrine disruptors. The organization is concerned that precocious puberty may be linked to these endocrine disrupters, which can mimic estrogen in the female body. Young girls are more susceptible than others.

672

Workplace and Occupational Exposure

The organization is also working on campaigns that look at the exposure paths for women who tend to have higher rates of toxic chemicals in their bodies than men. For instance, women are found to have higher levels of phthalates, which are found in cosmetics and personal care products. In addition, the organization advocates changes for increased protection of women’s health during pregnancy and breastfeeding. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES TO WOMEN Certain occupations with predominately female workers put women at a higher risk for exposures to certain toxic chemicals. For instance, housekeeping and cleaning workers are primarily female and include a significant percentage of women of color. Their higher exposures to toxic cleaning chemicals on a daily basis can cause chronic exposure over time. Chemicals contained in bleach, air deodorant sprays, degreasing agents, and strong detergents with disinfectants are all suspected sources of negative human health impacts. In 2016, the organization commissioned research that showed the fragrance chemical galaxolide is highly persistent and toxic in the environment. As a result, several manufacturers agreed to transition away from galaxolide in their products. The personal care industry, with its salons that use hair care products, nail polishes, and cosmetics, is predominately concentrated with women. Several toxic chemicals in these workplaces, such as formaldehyde, phthalates, toluene, and others, are known to have human health impacts. In 2016, the organization filed a joint lawsuit with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its failure to protect the public and professional salon workers from dangers associated with popular hair-straightening treatments. Kelly A. Tzoumis See also: Breast Cancer; Cosmetics, Environmental and Health Impacts of; Environmental Justice/Environmental Racism; Formaldehyde (CH2O); Phthalates; Precocious Puberty; WE ACT for Environmental Justice.

Further Reading

Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE). 2016. “Lawsuit Urges FDA to Protect Salon Workers, Consumers from Formaldehyde.” December 15, 2016. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­http://​­www​.­womensvoices​.­org​/­2016​/­12​/­15​/­lawsuit​-­urges​-­fda​-­protect​-­stylists​ -­consumers​-­formaldehyde. Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE). 2017. “Mission and Vision.” Accessed October 4, 2017. ­http://​­www​.­womensvoices​.­org​/­about​/­mission​-­and​-­vision.

Workplace and Occupational Exposure Workplace and occupational exposure refers to the potential of a worker or employee to be exposed to a certain set of dangerous or hazardous chemicals that could result in not only the sickness or injury to the worker but also public health more generally. If the chemicals are dangerous or toxic, they can cause real public



Workplace and Occupational Exposure 673

health effects, especially for the individual workers. In history, two different exposure scandals have provided an impetus for the government to regulate workplace and occupation exposure: asbestos and coal dust. Although the advertisements and marketing of personal attorney injury lawyers feature asbestos and mesothelioma claims, exposure to asbestos does result in death in many cases. Complicating the issue, the companies that used asbestos often ensured that individuals could never be fully compensated for the problems caused by their workplace exposure to asbestos. That is because many of the companies that used asbestos would eventually go bankrupt, and the companies then used bankruptcy trusts to fund the settlement claims. However, because of bankruptcy protections, most would only pay 30–40 percent of the actual value of the claims. And although many claimants tried to receive more in settlements from solvent defendants, this became more difficult because of the legal battles regarding the financial liabilities of the claims. The other large-scale example of the problems with workplace and occupational exposure involved the long-term exposure to coal dust in the coal mining industry. This often led to a condition called black lung that led to the deaths of thousands of coal miners. As a result of these two scandals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) introduced the permissible exposure limit, which regulates exactly how much time a worker can be exposed to certain dangerous or toxic chemicals at the workplace. Normally, to determine the amount of time an individual may be exposed, regulators calculate it as a weighted-time average. In other more serious conditions, regulators also regulate the amount of extremely dangerous chemicals that workers can be exposed to. This usually happens under much tighter intervals that ordinary time-weighted averages. For better or for worse, a sizable portion of the American workforce finds employment in a host of professions that come with considerable risks. In some cases, this may be mechanical (e.g., an offshore or inland oil rig) or from inherent dangers of the job (e.g., police officer, fireman). However, in other cases, employees may come into contact with dangerous chemicals on a daily basis. And although the number of incidents involving accidental or controlled workplace or occupational exposure has drastically decreased over the last fifty years, it still remains a risk for millions of American workers on a day-to-day basis. THE HISTORY OF OCCUPATIONAL AND WORKPLACE EXPOSURE One of the most common occupational exposures that became a public health problem was the use of asbestos. Asbestos is the generic name given to a collection of naturally occurring minerals in the soil that are strongly resistant to both heat and corrosion. Asbestos was used in a variety of industries and products, especially construction, floor tiles, automobile parts, and HVAC equipment, including insulation and piping. Unfortunately, the effects from asbestos exposure are quite severe for both individuals and for public health. The World Health Organization (WHO 2020) explains that breathing asbestos fibers can cause a

674

Workplace and Occupational Exposure

buildup of scar-like tissue in the lungs called asbestosis and result in loss of lung function that often progresses to disability and death. Even more, the condition may also lead to a condition called mesothelioma, which is the fatal malignant tumor of the membrane in the cavity of the lung or the stomach. Various companies and federal, state, and local governments have spent considerable resources on trying to alleviate the problems associated with mesothelioma driven by exposure to asbestos. What happened relatively regularly is that companies did not disclose to the workers that they were being exposed to high levels of asbestos. And as the workers became more and more sick from the asbestos exposure, the companies often did little to help the individuals affected. As a result, many of the companies were forced to file for bankruptcy, but with the help of environmental regulators, various asbestos-related health problems could be remedied through filing claims against asbestos trust funds that helped pay on these claims. However, even though this gave some financial compensation for the medical problems associated with asbestos, it did not come close to covering the actual costs of occupational exposure, and that is because the law limits the amount an individual can receive from a trust that holds bankruptcy protections. One of the more concerning problems of asbestos exposure through the workplace is that the EPA does not ban its manufacture. This is different from other chemicals that resulted in a massive public health problem, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have contaminated multiple rivers. However, that does not mean that the federal government has not bothered to heavily regulate the use of asbestos in other items and attempted to limit occupational exposure to asbestos. Most famously, the landmark 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), passed by Congress and signed by President Nixon, labeled asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and multiple uses of asbestos have been banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 (EPA 2019). A second example of the extreme effects of occupational and workplace exposure involves the coal mining industry and the exposure of workers to coal dust. Coal dust colloquially refers to the pulverization of coal suitable for use in coal-powered electric power plants and mining throughout the United States, particularly in the eastern part of the United States, including Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Most notably, coal dust largely refers to a substance heavily regulated by the Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA) that may cause serious health and environmental problems when an area or a human is exposed to it for a prolonged period. The most serious health effect from continued exposure to coal dust is coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP), also known as black lung. It is a disease more commonly referred to as industrial bronchitis. With this disease, sufferers can expect inflammation of the lungs, unproductive scarring of the lungs (meaning the wounds never fully heal), and possible necrosis. In addition, through imaging, the lungs of someone suffering from CWP may exhibit black discoloration, which forms because coal dust cannot be normally removed from the body when inhaled. The condition, although rarely fatal, results in complications as sufferers get older.



Workplace and Occupational Exposure 675

CWP became so severe in the coal mining areas of the country, notably West Virginia, that Congress introduced legislation to help deal with its effects. The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 was eventually passed and ultimately signed by President Nixon. The act increased the number of on-site inspections of coal mines as well as the penalties for a failure to comply with federal regulations governing coal mining. As a result, the MSHA has also proposed a series of more stringent requirements on the amount of coal dust that a miner can be legally subjected to during a certain period of time. The Respirable Dust Rule, proposed in 2010 and implemented in phases since 2014, limits the amount of coal dust a miner can be exposed to over a certain period of time. The MHSA tests and measures miners for how much coal dust enters their lungs. The MSHA tests a single full-shift sample, and immediate remedial action is required if that sample exceeds the acceptable levels as prescribed by the rule. Policy Developments Although the problems of asbestos and coal dust represent perhaps the biggest and most significant public health problems related to workplace and occupational exposure, the EPA needed to, and did, develop a more comprehensive approach to limiting workplace exposure to harmful and toxic substances. One of the ways that various governmental organizations limit the effects of workplace exposure to hazardous chemicals is by creating occupational exposure limits. According to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2008), occupational exposure limits refers to “the upper limit on the acceptable concentration of a hazardous substance in workplace air for a particular material or class of materials.” Normally, these limits can vary from jurisdiction. However, in the United States, two different types of occupational exposure limits make up the bulk of policy regarding occupational exposure. The first is known as the permissible exposure limit. Although, in most cases, it refers to exposure to a chemical agent, it could also mean exposure to loud noises. Although the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) did not actually set up the regulatory environment for permissible exposure limits, the regulations issued by the Occupational Safety of Health Administration (OSHA) came almost immediately following the passage of the law, and OSHA became directly responsible for proposing and implementing it in the future. In the regulation, there are two different ways of measuring the permissible exposure limit. Most often, it is calculated by giving a time-weighted average. In most cases, the time-weighted average extends over the period of an eight-hour day. This made sense to regulators because it used the number of chemicals a worker would be exposed in one workday, but it could also be extended to how much exposure a worker would be subjected to over a work week, work month, or work year. Even more, it could also be extrapolated into giving a value to an employee about the amount of exposure an individual might see over the course of an entire career if it were spent at the same manufacturer or other business.

676

Workplace and Occupational Exposure

However, OSHA also sets the limits on how regularly an individual may be subjected to chemicals that can potentially do damage over a relatively short period of time and includes stronger regulations on the types of equipment businesses and workers will need if they are expected to be exposed. Normally, this would involve the measured exposure to the chemical that happens over a single fifteen- to thirty-minute period rather than the entire day. Although the number and type of chemicals that fall into this category are more limited, it is obviously pertinent for a radiation therapist or for those who operate medical machinery that use X-rays. However, it should also be noted that states can introduce regulations that limit occupational exposure more than those instituted by Congress and the EPA. For example, the states of Oregon and California both have more stringent occupational exposure limits than the federal government. The second set of limits is more scientific than both the EPA’s and the U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA regulations: the recommended exposure limit. The recommended exposure limit sets a listing of values for almost every possible know hazardous and toxic chemical in production. Rather than being published by the Department of Labor, these values are set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). As a result, they are more concerned with relaying information regarding the potential problems associated with chemicals rather than regulating specific businesses that actually produce the chemicals. A better metaphor for understanding the difference is to think of the recommended exposure limits as the risks and dangers of driving and the permissible exposure limits as the punishments for not following certain driving rules. In this sense, both are important, but one is informational while the other is regulatory. The way that they communicate the information is through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. As they put it, “The NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards is intended as a source of general industrial hygiene information for workers, employees, and occupational health professionals.  .  .  . It presents key information and data in abbreviated tabular form for 677 chemicals or substance groupings.” However, it also brings a wealth of other information, including whether the potential chemical is immediately dangerous to life and health, the structure and formula of the chemical, a listing of relevant chemical properties of any compounds, and the personal protection and sanitation recommendations. One of the biggest factors influencing (and that has always influenced) occupational and workplace exposure is the unknown. Over fifty years ago, there was little scientific evidence that asbestos contributed to the bulk of disease and medical issues those exposed face today. Although it was relatively easy to see anecdotally that exposure to coal dust would lead to problems such as black lung, various mining companies fought tooth and nail to ensure that they would not be held civilly liable for the medical conditions caused by the disease. As a result, there is always some concern about new chemicals or new uses for old chemicals that may not be recognized as dangerous. As a result, there will always be problems with workplace and occupational exposure to the chemicals. Not only that, economic development largely requires that individuals be exposed to chemicals



Workplace Lead Poisoning in Bayway, New Jersey 677

at some point. The real challenge is catching which new uses present negative medical issues for workers. Taylor C. McMichael See also: Asbestos; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976).

Further Reading

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. 2008. “Occupational Exposure. Limits.” Accessed December 30, 2019. ­https://​­osha​.­europa​.­eu​/­en​/­publications​/­workplace​ -­exposure​-­nanoparticles. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO). 2012. Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 100C. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Accessed June 18, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­ncbi​.­nlm​ .­nih​.­gov​/ ­books​/ ­NBK304375​/­pdf​/ ­Bookshelf​_NBK304375​.­pdf. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division. 2014. “Oregon Rules for Air Contaminants.” Accessed December 30, 2019. ­https://​­oregon​.­public​.­law​/­r ules​/­oar​_437​- ­004​ -­9000​.. U.S. Department of Labor. 2019. “Asbestos.” Accessed December 30, 2019. ­https://​­www​ .­osha​.­gov​/­SLTC​/­asbestos. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. “Toxic Substances Control Act.” Accessed June 26, 2020. ­https://​­www​.­epa​.­gov​/­laws​-­regulations​/­summary​-­toxic​ -­substances​-­control​-­act. World Health Organization (WHO). 2020. “Asbestos.” International Programme on Chemical Safety. Accessed June 26. 2020. ­https://​­www​.­who​.­int​/­ipcs​/­assessment​ /­public​_health​/­asbestos​/­en​/.

Workplace Lead Poisoning in Bayway, New Jersey(1924) In the fall of 1924, a mysterious gas poisoned workers in the new section of the Standard Oil of New Jersey (SONJ) refinery near Elizabeth, New Jersey. The afflicted people all worked with the gasoline additive tetraethyl lead (TEL), which was developed by researchers at General Motors (GM) as an antiknock formula. Thirty-two TEL workers were hospitalized, and five died. Accounts of the new kind of occupational hazard were carried in the press. Despite several hearings and investigations concerning the dangers associated with the use of leaded gasoline, the production of ethyl gasoline continued in the United States for several decades, until January 1, 1986, with the passage of the Clean Air Act (CAA). During the early 1920s, as competition among automobile manufacturers became fiercer—particularly among Ford, GM, and Studebaker—greater efforts were directed toward making cars larger, more fuel efficient, and faster. In 1922, Thomas Midgely Jr. and a team of workers at the General Motors Research Corporation in Dayton, Ohio, discovered that adding tetraethyl lead (TEL)—a compound of metallic lead and one of the alkyl series—to gasoline increased the fuel’s octane and eliminated engine “knock.” The new product was named Ethyl Gas (not to be confused with ethyl alcohol), and in February 1923, the first public sale of ethyl gasoline was made in Dayton, Ohio. GM held the patent, but SONJ (today the Exxon Mobil

678

Workplace Lead Poisoning in Bayway, New Jersey

Corporation) had the better means of production. GM and SONJ jointly formed a new corporation, the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation, in the summer of 1924. The toxicity of lead was well known to the companies involved in leaded gasoline’s production. In fact, TEL had been tested for battlefield use as a poison gas during World War I. One of the biggest problems in the early stages of TEL’s development as a gasoline additive was that the manufacturing process was not safe. Refinery workers were routinely exposed to highly concentrated lead vapor. Seven workers died between September 1923 and the fall of 1924 in GM’s Dayton, Ohio, and DuPont’s southern New Jersey factories, but few understood the significance of these seemingly disconnected industrial accidents (Kovarik 2005). GM and DuPont were confident that TEL’s production would not create any large-scale public health problems. Between October 26 and October 30, 1924, forty-nine workers at the Standard Oil Company’s experimental laboratories at the Bayway plant, near Elizabeth, New Jersey, experienced severe palsies and tremors that left them black and blue. Several of them had to be subdued and put into straightjackets. The blue lines across their gums indicated lead poisoning, but the behavioral symptoms were unlike any presented in previous lead-poisoning cases. After the first worker, Joseph G. Leslie, died in the hospital, the county medical examiner alerted the district attorney, who began an investigation. Four more workers died in quick succession, writhing in agony. New York’s newspapers soon ran reports that the occupational illnesses and deaths at the plant were due to “looney gas.” Around the same time, ten more workers died at a DuPont facility, and at least two died and forty more were hospitalized in Dayton, Ohio. It was evident that the workers had not been exposed to any onetime accident but had suffered from longer-term exposure. Standard Oil sought to deny management’s responsibility for the poisoning and insisted that every precaution had been taken to protect workers’ safety. The local prosecutor in Union County, New Jersey asserted that the workers were never aware of the risks involved. A similar conclusion came from the New Jersey commissioner of labor. In the wake of the tragedy, public concern grew about the health dangers from leaded gasoline. The preliminary findings from a Bureau of Mines report, released on the day after the fifth Bayway victim had died, exonerated TEL. However, many scientists took strong exception to the bureau’s findings. Despite Standard Oil’s assurances of the safety of the gas, several cities and states banned the sale of leaded gasoline. The Union County prosecutor later started a grand jury investigation, but it ended in February 1925 with no charges filed. Industrial scientists continued to defend leaded gasoline, and public health experts repeatedly warned of its dangers. The New York Times, in a November 28, 1924, editorial, argued that the deaths at the Standard Oil refinery were not a sufficient reason for abandoning the use of a substance that had proven economically viable. Leaded gasoline was seen as essential for the economic progress of the United States. In 1926, the Public Health Service concluded that leaded gasoline posed no immediate threat to the public, and by 1936, TEL fluid was being added to 90 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States.



Workplace Lead Poisoning in Bayway, New Jersey 679

The U.S. phaseout of lead began in 1975 and was largely complete by 1986. In 2000, it was banned in Europe. A 1985 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study estimated that as many as five thousand Americans died annually from lead-related heart disease prior to the country’s lead phaseout. It has been estimated that about sixty-eight million young children had toxic exposures to lead from gasoline from 1927 to 1987 (Kitman 2000). Robert L. Perry See also: Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970); DuPont Chemical Company (E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company); Exxon Mobil Corporation; Gasoline; Lead (Pb); Lead Prohibited in Automobile Gasoline Additive (1986).

Further Reading

Blum, Deborah. 2013. “Looney Gas and Lead Poisoning: A Short, Sad History.” Wired, January 15, 2013. Accessed July 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­wired​.­com​/­2013​/­01​ /­looney​-­gas​-­and​-­lead​-­poisoning​-­a​-­short​-­sad​-­history. Kitman, Jamie Lincoln. 2000. “The Secret History of Lead.” The Nation, March 2, 2000. Accessed July 6, 2018. ­https://​­www​.­thenation​.­com​/­article​/­secret​-­history​-­lead. Kovarik, William. 2005. “Ethyl-Leaded Gasoline: How a Classic Occupational Disease Became an International Public Health Disaster.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11: 384–397. Needleman, Herbert L. 1997. “Clamped in a Straitjacket: The Insertion of Lead into Gasoline.” Environmental Research 74(2): 95–103. Rosner, David, and Gerald Markowitz. 1985. “A ‘Gift of God’? The Public Health Controversy over Leaded Gasoline during the 1920s.” Accessed July 6, 2018. ­http://​­www​ .­columbia​.­edu​/­itc​/ ­hs​/­pubhealth​/­p6300​/­client​_edit​/­pdfs​/­rosner1​.­pdf​.

About the Editor and Contributors

EDITOR KELLY A. TZOUMIS, PhD, is a professor of public policy at DePaul University who specializes in environmental policy. She earned her PhD from Texas A&M University in public policy and public administration with a specialization in environmental policy. She was a Congressional Fellow for Senator Paul Simon and worked for the U.S. Department of Energy on remediation. She teaches with university partners globally in Japan, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Greece, and the Navajo Nation and is the author of Environmental Policy Making in Congress from 1789– 1999. She has published numerous articles on environmental policy topics and is the recipient of a Fulbright Distinguished Chair Award for environmental studies. CONTRIBUTORS BRIGETTE BUSH-GIBSON, PhD, is the environmental manager for the City of Arlington, Texas. She has over fifteen years of experience working in the environmental sector, focusing on environmental regulation, permitting, compliance, enforcement, and education. She is a Certified Professional in Municipal Stormwater Management (CPMSM) and a Certified Natural Resources Professional (CNRP). She has also held positions as adjunct professor of public administration, political science, and environmental policy. JIEHONG GUO, PhD, is currently a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities. She obtained her PhD in the environmental chemistry field from the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her research has focused on developing and applying analytical methods to measure organic pollutants in various environmental matrices, evaluating the magnitude of environmental pollution, and examining the fate and transport of organic chemicals in the Great Lakes environment. Dr. Guo has published twenty-seven journal papers, including eleven in the top-ranked Environmental Science and Technology.

682

About the Editor and Contributors

AN LI, PhD, is the Samuel and Catherine Epstein Professor in the School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago. She is an environmental chemist with research interest on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic organic chemicals. She has published more than ninety journal articles and four book chapters, plus numerous presentations. Dr. Li is a coauthor of Physical and Chemical Processes in the Aquatic Environment and editor of Persistent Organic Pollutants in Asia. TAYLOR C. McMICHAEL, PhD, is assistant professor and political science program coordinator at the University of Texas–Permian Basin. He received his doctorate from Texas University, (2015). His research interests include Japanese politics, and he teaches courses on American politics, Japanese politics, nuclear weapons, and the intelligence community. JOHN MUNRO, PhD, graduated from the University of California, Santa Barbara with a degree in political science with coursework in environmental studies. He completed his MA and PhD degrees in political science along a PhD field in environmental planning from UCLA’s School of Architecture and Urban Planning. He is an associate professor in the University of Maryland’s Graduate Environmental Management Program. His courses include environmental land use management. His research interests are community sustainability, livability, and resilience. BRIAN PAULSON, DPA, is the Laughlin, Nevada, town manager and is a past president of the National Association for County Community and Economic Development. He received his doctorate in public administration from the University of La Verne in California. ROBERT L. PERRY, PhD, is an associate professor of political science. He received his BA (1987) and PhD (1995) from Texas A&M University. His current research concerns the environmental nexus of energy, agriculture, and water policies. ERIC J. STONER, PhD, is presently an adjunct professor of chemistry with the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, Rock County, campus in Janesville, Wisconsin. Prior to that, he spent twenty years as a pharmaceutical process research and development chemist with Abbott Laboratories in North Chicago, Illinois, leaving in 2011 as an associate research fellow in the prestigious Volwiler Scientific Society. During that time, his efforts focused on the application of “green chemistry” principles to industrial manufacturing research and development, resulting in numerous patents, publications, and awards. EDWARD P. WEBER is the Ulysses G. Dubach professor of political science in the School of Public Policy at Oregon State University. He received his PhD (1996) in political science from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and specializes in the study of environmental/natural resource policy, regulatory processes, and collaborative governance. He has published five books and over forty-five referenced journal articles and book chapters.

Index

Note: Page numbers in bold indicate the location of main entries Abbott Laboratories, 1–2 foundation and history, 1 Humira (human monoclonal antibody drug), 1, 2 litigation and fines, 2 products, 1 remediation projects, 1–2 Acceptable daily intake (ADI), 2–4 calculation, 3 Codex Alimentarius Commission, 3–4 Codex General Standard for Food Additives, 3–4 definition, 2 European Food Safety Authority and, 4 Food and Drug Administration and, 4 history and evolution, 3 international organizations and, 3–4 no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and, 3 tolerable daily intake and, 3 Acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), 4–8 AEGL priority chemicals, 5–6 calculation, 6 classification levels 1–3, 6 EPA National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances, 5–7 history and creation, 6–7 purpose, 5–6 Acute toxicity versus chronic toxicity, 8–10 animal testing research, 9 definition of acute toxicity, 8 definition of chronic toxicity, 8 potentially lethal acute toxic chemicals, 9

responses to acute toxicity, 8–9 responses to chronic toxicity, 8 responsible agencies, 9 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 10–11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and, 10 initiatives, 11 Love Canal, New York (1976), and, 11 mission and responsibilities, 10 role in federal government, 10–11 Air contamination, 11–14 atmospheric lead, 12–13 carbon monoxide, 12 Clean Air Act of 1970 and, 11–12 federal regulations, 13 global warming and, 13 ground-level ozone, 12 human sources, 11 international flows, 13 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 12 natural sources, 11 nitrogen dioxide, 12 particulate matter, 12 sulfur dioxide, 12 technological innovations, 13 WHO Global Conference on Air Pollution and Health, 13 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., 14–16 closure of Pasadena, Texas, facility, 15 foundation and history, 15 headquarters and organization, 14 products, 14 remediation projects, 15 sales and employees, 14

684 Index Airplane emissions, 16–18 contrails, 16 EPA and, 16–17 International Civil Aviation Organization and, 17 American Chemistry Council (ACC), 18–19 advocacy, 18 creation and history, 18 initiatives, 18–19 partnership with OSHA, 18–19 toxic chemical exposure awareness, 18–19 Ammonia (NH3), 19–20 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and, 20 production, 20 properties and natural occurrence, 19–20 toxicity, 20 uses, 20 Antifreeze (ethylene glycol), 21–23 antifreeze recycling, 22 determination as hazardous waste, 21–22 environmental risk, 21 Arsenic, 23–25 chemical warfare and, 23–24 historical uses, 23 medicinal uses, 23 production and trade, 24 properties and natural occurrence, 23 toxicity, 24 wood preservation and, 24 Asbestos, 25–27 Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Rule, 26 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 25 contemporary uses, 25 EPA and, 26 historical uses, 25 industrial revolution and, 25 litigation, 25–26 mining, 25 regulation, 26 types of fibers, 25 Asthma, 27–29 coal-fired power plants and, 28 occupational asthma, 27–28, 543, 569–570 paint fumes and, 27 pathophysiology, 27 Automobile emissions, 29–31 carbon monoxide, 29

catalytic converters and, 30–31 definition, 29 EPA and, 29–30 regulation, 29–30 Automotive manufacturing, 31–33 impact of fuel prices and efficiency, 32–33 toxic chemicals and, 31–32 Basel Action Network (BAN), 35–37 advocacy, 35 Basel Convention, 35–36 CBS 60 Minutes episode on, 36 centers for training and technology transfer, 36 documentaries, 36 e-Stewards Certification Program, 36 e-waste, 36 foundation and history, 35 ship disposal, 36 Benzene, 37–38 carcinogenicity, 37 discovery of, 37 properties and natural occurrence, 37 regulation, 38 transference, 38 uses, 37 Beryllium, 38–39 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 39 properties and natural occurrence, 38 regulation, 39 uses, 38–39 Beyond Pesticides, 40–41 advocacy, 40 holistic approach of, 40 purpose and goals, 40 Bhopal disaster (1984), 41–45 deaths and casualties, 44 events, 42–43 history of Union Carbide India Limited, 41–42 immediate response, 43–44 litigation, 44–45 long-term impact, 45 previous phosgene accidents, 42 Bioavailability, 45–47 absolute and relative bioavailability, 46–47 in food nutrient studies, 47 in human health and ecological risk assessment studies, 46 in medicine and pharmacology, 47

Index 685 Biomarkers, 48–49 common biomarkers, 48 definition, 48 uses, 48 Bioremediation, 49–51 affordability, 50 definition, 49 phytoremediation, 49–50 uses, 49 well-known cases, 49 Bisphenol A, 51–52 endocrine disruption, 51 properties, 51 regulation, 51 sources of exposure, 51 uses, 51 Black lung, 133–135, 543, 673, 674, 676 Bleach, 52–53 chlorine as distinct from, 52–53 as irritant, 53 properties, 52 toxicity and safety precautions, 52 uses, 52 water treatment, 53 Blood alcohol toxicity, 53–55 measuring blood alcohol toxicity, 54 mixing alcohol with medicines, 54 operating a motor vehicle and, 54 recreational drinking, 53–54 BlueGreen Alliance, 55–56 activities, 55 BlueGreen Alliance Foundation and, 55 debate and controversy, 55–56 foundation and history, 55 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act and, 55 mission, 55 partners, 55 Trans-Pacific Partnership and, 56 BPAs. See Bisphenol A Breast cancer, 56–58 profile and statistics, 56–57 risk factors and role of toxic chemicals, 57 suspected chemicals of particular concern, 57–58 Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP), 58–60 creation and history, 59 on early breast development and breast cancer, 60 focus and research, 59

funding, 60 partnerships, funding, and projects, 58–59 Brockovich, Erin, 60–62 current career and advocacy, 61 early years and family, 60 Erin Brockovich (film), 61 Pacific Gas & Electric Company litigation, 60–61 Take It from Me: Life’s a Struggle but You Can Win, 61 Brody, Charlotte, 62–63 BlueGreen Alliance and, 62 cofounder of Health Care without Harm, 62 early years and career, 62 Luminary Project and, 62 Bullard, Robert, 63–64 awards and honors, 63–64 on Cancer Alley (Louisiana), 75 cofounder of First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, 64 early years and education, 63 published works, 63 on role of historically black colleges and universities, 64 Bunker Hill Mining and Manufacturing Compound, 64–69 cleanup, 66–68 as first Superfund site, 66 history, 64–66 location, 64 Bush, George H. W., 646 Bush, George W., 124, 125, 143, 155, 232, 236, 239, 299, 301, 337, 443 Cadmium, 71–72 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 71 properties and natural occurrence, 71 sources of exposure, 71 Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, 72–74 history and origins, 72–73 toxic chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products policy reforms, 73–74 Cancer Alley (Louisiana), 74–75 Bullard, Robert, on, 75 Clean Air Act and, 75 documentary on, 74 history, 74 litigation, 74

686 Index Car and household batteries, 75–79 household batteries, 76 lead acid batteries, 77 rechargeable batteries, 76–77 regulation of battery disposal, 77–79 Carbon disulfide, 79–80 properties and natural occurrence, 79 sources of exposure, 79 toxicity, 79 uses, 79 Carbon tetrachloride, 80–81 cause of ozone depletion, 80 probably carcinogenicity, 80 properties, 80 uses, 80 Carson, Rachel, 81–82 career, 81–82 early years and education, 81 honors and awards, 81–82 Silent Spring, 81–82, 169, 190, 224, 229, 253, 497 Carter, Jimmy, 11, 83, 295, 337, 405, 406, 540, 562 Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ), 82–83 activities, 83 creation and history, 83 Love Canal, New York (1976), and, 83 mission, 82 See also Gibbs, Lois Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 83–85 budget, 85 debate and controversy, 84–85 National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network, 444 origins and history, 84 public health campaigns, 85 smallpox eradication and, 84 Tuskegee study and, 84–85 Centers of Excellence on Environmental Health Disparities Research (EHD), 85–87 creation and history, 85 Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health Center for Research on Environmental and Social Stressors in Housing across the Life Course, 86 Johns Hopkins University Comparing Urban and Rural Effects of Poverty on COPD project, 86 research areas, 85–86

University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, 86 University of Southern California Maternal and Developmental Risks from Environmental and Social Stressors (MADRES) study, 86 Chemical Abstracts Service Registry (CAS), 87 Chemical Abstracts (journal), 87 database contents, 87 history, 87 Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR), 88–89 changes to the CDR rule in 2016, 88–89 chemical data reporting requirements for inorganic by-products, 89 Chemical Footprint Project (CFP), 90–91 activities, 90 founding and history, 90 mission, 90 participating companies, 90 Chemical manufacturing, 91–93 chemical manufacturing industry groups and subsectors, 91–92 chemical manufacturing’s environmental impact, 92 Chemical remediation, 93–95 chemical oxidation, 93–94 chemical reduction, 94 combined with pump-and-treat system, 94 types of, 93 Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (2016), 95–100 basics of LCSA, 97–98 LCSA in action, 98–99 Chernobyl disaster (1986), 101–106 events, 101–103 history of Chernobyl nuclear power plant, 101 immediate response, 103–104 long-term health effects and impact, 104–105 Chevron Phillips Chemical Company and Chevron Corporation, 106–109 headquarters and organization, 106 history, 107 Hooven, Ohio, site, 108 litigation, 108 products, 106 Questa, New Mexico, site, 108

Index 687 remediation projects, 107 revenue, 106–107 Superfund sites, 107–108 Child impacts, 109–112 air pollution, 110–111 water pollution, 111 Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers, 112–113 Executive Order 13045 and, 112 funding, 112 purpose and activities, 112 on role of environmental toxins in childhood illness, 112–113 Children’s toys and playgrounds, 113–115 playgrounds, 114 toys, 114 Chlorine gas, 115–116 properties, 115 sources of exposure, 116 toxicity, 115, 116 uses, 115 wartime uses, 115 Chlorofluorocarbons, 116–117 chemical substitutes for, 116 as greenhouse and climate change gases, 116 properties, 116 toxicity, 116 uses, 116 Chloroform, 117–118 as environmental contaminant, 118 production, 118 properties, 117 toxicity, 118 uses, 117–118 Chromium, 118–119 carcinogenicity, 119 hexavalent chromium, 118–119 Hinkley, California, groundwater contamination, 60–61, 119 human requirement for, 119 metal chromium, 118 properties and natural occurrence, 118 toxicity, 118–119 trivalent chromium, 118–119 types of, 118–119 Clean Air Act (CAA) (1970), 120–125 air toxics regulation, 122 attainment area, source size, and age rules, 121

connection to climate change and carbon dioxide emissions, 124 controlled mobile sources, 122 creation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 121 getting serious about national standards, 120–124 key accomplishments, 124–125 1990 amendments, 123–124 1977 amendments, 122–123 Clean Air Mercury Rule, 125–126 Bush (George W.) administration and, 125 history and provisions, 125 Michigan v. EPA, 125 Trump administration and, 125–126 Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972), 126–132 agricultural runoff, 130 further amendments to, 130 historical background, 126–128 passage, 128–129 wetlands, 129–130 Clean Water Action (CWA), 132–133 activities, 132 in California, 132–133 campaign donations, 132 Clean Water Rule and, 132 foundation and history, 132 in Texas, 133 in Virginia, 133 Zwick, David, and, 132 Cleveland, Grover, 642 Clinton, Bill, 64, 111, 112, 143, 145, 147, 171, 183, 221, 230, 277, 298, 482, 622, 626, 646 Club v. Morton, 227 Coal and coal dust, 133–135 black lung and, 133–135 coal dust explosions, 134–135 definition of coal dust, 133, 134 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act and, 134 Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and, 134–135 regulations, 134–135 toxicity, 133 Coal and coal-fired power plants, 135–141 economic forces, 136 EPA and GHGs, 138 future of, 139–140 pollution problems, 136–137 regulating coal, 137–138

688 Index Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters, 141–142 Clean Air Act amendments and, 142 Executive Order 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, 141 organizational structure, 141 purpose and activities, 141 West Fertilizer Company accident and, 141–142 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980), 142–148 CERCLA, SARA, and environmental justice, 145–146 CERCLA, SARA, and finance issues, 146–147 CERCLA and SARA process, 144–145 foundations of CERCLA, 143–144 Confidential Business Information (CBI) and Trade Secrets (TS), 148–149 function of CBI, 148 function of TS, 148 purpose, 148 safety data sheets and, 149 Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and, 148–149 Confined Disposal Facilities in the Great Lakes, 149–151 history of dredging and waterway enhancement, 149 lack of standardization, 150 purpose, 151 regulation, 150 remediation of dredged materials in CDFS, 151 Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (1972), 151–156 amendments to, 155–156 authorities granted by, 153–154 CPSC v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 155 creation of Consumer Product Safety Commission, 152 history, 152 mandatory risk reporting, 154 products not covered, 152 purpose and provisions, 151–152 Reagan administration and, 154–155 research, 153 substantial product hazard (SPH) designation, 154

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 157–158 CPSC v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 155 creation and history, 152, 157 early years, 157 limits to power, 157 Office of Legislative Affairs, 157 organizational structure, 152 responsibilities, 157 Cookstoves (wood), 158–159 environment-related dangers, 158–159 household-related dangers, 158 “improved cookstoves” (ICSs) initiatives, 159 prevalence of, 158 source of particulate matter and climate-warming pollutants, 158 wood smoke, 158 Copper, 160–161 mines in United States, 160 properties and natural occurrence, 160 toxicity, 160 uses, 160 Corrosion Proof Fittings v. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Corrosives, 161–162 definition of corrosive substance, 161 Flint, Michigan, and, 161 forms of corrosion, 161 hazards of, 161 household chemicals, 162 microbial corrosion, 161 natural corrosivity, 161 skin corrosion, 161–162 Cosmetics, environmental and health impacts of, 162–164 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 162–163 colorism, 163 hair products, 163 racial disparities, 162–164 regulations, 164 vaginal douches, 164 Council of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Sound Management of Chemicals Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico (1995), 165–166 history, 165 provisions, 165 CPSC v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 155

Index 689 Cresol, 166 possible carcinogenicity, 166 properties, 166 sources of exposure, 166 uses, 166 Cumulative impacts, 167–168 definition, 167 environmental justice and disparities, 167 Pesticide Action Network and, 167 Cuyahoga River fires (Cleveland, Ohio), 168–170 cleanup and recovery, 169–170 fire of 1952, 168–169 fire of 1969, 169 history, 168–169 National Environmental Policy Act and, 169 Davis, Devra, 171–172 awards and honors, 172 early years and education, 171 founder of Environmental Health Trust, 171 interests and projects, 171–172 published works, 172 DDT. See Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) De minimis limitations, 172–174 definition, 172–173 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and, 173 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Threshold Screening Tool, 173 Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ), 174–175 activities and collaborations, 174–175 foundation and history, 174 goal of, 174 Wright, Beverly, and, 174 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010), 175–181 debate and controversy, 178–180 declared “Spill of National Significance,” 178 events, 176–177 Health Hazard Evaluation Report (CDC) on, 179–180 history, 175–176 immediate response, 177–178 long-term impacts, 178–180

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), 181–182 authority and responsibilities, 181 creation and history, 181 debate and controversy, 181–182 headquarters and organization, 181 purpose, 181 Delaney Clause, 182–184 history, 182 initial zero-tolerance approach, 183 purpose, 182 replaced by Food Quality Protection Act, 183 Dermal exposure, 184–185 definition, 184 diseases caused by, 184 prevalence, 184 sources and pathways, 184 Dermal toxicity, 185–186 occupational skin diseases (OSD) and, 185–186 prevalence, 186 systemic toxicity, 185 Developmental neurotoxicity, 186–189 definition, 186 flame retardants, 188 insecticides, 188–189 lead, 188 methylmercury, 187–188 Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), 190–191 discovery of function as insecticide, 190 health and environmental impacts, 190 history, 190 Silent Spring (Carson) and, 190 Stockholm Convention and, 190 Dioxins, 191–193 Agent Orange and, 191 health impacts, 192 pentachlorophenol (PCP) and, 192 prevalence in environment, 192 sources of exposure, 192 use of the term, 191 Dow Chemical Company, 193–195 foundation and history, 194 headquarters, 193 patents owned by, 194 products, 193 remediation projects, 194 Superfund sites, 194 Wood-Ridge sites, 194

690 Index DowDuPont, Inc., 195–197 agriculture segment, 195 business segments, 195–196 industrial infrastructure segment, 196 litigation, 196 merger with Dow Chemical Company, 195, 196 performance materials and coatings segment, 196 remediation costs, 197 Drain cleaners, 197–198 chemical components, 197 health and environmental impacts, 197 market alternatives, 197–198 regulation, 197 safety precautions, 197 DuPont Chemical Company (E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company), 198–200 agriculture segment, 198 business divisions, 198 foundation and history, 198 litigation, 199–200 organizational structure, 198 performance materials segment, 199 Superfund sites, 199 Eastman Chemical Company, 201–204 antitrust litigation, 201–202 cellulose acetate and, 202 Eastman, George, and, 201 founding and history, 201 headquarters and employees, 201 products, 201 remediation efforts and fines, 202–203 Superfund Sites, 202–203 wartime production, 202 Ecolab Inc., 204–206 acquisitions, 205 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and, 205 foundation and history, 204 global energy segment, 204 global industrial segment, 204 global institution segment, 204 products, 204–205 Superfund sites, 205 EDF v. Ruckleshaus, 279 Electronics recycling (e-waste), 206–208 current regulatory situation, 206 e-waste recovery of value, 207–208 e-waste toxicity, 207 industrial efforts toward recycling, 207

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (1986), 208–213 Bhopal disaster and, 209–210 debate and passage, 209–210 funding and, 212 Obama administration and, 212 origins and history, 208–209 provisions, 209, 211–212 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and, 208, 209 Trump administration and, 213 Encapsulation, 213–215 contact chemicals, 213 definition, 213 examples of, 214 physical engineering barriers, 213 polychlorinated biphenyls, 214 recommended by World Health Organization, 214 silica treatment, 214 Endocrine disruptors, 215–218 definition, 215 EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, 215, 216 Food Quality Protection Act and, 216 international programs and advocacy, 216–217 prevalence, 215–216 regulations, 216 research, 216 Safe Drinking Water Act and, 216 Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (National Research Council) and, 216 Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), 218–220 creation and history, 219 ECOS strategic plan, 219–220 funding, 218 membership, 219 purpose, 218 Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), 220–221 activities, 220–221 creation and history, 220 debate and controversy, 221 membership, 220 mission, 220 Toxic Ignorance (report), 221

Index 691 Environmental justice/environmental racism, 221–223 definition of environmental justice (EJ) community, 221 history of environmental justice movement, 222 Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), 404 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), 222 overburdened community, 482 See also Executive Order 12898 (1994) Environmental Movement (1970s), 223–229 courts and, 227 environmental events, legislation, policies, and institutions, 227–229 rise of politically sophisticated environmental organizations, 226–227 thought leaders of modern environmental movement, 224–225 trends and catastrophes of the 1960s and 1970s, 225–226 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 229–230 Clean Air Act of 1970 and, 229–230 creation and history, 229 mission, 229–230 National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances, 5–7 Silent Spring (Carson) and, 229 EPA v. Massachusetts, 124, 138 Executive Order 12898 (1994), 230–232 background and history, 231 defining disproportionate impact, 231 provisions, 230–231 Executive Order 13148 (2000), 232–236 EMs and CEMP for federal agencies, 234–235 goals, 232–233 implementation responsibility, 233–234 other EMS program components, 235–236 Executive Order 13423 (2007), 236–237 provisions, 237 purpose, 236–237 Executive Order 13650 (2013), 237–238 provisions, 237–238 purpose, 237

Executive Order 13693 (2015), 238–239 provisions, 238–239 purpose, 238 Exxon Mobil Corporation, 239–243 business segments, 240 cases (environmental releases or spills), 241–242 chemical global operations segment, 240 downstream segment, 240 employees, 239 environmental liabilities, 241 history, 240–241 products, 239 size and revenue, 239–240 upstream segment, 240 Exxon Valdez oil spill (1989), 243–247 bioremediation, 245–246 cleanup methods, 244–245 events, 243–244 long-term impact and aftermath, 246–247 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (1938), 249–251 alterations and reauthorizations, 250 debate and controversy, 249–250 Elixir Sulfanilamide scandal, 249–250 passage and history, 249 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 251–256 alterations and amendments, 254–255 background and history, 251–253 debate and passage, 253–254 Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act, 254 purpose, 251 Fertility impacts, 256–257 endocrine-disrupting chemicals, 256 male infertility, 256–257 smoking, 256 Fertilizers, 257–258 algae bloom in Lake Erie from, 258 environmental impact, 258 purpose, 257 sources, 257 Fetal impacts (in utero toxicity), 258–261 exposure prevention, 260 household exposures, 259 phthalates, 259 toxic metals, 259–260

692 Index Fish contamination, 261–264 household products, 262 mercury, 262 Native American populations and, 263 oils, 262 paper mills, 261 plastics, 263 PCBs, 263 sources of toxins, 261 surfactants, 262 tar, 261–262 Flame retardants in children’s clothes, 264–267 CPSC recommendation for tight-fitting sleepwear, 266 Flammable Fabrics Act and, 264 Tris-BP, 264–265 Tris-CP, 265–266 Flammables and combustibles, 267–269 contributor to deaths, 268 definition, 267 flame retardants, 268 flammable liquids, 267–268 heating equipment, 268 PCBs, 268 regulations for working with, 267 smoking tobacco products, 268 Flint, Michigan, drinking water contamination (2016), 269–275 belated government responses, 272–273 citizen activism, 271–272 congressional action, 273 decision to find new water source, 270 lead contamination of drinking water supplies, 270–271 lead-contaminated water supplies in United States, 273–274 possible health consequences for children, 273 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 275–277 approval of medicines and clinical treatments, 276 creation and history, 276 FD&C Act of 1938, 276 pricing, 277 public education and awareness, 277 purpose and responsibilities, 275–276 toxic chemicals, 277 See also Delaney Clause Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) (1996), 277–283

background and history, 277–279 debate and controversy, 282 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and, 278–279 passage, 279 provisions, 280–282 Formaldehyde, 283–284 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 283 properties and natural occurrence, 283 sources of exposure, 283 uses, 283 Fox, Josh, 284–285 early years and education, 284 Gasland (documentary), 284 How to Let Go of the World and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change (documentary), 284 journalism and film career, 284–285 opposition to fracking, 284 FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, 285–287 creation and history, 285 debate and controversy, 285 FracFocus 1.0, 286 FracFocus 2.0 update, 286 planned FracFocus 3.0 update, 286 Fracking. See Natural gas Fruits and vegetables, 287–289 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and, 287–288 organic produce, 287 pesticides and, 287–289 Gasoline, 291–292 health and environmental impacts, 291–292 leaking underground storage tanks, 292 production, 291 properties, 291 General Electric Company, 292–295 Edison, Thomas, and, 293 employees, 292 founding and history, 293 PCBs, 294 products, 292–293 remediation and Superfund sites, 293–294 technological innovations, 293 Gibbs, Lois, 295–296 awards and honors, 296 early life, 295 environmental activism, 295–296

Index 693 founder of Citizens’ Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, 296 Love Canal, New York, and, 295–296 Superfund law and, 296 Global Harmonization System (GHS), 296–298 labels and SDS, 289 need for uniform hazard communication, 297 Gore, Al, 298–300 early years and education, 299 environmental activism, 299 An Inconvenient Truth, 299 political career, 298–299 Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (1997), 300–301 history, 300 purpose and provisions, 300–301 Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (GLLA) (including Areas of Concern), 301–306 beneficial use impairments, 302–303 Environmental Protection Agency responsibility, 304 funding levels, 305 goals, 303 Great Lakes Restorative Initiative, 304–305 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and Areas of Concern, 301–302 restoration process, 305 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) (1972, 1978, 1987, 2012), 306–307 amendments, 306 first progress report, 307 history and signing, 306 provisions, 306 Green products and services, 307–309 certification labels, 308–309 definition, 307 “greenwashing,” 308 impact on environment, 308 reasons for green marketing, 308 Greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change, 309–316 adapting to climate change, 315 carbon dioxide, 311 curbing greenhouse gases and slowing climate change, 314–315 greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere, 311–312

growth in GHG emissions, 312–313 hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs), 312 methane, 311 nitrous oxide, 312 ozone, 312 Greenpeace, 316–318 animal rights advocacy, 317 campaigns in the United States, 317–318 foundation and history, 316–317 original focus, 317 Groundwater contamination, 318–324 animal wastes, 320 atmospheric contaminants, 321 chemicals and road salts, 320 excessive groundwater pumping, 321 groundwater as global issue, 323 limitations of groundwater regulation, 323–324 pesticides and fertilizer use, 320 pharmaceutical and personal care products and microbeads, 322–323 products and toxic components affecting groundwater, 321 saltwater intrusion (case of Florida), 322 septic systems, 319–320 sources, 319–323 storage tanks leaks, 319 uncontrolled hazardous waste and landfills, 320 Halogens, 325–326 astatine, 325 bromine, 325 chlorine, 325 elements in chemical class of, 325 iodine, 325 properties, 325 tennessine, 325 use in lamps, 326 Hamilton, Alice, 326–327 Addams, Jane, and, 326 early years and education, 326 Exploring the Dangerous Trades (autobiography), 327 Hull House and, 326 social reform activism and career, 326–327 Hazardous waste, 327–329 characteristics, 328 mixed waste, 327–328 regulation, 328–329

694 Index Health-care wastes, 329–331 awareness of, 330 regulation, 330 sources, 329–330 statistics, 329–330 Healthy Legacy, 331–332 campaign for moratorium on using discarded tires, 332 campaign to ban bisphenol A, 331 founding and history, 331 report card ratings, 332 Toxic Free Kid Act (Minnesota) and, 331 Heavy metals, 332–334 definition, 332 health impacts, 333 human requirements for, 333 lead exposure, 333 mercury exposure, 333 natural occurrence, 332 workplace exposure, 333 Herbicides, 334–336 impacts, 335–336 inorganic and organic, 335 High-level nuclear waste (HLW), 336–338 definition, 336 inventory of, 337 lack of United States disposal storage facility for, 337 Nuclear Waste Fund, 338 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and, 337 Obama administration and, 337–338 radioactivity of, 337 storage of, 337 types of, 336 Hinkley, California, groundwater contamination, 60–61, 119 Honeywell International Inc., 339–342 asbestos, 339–340 contaminated sites, 340–341 Household cleaners, 342–344 acidic and alkaline levels, 343 carcinogenicity and hormone disruption, 343 environmental impacts, 343 improper use and mixing, 342–343 phosphates, 343 plastic bottles, 343 regulatory oversight, 342 toxicity, 342 Household exposure, 344–345

building materials, 345 DDT, 344 regulations, 344 Silent Spring Institute study, 344 toxic chemicals, 344–345 Household hazardous waste, disposal of, 345–347 examples of HHW, 346 local government collection sites, 346 safe handling and disposal guidelines, 346 Household paints, 347–349 definition of paint, 347 lead in, 348 melamine in, 347 regulations, 348 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) content, 347 Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 227 Hudson River Superfund Site (1984), 349–353 background, 349–350 cleanup of Hudson River, 350–351 recent issues with cleanup, 352 results of remediation, 351–352 Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International, 353–355 headquarters, 353 Huntsman, Jon, and, 353–354 performance products business segment, 353–354 polyurethanes segment, 353 products, 353 remediation projects and fines, 354–355 sales, 353 Hydraulic fracturing. See Natural gas Hydrofluoric acid, 355–356 properties, 355 sources of exposure, 356 toxicity, 355, 356 uses, 356 Hydrogen cyanide, 356–358 as asphyxiant, 357 properties, 356 sources of exposure, 356, 357 toxicity, 357 uses, 357 Hydrogen sulfide, 358–359 occupational exposure, 358 properties and natural occurrence, 358 toxicity and health impacts, 358–359

Index 695 Immunotoxicity, 361–362 autoimmunity, 361–362 definition, 361 hypersensitivity, 361 immunostimulation, 361 immunosuppression, 361 industrial chemicals, 362 In situ vitrification, 363–364 definition, 363 Hanford site and, 363–364 origins and history, 363 plasma arc technology, 363 Industrial solvents, 364–367 role of states in regulation 366–367 EPA’s role, 366 minimizing health and environmental risks, 365 regulatory controls in United States, 365–366 Insecticides, 367–370 carbamate insecticides, 368 definition, 367 inorganic insecticides, 367 natural insecticides, 367 organochlorines, 367–368 organophosphates, 368 pyrethroids, 368–369 systemic insecticides, 369 Institutional monitoring and controls, 370–371 easements, 370–371 identification of, 370 land uses, 370 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 371–373 creation and history, 371 debate and controversy, 372 Governing Council, 372 member nations, 371 mission, 371 monograph program, 372 research sections, 372 International Joint Commission (IJC), 373–374 appointed commissioners, 373–374 Boundary Waters Treaty and, 373 creation and history, 373 purpose, 373 Johnson, Lyndon, 120 Johnson & Johnson, 375–377 baby powder product liability lawsuit, 376

brands and products, 375 foundation and history, 375–376 headquarters, 375 litigation, 376 JustGreen Partnership (JGP), 377–378 initiatives, 377–378 member organizations, 377 noted accomplishments, 377 Kennedy, John F., 82, 253, 497 Keystone Pipeline, 55–56, 501 Killer smog in Donora, Pennsylvania (1948), 379–383 “Donora Death Fog,” 379–381 effects on air pollution regulation 382 Known to be a human carcinogen, 383–385 American Cancer Society and, 385 International Agency for Research on Cancer and, 384 meaning and related phrases, 383–384 National Toxicology Program and, 384–385 Landfill disposal, 387–393 Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 390 in developing countries, 391–392 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 391 enforcement mechanisms for solid waste, 389 environmental impacts, 388–389 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 391 hazardous waste landfills, 389 nonhazardous solid waste landfills, 389 Oil Pollution Act, 390–391 Pollution Prevention Act, 391 statutes and regulations, 389–391 summation of RCRA and 1984 amendments, 390 top solid waste producers per capita, 387–388 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 391 use of landfills for solid waste disposal in United States, 388 worldwide solid waste generation, 387–388

696 Index Laundry detergents, 393–395 carbon footprint and, 393 laundry detergent packs, 394 organic and inorganic chemical compounds in, 393 phosphates in, 393 surfactants in, 394 toxicity and human impacts, 394 Lead, 395–397 in drinking water, 396 Flint, Michigan, drinking water contamination, 396 ingestion by young children, 396 mines and mining, 396 properties and natural occurrence, 395 regulations, 396 toxicity and human impacts, 395 transport and sources of exposure, 396 Lead prohibited in automobile gasoline additive (1986), 397–399 Clean Air Act of 1970 and, 398 discovery and history of tetraethyl lead, 397–398 phaseout of leaded gasoline, 398 toxicity, 397 Learning disabilities, 399–401 advocacy groups, 401 Children’s Environmental Health Center (Mount Sinai Institute) on, 399–400 costs of, 400–401 genetic factors and, 400 Landrigan, Phillip, on, 400 lead poisoning and, 400 top ten toxic chemicals suspected to cause autism and learning disabilities, 400 Lethal dose 50%, 402–403 alternative methods, 403 calculation, 402 debate and controversy, 402–403 definition, 402 up-and-down procedure versus, 403 uses, 402 Lincoln, Abraham, 642 Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), 404 environmental justice community, 404 Wasserman-Nieto, Kimberly, and, 404 Love Canal, New York (1976), 404–407

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and, 11 discovery of environmental contamination, 405 evacuation of residents, 405–406 Gibbs, Lois, and, 83, 295–296, 405, 406 health impacts, 405–406 history of Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and, 11 Love Canal Parents Movement, 405 policy impacts, 406 Lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAEL), 407–408 definition, 407 EPA chemical hazard database and, 407–408 uses, 407 Low-level nuclear waste (LLW), 408–409 classes based on level of radioactivity, 408–409 defense operations sources, 408 definition, 409 industry sources, 408 policy and facilities, 409 LyondellBasell Industries, 409–411 business segments, 410 foundation and history, 410 products, 409 remediation and fines, 410 Maathai, Wangari, 413–414 early years and education, 413 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to, 413 political career, 413 Material safety data sheets. See Safety data sheets (SDS) Meat and fish consumption, 414–415 aquaculture, 415 fish industry statistics, 415 industrialization of livestock production, 414 meat industry statistics, 414 Meat and fish toxicity, 415–417 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 416 from antibiotics and hormones, 416 from arsenic, 416 from cadmium, 416 from lead, 416

Index 697 from mercury, 416 from pesticides, 416 from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 416 Mercury, 417–419 in dental amalgam fillings, 418 in drinking water, 418 in fish, 418–419 properties and natural occurrence, 417 regulation and bans, 418 sources of exposure, 418 toxicity, 418 use in religious practices, 418 uses, 417–418 Metal mining, 419–423 background, 420 pollution from, 421–422 types of mining, 420–421 Methyl alcohol or methanol, 423–424 history, 423 international economy and, 424 properties and natural occurrence, 423 sources of exposure, 423–424 toxicity, 423 uses, 423 Michigan v. EPA, 125 Milk, 424–426 heavy metals and, 425 industrialization and, 424 mycotoxins and, 425 pasteurization of, 424 pesticides and, 424 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and, 425 Minimal risk levels (MRLs), 426–427 acute exposure and, 426 chronic exposure and, 426 definition, 426 establishment process, 426–427 intermediate exposure and, 426 uses, 426–427 Mining wastes, 427–429 definition, 427 environmental impact, 428 in European Union, 428 future of, 428 metal ores and, 427 phosphate rock and, 427 regulation, 427, 428

Monsanto Company, 429–431 acquisition by Bayer, 430 products, 429 remediation and fines, 430 sales and business segments, 429–430 Montreal Protocol, 431–432 ban on carbon tetrachloride, 431–432 Kigali Amendment, 423 provisions, 431 Mosaic Company, 432–434 business segments, 433 international distribution segment, 433 phosphates segment, 433 potash segment, 433 products, 432–433 remediation and fines, 433–435 Mothballs, 434–435 definition, 434 naphthalene, 434–435 p-dichlorobenzene (paradichlorobenzene) and, 435 public misuse of, 435 toxicity, 435 Nader, Ralph, 437–439 advocacy and accomplishments, 438 American Museum of Tort Law, 438 early years and education, 437 “Nader’s Raiders,” 437 presidential candidacies, 437–438 Public Citizen, 437 published works and media, 438 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 439–444 controversies regarding regulation of emissions (carbon dioxide), 442–443 current regulations on stationary hazardous air pollutants (asbestos), 442 National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network, 444, 444 National environmental sacrifice zones, 445–447 conditions in sacrifice zones, 445 national environmental justice movement, 446 recent example, 445–446 role of EPA in promoting environmental justice, 446–447

698 Index National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 447–449 activities, 448 committees, 448 Current Intelligence Bulletins, 448 NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, 448 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and, 447 purpose, 447–448 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 449–450 collaborations, 450 early research, 449 National Institutes of Health Disaster Research Response (DR2) program, 450 notable findings, 449–450 purpose, 449 National laboratories, 450–453 creation and history, 450–451 Department of Energy and, 451 environmental impact, 453 list of laboratories, 452 metallurgical advances, 452 organizational structure, 450–451 research and major contributions, 451–452 National Library of Medicine (NLM), 453–455 Division of Extramural Programs, 454 Division of Library Operations, 454 Division of Specialized Information Services, 454 foundation and history, 453–454 Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, 454–455 major divisions, 454 National Center for Biotechnology Information, 455 Office of Computer and Communications Systems, 455 National Toxicology Program (NTP), 455–457 cell phone usage studies, 456 headquarters and organizational structure, 455 purpose and areas of research, 455–456 Native American impacts, 457–459 fishing and, 458 fossil fuels and, 458 health issues and policy, 458 statistics, 457

Natural gas, 459–461 biogas, 459 chemical composition, 459 hydraulic fracturing (fracking), 460 shale gas, 459 wet natural gas, 459 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 461–462 early cases, 461–462 foundation and history, 461–462 membership, 462 recent campaigns, 462 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway, 130 Nerve agents, 463–465 categories and chemical profiles, 463 historical development and use, 463–464 Neurological toxicity, 465–467 health impacts, 466 surprising but common sources of neurotoxins, 465–466 Nickel, 467–468 human impact and carcinogenicity, 467 properties and natural occurrence, 467 uses, 467 Nixon, Richard, 30, 120–121, 229, 253, 306, 354, 382, 616, 640, 674, 675 No observed adverse effect level (NOAEL), 468–469 definition, 468 establishment procedure, 468 uses, 468 Nonstick Teflon cooking pan coatings, 469–470 GenX chemicals, 469 uses, 469 NRDC v. EPA, 122 Nuclear weapons facilities, 470–472 contamination and remediation, 471 creation and history, 470–471 worker safety issues, 471 Obama, Barack American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed by, 638 Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act and, 97, 98 coal regulations under, 138, 139, 140 Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters and, 141 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and, 178

Index 699 EPA emissions restrictions under, 124, 126, 443 Executive Order 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, 237–238 Executive Order 13693, Planning for the Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, 238–239 Flint, Michigan, drinking water contamination and, 272 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and, 304 high-level nuclear waste and, 337–338 Keystone Pipeline and, 55 Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act signed by, 97, 606 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule and, 126 Superfund cleanup funding under, 143, 212 Yucca Mountain and, 337 Occupational asthma, 27–28, 543, 569–570. See also Asthma Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 473–474 creation and history, 473 enforcement, 474 provisions, 473–474 Oil, 474–476 definition, 474 environmental and wildlife impacts, 475 oil spills, 475 products, 474 toxicity, 474–475 Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990), 476–480 Exxon Valdez oil spill and, 476–478 impact, 478–479 provisions, 476–478 Oven cleaners, 480–482 chemical components, 481 continued use and safety precautions, 481 toxicity, 481 Overburdened community, 482–483 definition, 482 Ozone hole, 483–484 impacts, 483 measurements of, 484 ozone-depleting substances, 483–484 Paper industry, 485–487 coliforms, 486 economic impact, 485

energy efficiency, 486–487 environmental impact, 485–486, 487 heavy metals, 486 pulping and bleaching processes, 485–486 Parabens, 488–489 in cosmetics, 488 in food, 488 possible hormone disruption, 488 sources of exposure, 488 uses, 488 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), 489–490 in drinking water, 490 in fish and oceans, 489 health impacts and carcinogenicity, 489–490 PFOA-free products, 490 properties and natural occurrences, 489 uses, 489 Persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals, 491–493 bioaccumulation, 492 bioconcentration, 492 definition, 491 level I substances, 491 level II substances, 491 transference, 491 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), 493–494 definition, 493 environmental fate assessment, 494 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and, 494 Pesticide Action Network (PAN), 495–496 current campaigns, 495–496 “dirty dozen” list, 495 Fair Harvest, 495 foundation and history, 495 Healthy Kids, 495 Save Our Bees, 495 Stop Drift, 495–496 structural organization, 495 Pesticides, 496–499 atrazine, 498 glyphosate (Roundup), 498 history, 496–497 litigation, 498 “pesticide treadmill,” 498 products, 496 regulation, 497–498

700 Index Petroleum industry, 499–502 acid rain, 500 environmental contaminants, 499–500 greenhouse gas production through transportation, 500 ocean and land accidents and environmental impacts, 500–502 soot and smoke, 500 Phthalates, 502–504 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 503 di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, 503 high phthalates, 502–503 low phthalates, 503 properties, 502 sources of exposure, 503 uses, 503 Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), 504–505 current campaigns, 504–505 foundation and history, 504 original focus, 504 Phytoremediation, 505–507 cost-effectiveness, 505 definition, 505 process and procedures, 505–506 processes that occur in nature, 506 Plutonium, 507–509 human impact, 508 nuclear power and, 508 properties and natural occurrence, 507 Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (1990), 509–512 compliance and enforcement, 511 industrial facilities (PPA requirements), 510–511 pollution prevention and source reduction strategies, 511–512 source reduction, 510 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 512–515 health effects, 513–514 history, 512–513 properties, 513 sources of exposure, 514 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 515–517 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 515–516 environmental impact, 517 history, 516 priority pollutants for environmental monitoring, 517 properties and natural occurrence, 516

PPG Industries, Inc., 518–519 history, 518 products, 518 remediation projects, 518–519 Praxair, Inc., 519–521 environmental and occupational accidents and fines, 520 foundation and history, 519–520 products, 519–520 Precocious puberty, 521–522 definition, 521 links to toxic chemicals and hormones in food, 521–522 Pregnancy, toxic chemicals during, 522–523 cosmetics and personal care products, 525–526 metals, 523–524 occupational toxic chemicals, 524–525 pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides, 524 Prescription drugs, disposal of, 527–529 controlled substances versus noncontrolled substances, 527 history, 527 regulation, 528 safety guidelines and precautions, 528 Project Targeting Environmental NeuroDevelopmental Risks (TENDR), 529–530 creation and history, 529 mission, 529 Pulmonary and cardiovascular toxicity, 530–532 ingestion, 530 inhalation, 530 sulfur dioxide, 531 toxic gases, 531 vulnerable populations, 531–532 Pump and treat, 532–534 air sparging and, 533 benefits, 533 debate and controversy, 534 process and procedure, 533 timeframe, 533 Reagan, Ronald, 145, 154, 208, 229, 255, 593, 595, 596 Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, 535–537 American Cancer Society and, 536–537 definition, 535

Index 701 International Agency for Research on Cancer and, 536 National Toxicology Program and, 536 Renal toxic chemicals (nephrotoxicity), 537–539 health impacts and detection, 538 World Kidney Day, 539 RESOLVE, 539–540 creation and history, 539 policy areas and mission, 539–540 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976), 540–542 implementation of, 542 passage and history, 540–541 purpose and provisions, 541–542 Respiratory toxicity, 542–544 asbestos and, 543 particulate matter and, 543 sources of exposure, 543 statistics, 544 tobacco products and, 543 warfare agents and, 543–544 Risk assessment, 544–548 for children, 545 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 547 history, 545–546 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 546–547 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 546 U.S. Forest Service, 546 World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, 547 Rodenticides, 548–549 agricultural and industrial uses, 548 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 548–549 consumer or household uses, 548 definition, 548 regulation, 548 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 249, 250, 276 Roosevelt, Theodore, 223 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (1974), 551–556 amendments, 554–555 background, 551–553 passage, 553–554 Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, 556–557 creation and history, 556

list of chemicals with adverse health impacts, 557 mission and agenda, 556–557 Safer States, 557–558 activities and responsibilities, 558 creation and history, 557–558 mission, 557 Safety data sheets (SDS), 558–559 definition, 558 regulations and, 558–559 United Nations “Purple Book” and, 559 uses, 558–559 Secondhand smoke, 560–561 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 560 definition, 560 sources of exposure, 560 Sediment contamination, 561–566 contaminated sediment policy at the federal level, 563–565 definitions and historical contexts, 562 remedies for contaminated sediment, 563 Seniors, environmental and health impacts on, 566–568 environmental and health consequences of early exposure to pollution, 566–567 impact of climate change and intense weather events, 567 susceptibility of elder to pollution, 567–568 Sensitizers, 568–570 asthma and, 569–570 benzocaine, 569 definition, 568 formaldehyde, 569 multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) and, 569 photosensitizer, 569 Sierra Club, 570–571 foundation and history, 570–571 mission, 570 national priority initiatives, 571 Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 122 Silent Spring (Carson), 81–82, 169, 190, 224, 229, 253, 497 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), 571–573 activities, 572 foundation and history, 571–572 membership, 572 organizational structure, 572 SETAC World Council, 572

702 Index Soil contamination, 573–575 global level, 574–575 sources of contamination, 573 types of common soil contaminants, 573–574 SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP), 575–576 campaigns and techniques, 576 creation and history, 575 principles, 576 State emergency responders, 576–578 chemical hazmat (hazardous materials) incidents, 577 definition, 576–577 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and, 577–578 statistics for, 577 State public health agencies, 578–580 areas of concern, 579 executive leadership, 579 Steingraber, Sandra, 580–581 awards and honors, 581 early years and influences, 580 Living Downstream (book and film), 580 published works, 580 Superfund. See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980) Tar, 583–584 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 583–584 properties and chemical composition, 583 sources of exposure, 583–584 wildlife impacts, 584 Tetrachloroethylene (perc), 584–585 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 584 properties, 584 sources of exposure, 584–585 Three Mile Island accident (1979), 585–590 debate and controversy, 587–588 events, 586–587 immediate response, 587 long-term response and impact, 588–590 Threshold certification and alternate thresholds, 590–592 EPA Toxics Release Inventory and, 591 trade secrets and, 591 Threshold limit values (TLV), 592–593

definition, 592 uses, 592 Times Beach, Missouri (1982), 593–598 changing dioxin standards, 596–597 Environmental Protection Agency disputes with Congress, 595–596 federal government response, 594–595 the flood, 594 the town, 593–594 Tin and tin compounds (tributyltin), 598–600 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 599 natural occurrence, 599–600 properties, 598 tributyltin (pesticide), 599 uses, 598–599 Tobacco smoke, 600–602 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 600–601 health benefits of ending smoking, 602 public perception, 601 regulation and litigation, 601 tobacco products, 600 Toner cartridges, 602–604 e-waste, 603 toxicity, 602–603 uses, 602 Toxaphene, 604–605 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 604 properties, 604 regulation, 605 sources of exposure, 605 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and, 604 uses, 604 Toxic and hazardous substances, 605–607 hazardous substances, 606–607 toxic substances, 606 Toxic chemicals, incineration of, 607–609 complete combustion, 608 incineration process, 607–608 regulation, 608–609 Toxic release or accident, 609–616 Bhopal, 610 Chernobyl, 610–612 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 613–614 Exxon Valdez oil spill, 612–613 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976), 616–621 background, 616–617 policies, 617–619 problems, 619–620 Toxic Waste and Race in the United States (1987 and 1990), 621–622

Index 703 environmental justice and, 621–622 publication and history, 621–622 2007 report, 622 Toxic-Free Legacy (TFL) Coalition, 622–624 notable original research, 623 program to phase out use of some PBT chemicals, 623 Toxic-Free Future and, 622–623 Toxicity labels, 624–626 Consumer Product Safety Commission and, 624–625 Environmental Protection Agency and, 625–626 federal agencies and, 624 Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals and, 625 HazCom 2012 (OSHA) and, 625 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), 626–628 creation and history, 626 notable successes, 626 purpose and contents, 626 use and search process, 627–628 Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), 56 Transuranic (TRU) waste, 628–629 “contact-handled” or “remote-handled” classification, 628 definition, 628 history, 629 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and, 629 Trichloroethylene (TCE), 629–631 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 629–630 history, 630 liquid form, 630 occupational exposure, 630 properties, 629 Truman, Harry, 120, 382 Trump, Donald coal regulations under, 124, 136, 140 coastal protections under, 501 defunding of U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 646 Mercury and Air Toxic Standards and, 125–126 pigment violet 29 risk evaluation under, 98–99 Superfund cleanup funding under, 68, 147, 213 trichloroethylene regulation under, 630 withdrawal from Paris climate agreement, 382

withdrawal of Clean Power Plan, 124, 140 Tuberculosis (TB), 631–633 ambient air pollution and, 632 causes of, 631–632 statistics, 631 treatment, 632 UARG v. EPA, 138 Underground injection, 635–637 classes of wells, 635–636 debate and controversy, 636 history, 635 hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and, 636 regulation, 635 Underground storage tanks (USTs), 637–639 leaks, 637–638 material composition, 637 regulation, 637–638 on tribal lands, 639 uses, 637 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 639–641 campaigns, 640 foundation and history, 639–640 membership, 639 revenue, 639 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit 1992), 641 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and, 641 significance of, 641 Sustainable Develop Goals (SDGs) and, 641 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 642–643 creation and history, 642 debate and controversy, 642 public health and, 642 purpose and activities, 642 Uranium, 643–645 atmospheric nuclear weapons development tests, 645 depleted uranium, 643 isotopes, 643 mines and mining, 644 nuclear power and, 644 properties and natural occurrence, 643 regulation, 644–645 uranium oxide, 644 uses, 644

704 Index U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), 645–646 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill investigation, 646 budget, 645 creation and history, 646 executive board and organizational structure, 646 Trump administration and, 646 Vaccination controversy, 647–650 anti-vaccination activities in United States, 647–648 causes of anti-vaccine movements, 649 controversies in twenty-first century, 648–649 Vapor vacuum extraction of VOCs, 650–651 advantages, 651 definition, 650 process and procedure, 650 requirements and regulation, 650–651 Vinyl chloride, 651–652 carcinogenicity and toxicity, 652 properties, 651–652 regulation, 652 use, 652 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 653–654 regulation, 653 toxicity, 653 use and products, 653 Vulnerable population impacts, 654–655 American Indian and Alaska Native people, 655 LGBTQ community, 655 types of vulnerabilities, 654

Warren County, North Carolina, environmental protests (1983), 657–662 opposing view to claims of environmental racism, 661 political fallout, 660 remedying the contaminated soil, 659–660 tragedy of Ward PCB Transformer Company, 658–659 Wasserman-Nieto, Kimberly, 662–663 director of Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, 662 honors and awards, 662 Water contamination (surface), 663–668 future of, 667 regulation, 666–667 WE ACT for Environmental Justice, 669 creation and history, 670 organizational structure, 669 purpose, 669–670 Women for a Healthy Environment (WHE), 669–671 areas of issue advocacy, 670–671 creation and history, 670 Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE), 671–672 creation and history, 671 occupational exposures to women, 672 organizational structure, 671 Workplace and occupational exposure, 672–677 definition, 673 history, 673–675 policy developments, 675–677 Workplace Lead Poisoning in Bayway, New Jersey (1924), 677–679 background and history, 677–678 deaths and casualties, 677–678 investigations and findings, 678 New York Times editorial on, 678