Comments by Peter Montague on the Cornell-Dublier superfund site in South Plainfield, N. J

[This document is available on the web with live links at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=461.]

Comments by Peter Montague on the Cornell-Dublier superfund site in South Plainfield, N.J.
These are comments submitted for the record of the public hearing (held July 13, 2004 in South Plainfield, N.J.) on the proposed cleanup of the Cornell-Dublier site in South Plainfield.
Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony for the formal record of the public hearing held July 13, 2004 in South Plainfield, N.J. to discuss cleanup options for a portion (OU2) of the Cornell-Dublier superfund site.
1) Any contaminants left on the site will eventually be carried off the site by living things -- animals, insects, microorganisms, wind, rain, and other natural phenomena such as volatilization, convection and gravity.
The ecological risk assessment for the Cornell-Dublier site identified 40 mammals living on the site, plus some amphibians and reptiles. Insect life was not quantified. Annelids were not quantified. Other soil organisms were not quantified. But these -- and other forms of life on the site -- will all serve as vectors, moving contaminants slowly off the site. Even vegetation, growing on bare soil or through the cracks in concrete and asphalt will absorb small amounts of waste, die, and move off-site, slowly but surely carrying contaminants off the site into the surrounding areas and communities.
Contaminants left on the site today will be slowly distributed onto nearby properties, then eventually into the environment of central New Jersey in the future. Institutional controls (such as deed restrictions) and engineering controls (such as chain link fences, and asphalt paving) may slow this process, but they will not halt this process. This is the second law of thermodynamics at work, and we can slow it down but we cannot reverse it permanently. Cleaning up the site (not sweeping the toxicants under a "rug" of asphalt or concrete) is the only way to avoid continuous low-level contamination of surrounding properties.
To be blunt, contaminants that we refuse to clean up today will most likely poison someone's children tomorrow. If we are going to choose to do this, we should at least be honest about it and acknowledge what we are doing. Otherwise, the public will be misled about the nature of the choice EPA is asking them to condone, in which case the public will be exposed low levels of contaminants without anyone's informed consent -- clearly a violation of the ethical obligations of environmental professionals.
2) The risk assessment techniques that EPA uses to determine "safe" or "acceptable" levels of residual contamination have the unanticipated (but now well-understood) consequence of allowing low levels of contamination to permeate the environment. By focusing on the safety of the "maximally exposed" individual, EPA (and Foster-Wheeler) risk assessment techniques allow millions upon millions of "safe" or "acceptable" releases of industrial chemicals into the environment. The assumption is that, if the "maximally exposed" individual is not harmed, then no one will be harmed. Unfortunately, this assumption is false because it leads EPA to sanction and approve millions of small, supposedly inconsequential chemical releases -- of the kind we can expect from the Cornell-Dublier site if EPA's favored scenario is adopted. As time passes, these "inconsequential" releases add up to a serious amount of contamination.
This failure of risk assessments to protect the environment was identified and documented in 1991 by researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), who pointed out that the entire planet is now polluted by exotic industrial chemicals because of risk assessors' focus on the "maximally exposed" individual instead of on the cumulative impact of millions of small releases. See Curtis C, Travis and Sheri T. Hester, "Global Chemical Contamination," Environmental Science & Technology Vol. 25, No. 5 (May, 1991), pgs. 815-819. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=452
3) Taking into consideration points (1) and (2) above, the EPA's array of proposals for the Cornell-Dublier site is entirely inadequate because a complete cleanup of the site (to natural background levels) is not offered as an option and is therefore not considered.
4) Taking into consideration points (1), (2), and (3) above, the EPA's proposal for the Cornell-Dublier site is a violation of the basic human rights of the people of Central New Jersey. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has declared that we all have a basic right to an uncontaminated environment. Since all the options that EPA has proposed for the Cornell-Dublier site will lead to contamination of central New Jersey in coming years, EPA's proposal violates the basic human rights of all who will be affected.
See United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Living in a Pollution-Free World a Basic Human Right. UNEP Press Release 2001/49. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme, 2001. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=307
5) The EPA risk assessor who responded to public comments and questions during the public meeting in South Plainfield on July 13, 2004 gave at least two false and misleading answers.
When I asked directly whether EPA had taken into consideration possible chemicals affects on the nervous system, the immune system, the reproductive system, and the endocrine (hormone) system, plus effects on growth, development, and behavior, the EPA risk assessor responded that each of those health end-points had been considered. I was told that the risk assessment available in the South Plainfield Library addressed all those health end points.
I visited the South Plainfield Public Library and examined the risk assessment in question. I have placed the risk assessment on a web site for all to see: http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=453 (warning: it's 3 megabytes).
As we can see from page 6-23, the risk assessment specifically omits consideration of risks to the endocrine system and other biological signaling systems, and it omits reference to chemical effects on human behavior.
Therefore, the EPA risk assessor who gave the false and misleading answer to my question was either ignorant of the contents of the risk assessment, or was intentionally misrepresenting the scope of the risk assessment. Either way, this risk assessor needs to be held accountable for this serious violation of ethical standards for environmental professionals
The EPA risk assessor gave another false and misleading answer to one of my questions. I asked whether the risk assessment had taken into account the cumulative effects of mixtures of chemicals found at the site and the background levels of contaminants to which we are all routinely exposed (diesel exhaust, low levels of pharmaceutical products in drinking water, etc.).
The combined effect of many small doses is relevant because we are all exposed to numerous endocrine-disrupting chemicals at low levels via indoor air and dust. For example, see Ruthann A. Rudel and others, "Phthalates, Alkylphenols, Pesticides, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, and other Endocrine-Disrupting Compounds in Indoor Air and Dust," Environmental Science & Technology Vol. 37, No. 20 (2003), pgs. 4543-4553. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=372
(Anyone wanting to learn New Jersey-specific details about the many toxicants to which residents of New Jersey are routinely exposed should examine the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Final Report of the New Jersey Comparative Risk Project (Trenton, N.J.: N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, July, 2003), available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/njcrp/ -- especially the appendix on human health.)
At the public meeting in South Plainfield, the EPA risk assessor asserted that the Cornell-Dublier risk assessment did take into consideration the cumulative effects of mixtures of chemicals, specifically referring to the chemicals on the site -- several different PCBs, TCE and its dechlorination products, other volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, 19 different pesticides, 23 metals, dioxins (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD) and so on.
Unfortunately, the risks of chemical mixtures cannot be reliably evaluated, and the EPA risk assessor knows -- or should know -- this. It is widely acknowledged by risk assessors and a wide range of scientists in many disciplines that risk assessments cannot take into consideration the effects of mixtures of chemicals.
See, for example, David O. Carpenter and others, "Understanding the Human Health Effects of Chemical Mixtures," Environmental Health Perspectives Supplement 1, Vol. 110 (February 2002), pgs. 25-42. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=454 For further discussion of the difficulties toxicologists face in measuring the health effects of mixtures, see Emily Monosoon, Chemical Mixtures (South Hadley, Mass.: Center of the Environment, Mount Holyoke College, Nov. 16, 2003); available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=455 These two publications merely scratch the surface in describing the difficulties scientists face in assessing risk of exposure to mixtures. It is unconscionable for an EPA employee to tell the townspeople of South Plainfield that the risks of exposure to mixtures have been successfully assessed for the Cornell-Dublier site. Such assurances are false and misleading.
6) Given that the Cornell-Dublier site is contaminated with numerous chemicals, EPA needs to be asking whether single-chemical estimations of hazard are adequate to protect public health and safety.
Here are references to 5 studies showing that "insignificant" amounts of several individual chemicals can combine to produce significant health effects:
Elisabete Silva and others, "Something for 'Nothing' -- Eight Weak Estrogenic Chemicals Combined at Concentrations below NOECs Produce Significant Mixture Effects," Environmental Science & Technology Vol. 36, No. 8 (2002), pgs. 1751-1756. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=371
Nissanka Rajapakse and others, "Combining Xenoestrogens at Levels below Individual No-Observed Effect Concentrations Dramatically Enhances Steroid Hormone Action," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 110, No. 9 (September 2002), pgs. 917-921. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=370
Nissanka Rajapakse and others, "Defining the Impact of Weakly Estrogenic Chemicals on the Action of Steroidal Estrogens," Toxicological Sciences Vol. 60 (2001), pgs. 296-304. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=369
Joachim Payne and others, "Mixtures of Four Organochlorines Enhance Human Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 109, No. 4 (April 2001), pgs. 391-397. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=368
Ana M. Soto and others, "The Pesticides Endosulfan, Toxaphene, and Dieldrin Have Estrogenic Effects on Human Estrogen-Sensitive Cells," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 102, No. 4 (April 1994), pgs. 380-383. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=367
It is noteworthy that none of these studies is cited in the bibliography accompanying the risk assessment for the Cornell-Dublier site.
7) EPA also needs to ask whether the toxicologic data, upon which its risk assessment is based, adequately represents modern toxicological science. For example, here are references to five studies showing that the timing of exposure to a toxicant is crucial to observing an effect. A particular exposure at one time in the life of an organism may produce no effect while the same exposures occuring at a different time in the life of an organism may produce a serious effect.
This means that much of the toxicological information upon which risk assessments are based is conceptually flawed, outdated and untrustworthy for making risk judgments.
See Beverly S. Rubin and others, "Perinatal Exposure to Low Doses of Bisphenol A Affects Body Weight, Patterns of Estrous Cyclicity, and Plasma LH Levels," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 109, No. 7 (July 2001), pgs. 675-680. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=456
See also K.S. Landreth, "Critical windows in development of the rodent immune system," Human and Experimental Toxicology Vol. 21, Nos. 9-10 (Sep-Oct, 2002), pgs.493-498 Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=457
And: M.C. Garofolo and others, "Developmental toxicity of terbutaline: Critical periods for sex-selective effects on macromolecules and DNA synthesis in rat brain, heart, and liver," Brain Research Bulletin Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jan. 15, 2003), pgs. 319-329 Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=458
And T.A. Lindsley and L.J. Rising, "Morphologic and neurotoxic effects of ethanol vary with timing of exposure in vitro," Alcohol Vol. 28, No. 3 (Nov., 2002), pgs. 197-203; Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=459
And: M.R. van den Heuvel and R.J. Ellis, "Timing of exposure to a pulp and paper effluent influences the manifestation of reproductive effects in rainbow trout," Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Vol. 21, No. 11 (Nov., 2002), pgs. 2338-2347. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=460
It is noteworthy that none of these studies is cited in the bibliography accompanying the risk assessment for the Cornell-Dublier site.
In sum:
The EPA has spent large sums of money evaluating minutiae, but has missed the big picture at the Cornell-Dublier site.
1) Adequate cleanup of the Cornell-Dublier site was not even offered to the public as an option at the public hearing July 13, 2004 in South Plainfield. All of the options that EPA proposed would result in leaving substantial contamination on the site.
2) Unless the site is cleaned up to background levels, it will continue to be a source of contamination in central New Jersey and beyond. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees that low levels of contamination will continue to escape from the site onto nearby properties, then into the larger environment beyond.
3) The risk assessment technique used to determine "safe" exposures to "maximally exposed" individuals has the unintended (but now well-understood) consequence of allowing "safe" levels of contamination to enter the environment where they are joined by other amounts of toxicants that other risk assessments have deemed "safe." The cumulative impact of these low-level releases (sanctioned by the flawed risk assessment technique) is a badly contaminated environment worldwide -- but most specifically in New Jersey (more on this below).
4) EPA's (and Foster-Wheeler's) risk assessment techniques are woefully outdated and have failed to incorporate recent scientific information about the importance of timing of toxic exposures, and about the cumulative impacts of exposures to many low-level contaminants simultaneously.
5) New Jersey is already contaminated at hazardous levels and no additional contamination is acceptable. Therefore, the Cornell-Dublier site must be cleaned up entirely, leaving no residual contamination to harm future generations
According to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Final Report of the New Jersey Comparative Risk Project (Trenton, N.J.: N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, July, 2003), available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/njcrp/
"Among the effects of various of the PCB congeners are neurodevelopmental retardation, decreased thyroxine levels, reproductive dysfunction, immune system suppression, carcinogenesis, and enzyme induction." (pg. 974)
"The likely effects of PCBs... include breast cancer, non-Hodgkins lymphomas, liver and gall bladder cancers, pancreatic cancer, decreased circulating thyroid hormone, and prenatal effects that affect postnatal neurodevelopment."
"Breast feeding transfers organochlorines from mother to infant (as much as 20-25% of prenatal maternal body burden) and results in an organochlorine intake in the range of 50-fold higher than adults on a body weight basis." (pg. 976)
[IMPORTANT NOTE: Breast feeding is still the healthiest and best way to nourish an infant.]
"As many as 2000 to 2500 cases of cancer per year may be attributable to PCBs in New Jersey. This is approximately one-third to one-half of the total incidence of breast, pancreatic and non-Hodgkins lymphatic malignancies in the state [of New Jersey]. There are however significant uncertainties in these estimates. There is also evidence that pre- and post-natal exposures to PCBs may have adverse effects on neurological development." (pg. 982)
In other words, the people of New Jersey are already exposed to an excessive quantity of PCBs -- enough PCBs to produce 2000 to 2500 cases of cancer each year.
The Cornell-Dublier site, after it is cleaned up, should not contribute one iota to this already-unacceptable situation.
6) EPA has offered no information indicating that the "engineering controls" proposed for the cleanup would endure as long as the hazards that EPA plans to leave buried on the site. EPA has offered no information indicating that humans -- using "institutional controls" -- have the ability to manage toxic sites in perpetuity (which is the duration of the hazard).
7) EPA personnel offered false and misleading answers to questions posed by the public during the public meeting July 13 in South Plainfield. This is a violation of professional ethics and should be investigated by the EPA Inspector General. By way of this testimony for the public hearing record, I am formally requesting such an investigation.
8) I request that in future EPA put all documents related to this site on the world wide web to make “public participation” as easy as it should be, and as easy as EPA says it wants it to be.
9) At the Cornell-Dublier site, which offers such a clear example of a site that will continue to release toxicants into the environment for decades (perhaps aeons) to come, EPA has an opportunity to “turn the corner” and set a wonderful new example in the history of site cleanups. A precautionary approach, instead of a flawed risk assessment approach, would dictate a much more aggressive and thorough cleanup of the site than EPA has considered up to this point. (A precautionary approach to site cleanups is discussed in the draft paper found here: http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=363 .)
Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony for the public record.
(signed)

Peter Montague, director

Environmental Research Foundation

P.O. Box 160

New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

Tel. [phone]

E-mail [e-mail]