PREVENTING TOXICS IN ALASKA:
ORGANIZING FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
A Guide for Information Gathering and Action
September 1998
The "Preventing Toxics in Alaska: Organizing for Environmentally Healthy Communities--Guide for Information and Action" serves as a practical resource in the struggle to eliminate toxic contamination that threatens our environment and health. The guide describes some tools for researching the environmental and health effects of contaminants, as well as ways to use the legal system and organize in our communities. We seek to demystify the often confusing and complex language of chemistry and toxicology used by government and industry in their site assessments, environmental impact analyses, and other reports. The guide includes an overview of some of the technical language that may be a barrier to action, including descriptions of chemical categories and common toxic pollutants found in and around contaminated sites. Finally, the guide provides listings of publications, Internet resources, organizations, and agency contacts that you may want to use. We include the guide as a looseleaf notebook because we intend to update it periodically. Please give us suggestions for its improvement.
We offer this guide with the fervent hope that communities in the north and south will join together in the effort to stop the production and use of chemicals that threaten our health. We seek "environmental justice," an approach to toxics that won’t inequitably fall on people who are dependent on their environment for sustenance.
Hundreds of sites in Alaska were contaminated by the military, from the cold war to present-day military operations including Distant Early Warning sites (DEW line sites) polluted with PCBs and other contaminants; the largest underground nuclear test in United States history at Amchitka; hundreds of thousands of barrels of toxic waste disposed in wetlands at the King Salmon Air Force Base; and chemical weapons disposed at the Gerstle River Test Site, Fort Greely, and in the ocean off Attu. Solvents, pesticides, chemical weapons, radioactive materials, napalm, fuels, and unexploded bombs are among the hazardous materials carelessly dumped by the U.S. military at sites around Alaska (see enclosed maps). These contaminants remain. Alaska Community Action on Toxics has mapped approximately 650 military contaminated sites in Alaska, including Air Force, Army, Army Corps of Engineers and Navy sites.
Mining operations have generated poisonous waste and water contamination along and within many miles of rivers and streams in Alaska. The oil and gas industry has left a toxic legacy of over 150 hazardous waste sites on the Kenai Peninsula alone. The oil industry continues to dump millions of pounds of toxic waste into Cook Inlet every year. Oil operations have contaminated vast areas of tundra and coastal wetlands on the North Slope. Polluters often use irresponsible production and transportation systems. They use ineffectual clean-up technologies that do not protect the environment, subsistence resources, and consequently, human health.
Vulnerability of the Arctic Environment & Peoples
In addition to the problem of contaminated sites, evidence shows that the Arctic is becoming a global sink for long-lived toxic pollutants transported from distant sources via atmospheric and ocean currents. These currents carry and deposit pesticides, heavy metals, and radionuclides. While far from major industrial and urban centers, global atmospheric circulation favors distribution of contaminants thousands of miles to the Arctic from sources originating throughout the hemisphere. The Arctic Ocean, known by scientists as the polar Mediterranean because it has limited water exchange with other ocean bodies, accumulates pollutants from heavily contaminated areas of Siberia, Europe, North America and Asia.
Physical and biological features of the Arctic predispose the Arctic environment to the deposition, retention, and accumulation of certain contaminants in wildlife and humans. Cold northern temperatures result in low rates of decomposition and volatilization of contaminants, leading to a greater tendency for their persistence. Arctic food webs are strongly lipid (fat)- based, which facilitates accumulation of many contaminants in fatty tissues of fish, wildlife and humans. The Arctic bears a considerable burden from the last 50 years of several nations' atmospheric nuclear testing program, nuclear weapons production, nuclear "accidents" and waste disposal.
Persistent pollutants may have serious health effects in the communities surrounding their manufacture and use, as well as in northern regions where they finally concentrate. Communities of color and poor people bear a disproportionate brunt of the toxic burden from industrial and toxic waste handling facilities more frequently located in their vicinities. Some U.S. chemical companies produce and export pesticides that are banned for use in this country, but the pesticides return in our air, water, and food in a deadly "circle of poison."
Contaminant levels of certain organochlorine contaminants may be 10-20 times higher in people who rely on traditional diets in the north than in most temperate areas. Traditional foods are, however, chosen over and preferred to store-bought foods. They are important for spiritual well-being, provide good nourishment and protection from certain diseases. International measures are needed to eliminate the manufacture of persistent and toxic pollutants, so that people can trust the safety of the foods they eat.
The United States is often heralded as a worldwide leader in environmental protection. With the passage of the federal Clean Air and Water Acts and multiple other laws intended to reduce or eliminate pollution, Americans were optimistic that the tide of contamination creeping across our country could be reversed.
These laws established once and for all (or so we thought) that we in the United States have a right to a clean environment. We had in hand a guarantee from our government that the cool breeze blowing across our playgrounds would not contain cancer-causing chemicals threatening to shorten the lives of our children. We believed that all people would have safe drinking water, that fish and wildlife would always be safe to eat.
With time, however, we came to realize that while we may have the right to clean air and water and land free from toxic contamination, pollution continued to be a serious threat. It seemed that this right to a clean environment did not mean much unless we actively sought to enforce it. Thus, we came to recognize that we also had a responsibility to exercise that right. If we wanted the clean air and water to which we are entitled, we needed to actively pursue it.
At the same time, we realized that controlling pollution after it was created, as was the aim of many of our environmental laws, was not the answer which we had hoped. In these laws, Congress sought to reduce pollution emissions by as much as 90% in a twenty year period. The reality, however, has been a mere 10-20% reduction in emissions.
We succeed only when we have acted to prevent the creation of pollution. The lesson is simple: if we produce toxic chemicals, we have a hard time controlling them. If we stop the production of toxic chemicals, we eliminate the source of pollution.
This handbook is based on these two premises: one, that we have a right to a clean environment and a responsibility to protect it; and two, that it is better to prevent pollution than to try and control it. Rather than providing a comprehensive source of information, we provide a quick reference to the relevant issues and hope to provide direction for your efforts.
Chapter One of the Guide addresses the environmental rights and opportunities unique to tribes in Alaska. These rights and opportunities are founded in the unique relationship between the federal government and American Indians. The rights and opportunties provide significant and beneficial consequences for tribes faced with toxic waste dumps in their communities or concerned about other environmental issues. Also, through this relationship, significant resources can be brought into Native communities to implement and manage environmental programs.
Chapter Two contains a summary of the major environmental laws which can help you exercise your right to a clean environment. Congress has delegated responsibility for enforcing most environmental protection laws to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Within these laws, there are also mechanisms for states and, in some cases, tribes, to take over responsibility for implementing certain laws from the EPA. Where this has occurred, or where it is an option, we have so noted in the text.
Chapter Three gives a brief summary of three categories of toxics: metals, petroleum-related compounds, and organochlorines, with descriptions of the more notorious contaminants within each of the categories. The end of the chapter provides information on how to do your own research for more information on toxic and radioactive contaminants and their health effects.
Further, once you have reviewed the Guide in the context of your particular concern, we encourage you to seek assistance from those who have gone before you. In that light, throughout the Guide we have noted relevant contacts and, in Chapter 3, we have placed a more detailed listing of organizations which may be helpful to you in addressing pollution problems in your communities.
We sincerely hope that all who use this Guide find within it the information and power to gain what is rightfully yours: a clean environment.
Tribes to Protect the Environment
The unique relationship which exists between Alaska Natives and the United States government gives rise to opportunities for environmental protection which go beyond the basic environmental rights Alaska Natives share with all Americans. We set out here a brief overview of the legal relationship between American Indians and the federal government and explain how this relationship, as it is now understood, provides opportunities for environmental protection by Alaska Native Tribes in their communities. We cannot possibly cover the complexities and scope of the issue in this Guide, so we simply provide an overview.
Indian tribes have a unique legal relationship with the federal government that has been defined over a period of more than 200 years through treaties, federal statutes, executive orders, and case law. At its most basic level, this relationship is based on the federal government's recognition of the inherent sovereignty of tribes, however, the scope of tribal authority is not unlimited.
In general, tribes are independent entities with inherent powers of self-government but whose powers are limited by Congressional, or plenary (absolute) authority. Congress can regulate and modify the status of tribes and tribal authority. The authority to deal with tribes is entirely federal; states are excluded unless authority is delegated to the state by the federal government. Finally, the federal government has a responsibility to protect tribes and their properties. This responsibility has been defined by the courts as a "trust responsibility." The protection afforded tribes by the federal government includes protecting the tribe and its territory from encroachment by states and its citizens. Exactly how these rights are exercised in specific environmental protection laws is discussed in Chapter Two.
Before the principles of federal Indian law can apply to a tribe, however, certain issues must be addressed. The first issue is whether a tribe is recognized as such by the federal government. Definitions of tribes are historically subject to change, and a given tribe may be recognized by the federal government as a tribe for one purpose and not for another. Very generally speaking, a "tribe" is a body of Indians united in community under one leadership or government and inhabiting a particular though sometimes ill-defined territory.
While a tribe can be recognized as such by some entities and not by others, the most significant and valuable recognition comes from the federal government, especially the Department of the Interior. Tribes in Alaska were included in the Department of Interior’s list of federally recognized tribes, where it was stated that "the purpose of the . . . list . . . is to eliminate any doubt as to the Department's intention by expressly and unequivocally acknowledging . . . that the Villages listed . . . have the same status as Tribes in the contiguous 48 states . . .." Twice since 1993 the federal courts have upheld the Tribal status of Alaska Native Villages based on their inclusion on this list.
Interior's recognition of the 226 tribes in Alaska clarified the existence of a special relationship between the tribes and federal government. This includes a recognition by the federal government that the tribe is a political entity holding some powers of self-government, including the authority to control its internal affairs, regulation of members' inheritance, domestic relations, and control over tribally owned property. Further, Tribes enjoy sovereign immunity from suit, meaning that, like states and the federal government, they cannot be sued without their consent.
On February 25, 1998, State of Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, ___ U. S. ___ (1998), was decided by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme court ruled that Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act lands are not Indian Country, regardless of whether the lands are owned by a corporation or owned by a tribal entity.
The suit regarding the question of Indian Country in Alaska was initiated over tribal authority to tax a construction company hired by the State of Alaska to build a school on village land.
The decision did not address Indian Country in the form of allotments or restricted townsite lands. Lands, other than ANCSA lands, can be Indian Country if they were set aside for the benefit of Alaska Natives and if the lands are under federal superintendence, The decision did not rule that Alaska tribes are less than fully recognized tribal governments or that Alaska tribes are legally different from other tribes in the lower 48.
Without the designation of Indian Country, the tribes lack authority to tax, zone, exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction over non-tribal members, manage fish and game, or regulate land use. The implications of this decision are that the tribes have lost their inherent authority to address environmental contamination on tribal land. However, tribes may still operate environmental programs based on statutorily-delegated authority. As beneficiaries of the federal trust responsibility and sovereign governments, tribes may have authority to enter into cooperative agreements to address contamination in their areas.
Congress has provided for financial and technical assistance for the establishment and implementation of Tribal environmental programs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed criteria for tribes to carry out certain environmental programs. In general, these criteria include 1) proof of the ability to function as a governing entity in promoting the health and welfare of the population; 2) ability to carry out program actions in accordance with the regulating statute (i.e., the Clear Air or Water Acts or other statutes as described in Chapter Two); 3) ability to effectively administer the program; 4) possession of appropriate management and technical skills; 5) experience in administering public health and environmental programs. Further requirements may appear in specific statutes and are included in the Chapter Two discussion of those statutes.
Opportunities for Tribes in Alaska to Influence Federal Government Decisions Regarding Environmental Matters
Other opportunities also exist which can influence how the environment can be protected, sustained, and enhanced. These include the government's commitment to environmental justice, as well as its declaration that it will work with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
In response to the growing environmental justice movement across the United States, President Clinton issued an Executive Order in 1994 emphasizing that "all communities and persons across this Nation should live in a safe and healthful environment." He also recognized that minority and low-income communities in the United States bear a disproportionate burden of pollution in our society. The President declared that remedying this "environmental justice" problem is a national priority and directed federal agencies to make environmental justice an integral part of their missions.
All federal agencies were required to create a strategy plan to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse environmental problems in minority and low-income populations. In its strategy plan, EPA stated it is committed to ensuring that all people, regardless of race, color, national origin or income, live in clean, healthy, and sustainable communities. Another goal identified by the EPA is that those who are affected by decisions on environmental issues have every opportunity to participate in the making of those decisions.
To implement these goals and commitments, EPA established a process to guide its efforts. When confronted with a problem relating to contamination and environmental justice, one of the first calls should be made to the EPA’s Region 10 (which includes Alaska) environmental justice office:
Joyce Crosson-Kelly (206) 553-4029 or
Planning and Evaluation Branch, USEPA 1- (800) 424-4372
1200 6th Ave. (MD-142)
Seattle, WA 98101
Additionally, it can often be helpful to contact EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. for assistance. Depending on the type of problem, one of the following officials should be contacted:
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
[use mail code (MC) for each office.]
Office of Environmental Justice
Robert J. Knox MC-3103
800/962-6215; 202/564-2515
American Indian Environmental Office MC-3103
Kathy Gorospe, Director, 202/260-7939
Office of Air and Radiation MC-6101
Robert Perciasepe, 202/260-7400
Office of Civil Rights MC 1201
Racqueline Shelton, 202/260-4582
Office of Communication, Education, and Public Affairs MC 1702
Doretta Reaves, 202/260-3534
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances MC-7101
Lynn R. Goldman, M.D., 202/260-6906
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation MC 2125
Nancy Stoner, 202/564-2448
Office of Water MC-4102
Sandra German, 202/260-5410
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance MC 2225
Steven A. Herman, 202/564-2440
Office of General Counsel MC 2378R
202/260-5313
In 1994 President Clinton directed that all agencies of the federal government undertaking actions which may affect Tribal rights operate within a government-to-government relationship with affected tribes. What, exactly, this means is an issue not fully resolved, although we can recognize some general principles from the President’s announcement.
Most importantly, the President’s statement does not create any substantive or procedural legal right for Tribes that did not already exist pursuant to some other authority. Thus, the pronouncement offers no legal recourse if ignored or violated by an agency.
That said, the pronouncement does give Tribes more practical leverage to be involved, at a very early stage, with agencies when an agency is making a decision affecting the Tribe. Tribes should also expect in-person public hearings to be held in their communities. Also, Tribes should expect and demand that their concerns be addressed in a timely manner by high officials within federal agencies -- in effect shortening the sometimes lengthy and frustrating bureaucratic process.
In addition to the President’s directive, the EPA began implementing its Indian Policy, a policy drafted in 1984 but not fully implemented until 1992 when Administrator Browner came into office. The Indian Policy recognizes tribes as co-regulators in the area of environmental protection, and the EPA states its commitment to dealing with tribes on a government-to-government basis.
In an effort to effectively implement its Indian Policy, the EPA created the Tribal Operations Committee, an informal advisory board made up of representatives from within the EPA and tribal representatives. There are eighteen tribal representatives from throughout Indian Country in the United States, with a total of four from Region 10, including two from Alaska. If you would like additional information about the TOC please contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Toll Free Phone 1-(800) 781-0983
Alaska Operations
222 West 7th Avenue, #19 Tribal Staff/Direct Lines
Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Tribal Coordinators:
Santina Baumeister (907) 271-3413
Phone: (907) 271-5083 Jean Gamache (907) 271-6558
Fax: (907) 271-3424
Tribal Liaison:
Tribal Office Fax (907) 271-6340 Anna McAlear (907) 271-6334
Additionally, if you would like more information relating to EPA’s Indian Policy and tribal programs, please refer to EPA’s publication, "The Environmental Exchange: A Resource Guide for Tribal Leaders of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska," 1996-97 edition. For a copy of this manual, please contact the EPA at 1 (800) 490-9189. The Tribal Policy Director for Region 10 is Scott Sufficool, who can be contacted at (206) 553-6220.
These are some of the tools which can be used by community residents and tribes in Alaska to effect positive environmental change.
The National Indian Law Library is also a valuable resource for more detailed information on the many important issue legal Alaska Natives face. It houses a large collection of existing Tribal codes and statutes dealing with Tribal law. Contact Native American Rights Fund in Boulder, Colorado at (303) 447-8760.
EPA has also customized its strategy to deal with issues relevant to Federally-recognized Tribes. In doing so, EPA has made a commitment to provide outreach, education and training to Tribes. EPA will also provide financial and legal assistance to Tribes to help develop, implement and maintain Tribal environmental programs designed both to remediate environmental hazards and to develop and implement Tribe-specific laws and agreements addressing environmental issues. In providing this assistance, EPA recognizes the government-to-government relationship which exists between Tribes and the federal government, the Federal Trust responsibility, Tribal sovereignty and other tenets of federal law as briefly touched on above.
Information Gathering from the Federal Government
Because so many toxic sites especially in Alaska were created by the U. S. Government, often through the military, federal information becomes critical to discovering what toxics may exist at your site.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. § 552 What is It?
The Freedom of Information Act provides specifically that "any person" can make requests for government information. Citizens who make requests are not required to identify themselves or explain why they want information they have requested. The intention of Congress in passing FOIA was that the workings of government are "for and by the people" and that the benefits of government information should be made available to everyone. Unfortunately, making a request doesn’t mean you will get the information you seek. This chapter is designed to help show you how to make your request so you actually get the information.
All branches of the federal government must adhere to the provisions of FOIA with certain restrictions for work in progress (early drafts), enforcement confidential information, classified documents, and national security information.
How to Use the Freedom of Information Act
FOIA gives you the right to information from federal government agencies and describes the procedures to follow for getting it. Under the FOIA, you can send a letter to a federal agency specifying what you want. By law, the agency must respond to your request within ten working days. That’s the good news. The bad news: this "response" may not be very responsive. But if you persist and understand the basic rules of the game, you should be able to get what you want.
The Freedom of Information Act gives you access to all "agency records" unless they are specifically exempt. This includes printed documents, photos, or computer tapes created or obtained by the agency and in its possession when you request them.
The FOIA applies to any federal agency, which the act defines as virtually any part of the Executive branch of government: agencies, offices, and departments like the Department of the Interior or the Office of Management and Budget; independent regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency; and federally controlled corporations, like the U.S. Postal Service. The FOIA does not apply to Congress, federal courts, or some parts of the Executive Office of the President.
State agencies are not covered by the federal FOIA. (See Alaska Public Records Act section for information on Alaska’s "open records" law.)
Six Steps for Getting Public Information.
Step One: What Do You Want?
Unless you’re conducting a "fishing expedition" or seeking information for your own amusement, your information quest should be well planned. Start with a list of what you want and why you want it.
Step Two: Who Has It?
One sure way to get the run-around is to ask for information from the wrong agency. Try to figure out which agency is most likely to have what you want. A common response to FOIA letters is, "the information you seek is not held by this agency ... We are forwarding your request onto [X] agency ... This completes our obligation to respond to your request." From this point forward, you lose control of the 10-day clock. There will be delays as your FOIA letter winds its way toward someone who can help you. If you can afford to wait, this is only a minor frustration. But if you need the information in a timely way, you’ve got trouble.
One simple solution: call the agencies first. You may get the run-around over telephone, but in return for your investment in the calls, you will generally speed up the process by pinpointing the target for your information search.
Step Three: Ask For It.
The FOIA does not require any specific format or language in letters requesting information from government agencies, but there are some things that should be included in any FOIA letter.
1. A clear statement that the request is being made under FOIA (the legal citation is "5 U.S.C. § 552" and should be included in your request).
This triggers your rights under the FOIA. Send your request to the "Freedom of Information Officer of the agency."
2. A description of what you want.
The law says you must "reasonably describe" the records. Try to strike a balance between being too vague ("send me everything you have on toxic waste ...") and too specific. If you are vague, you will get a reply asking you to be more specific. If you are too specific, you give the agency an excuse to ignore related papers that don’t precisely meet the narrow confines of your request-but which might be as useful as what they do send.
3. A statement of how you want collection or copying costs handled.
Normally, you would want to specify that you must give your approval if costs will exceed a certain amount (e.g. $10), but that you are willing to pay a bill you receive for up to that amount. This avoids delays in processing request. You can also request a waiver of fees if your request is in the public interest. If you believe you’re entitled to a waiver of search and copy fees, ask for the waiver and describe why your request is in the public interest.
4. Your return address and daytime phone number in case there are questions.
On a complex or large FOIA request, it is common for the agency to call to negotiate what they will disclose with you. This speeds up the process, but beware of trading away more than you
need to: Remember, the law requires the agency to disclose information and your right to it is not negotiable.
Consider asking to review the pertinent files in person, which you can do under the FOIA. If you review the files yourself, you can pick out exactly what you want to have copied, and you may discover valuable information you wouldn’t have found otherwise.
Step Four: The Reply.
Federal agencies rarely deliver requested information within the ten working days specified in the FOIA. Instead, here are some responses to expect:
Step Five: Replying to Government’s Response.
What if you don’t like the response you get? If the problem is a response that is evasive or too slow, you can send follow-up letters, clearly labeled "Request #2," or "Follow-up." You can send a letter of complaint to the head of the agency. You can ask members of Congress to intervene on your behalf. The amount of help you get will depend on how serious your complaint is. If the agency missed a deadline by a week, you probably won’t get a lot of sympathy.
You can file a formal appeal to challenge any agency determination on your request. Your appeal may include how much the agency gives you, how much it claims is exempt, the time it takes to respond or how much it wants to charge you. An appeal must be filed in writing within 30 days of receiving the agency’s reply. The law places the burden of making the argument on the government, not on you, so a simple letter that states that you wish to appeal is sufficient to trigger a review by a higher authority. However, if you want to increase your odds of success, include a copy of your original request, the agency’s response and arguments detailing why you believe the agency’s response was wrong.
The agency has 20 days to respond to your appeal. If it does not meet this deadline, you can call, write and otherwise try to hassle the agency. If the agency refuses to respond, the last remedy prescribed by law is to take the agency to court. Historically, litigation has worked to loosen up stonewalling agencies. The FOIA places the burden on government to prove why information can’t be disclosed, so filing litigation usually makes the agency more responsive. Of course, you have to decide whether the information is important enough to warrant this use of your resources.
Step Six: Using The Information.
Now you have the information you’ve been seeking. Remember that, by itself, the information is not power. How you use information makes it powerful. Remember why you went after it in the first place. Use it to figure out what you want -- and what you can reasonably expect to get -- in your campaign.
Use it to develop arguments for your position, or to make people angry enough to join your group and your campaign. Get it out: analyze it in your newsletter, hold a press conference to release it, or give it to a good reporter. How you use it is up to you: but use it!
Exempt Records.
Here are the categories of information agencies can exempt under the FOIA.
September 8, 1998
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
VIA FACSIMILE AND
CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED P 190 158 236
Freedom of Information Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Madam or Sir:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I hereby request the following:
1) Copies of all documents or records submitted to EPA by the State of Alaska from December, 1994 to the present regarding adoption or revision of Alaska's water quality standards; and
2) Copies of all internal or external correspondence or other documents or records, whether draft, electronic, or otherwise, regarding the State of Alaska's water quality standards.
The following additional instructions apply to this request:
The terms "records" and "documents" are to be given the broadest interpretation possible under the Freedom of Information Act, and include any correspondence, memoranda, notes, or other documents, whether created by EPA or someone else, in draft, electronic, or other forms.
The terms "and" and "or" should be construed to be both disjunctive and injunctive, as necessary, to give this request its broadest scope.
If you determine that any of the requested records, or any portions of the requested records are exempt from release, and you decide to withhold those records or portions of records, please identify and describe those records or portions of records and state the exemption that you feel applies.
Trustees for Alaska requests that any fees associated with this request be waived pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 40 C.F.R. §2.120(d)(i) and (ii) because the requested information will contribute significantly to public understanding of the EPA’s operations and activities with respect to review of water quality standards in Alaska. The requested information will enable Trustees and other public interest groups to determine the extent to which EPA and the State of Alaska cooperate in establishing water quality standards in Alaska.
This request is not being submitted for commercial purposes. Trustees is a nonprofit, public interest law firm, with members throughout Alaska and other states. Trustees represents and advises its own members and numerous other nonprofit public interest environmental organizations, and citizens and rural villages, on environmental issues within Alaska and elsewhere. Trustees has been involved in water quality and water quality standards issues for many years. It represents its members and other Alaska environmental organizations in cases and issues concerning water quality. The EPA actions about which Trustees now seeks information are directly related to Trustees’ and its members’ interests in the EPA water quality standards approval process. EPA’s response to this request will enable Trustees to continue its long-standing role of advising, educating, and providing free legal services to members of the public on critical water quality issues. Trustees will make any records supplied by EPA in response to this request available to its members and to the general public, upon request.
For the purposes of 40 C.F.R. § 2.120(d)(5)(iv), my qualifications are as follows: I am a staff attorney for Trustees for Alaska. Currently, my primary responsibilities at Trustees include work on water quality issues, including investigation and litigation of cases concerning water quality. I have extensive knowledge about the Clean Water Act and many other federal and state environmental laws. I am fully capable of understanding, disaggregating, and disseminating the requested information in the ways described above as it relates to EPA’s water quality standards approval process.
Please call me if you have any questions about this request. As provided in the Freedom of Information Act, I will expect your reply within ten working days.
Sincerely
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (EPCRA) 42 U.S.C. 11011 (1986)
Also known as Title III of SARA, EPCRA was enacted by Congress as the national legislation on community safety. This law was designed to help local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards.
To implement EPCRA, Congress required each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). The SERCs were required to divide their states into Emergency Planning Districts and to name a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) for each district. Broad representation by fire fighters, health officials, government and media representatives, community groups, industrial facilities and emergency managers ensures that all necessary elements of the planning process are represented.
How to Use EPCRA
The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act was written specifically with you, the citizen, in mind. It is based on the principle that the more you and your neighbors know about hazardous chemicals in your community, the better prepared your community will be to manage these potential hazards and to improve public safety and health as well as environmental quality. By volunteering to work with your LEPC, you can play a major role in making the law work.
The law requires industry and others to make available to you information on potential chemical hazards and inventories, and on releases of toxic chemicals into the environment. A facility must report to the Toxics Release Inventory if it conducts certain, broadly-defined, manufacturing activities, has ten or more employees and processes 25,000 pounds or uses more than 10,000 pounds of any listed chemical. A facility must report for each listed chemical, among other things: the amount released into the environment; amount of shipped from the facility; amount used; and amount present.
There are several ways you can become involved in obtaining and using this information to enhance the quality of life in your community:
Under certain conditions, facilities can withhold the name of a chemical on "trade secret" basis (other information must be provided). You can challenge trade secret claims by submitting a petition to EPA.
Title III also allows you to sue the owner or operator of a business or facility who does not comply with the law, as long as that person is not facing a government administrative order or civil action to enforce compliance. You can also sue EPA, the SERC or the governor of your state if any of them fails to provide information that must be made public under the ACT.
Finally, you can petition EPA to add or delete chemicals from the list of toxic chemicals that must be reported under the toxic chemical release inventory. You can also petition to change the list of extremely hazardous substances used for emergency planning and accidental release notification.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act creates a groundbreaking opportunity for you, as a citizen, to become directly involved in the decisions that affect your safety and health. Your knowledge of and participation in this program can help ensure that it accomplishes its goals in your community.
Relevant EPCRA contacts include:
EPCRA Hotline 1- 800 - 424-9346
TRI User Support Service (202) 260-1531
fax: (202) 260-4659
Phil Wong (206) 553-4016
Office of Environmental Assessment fax: (206) 553-8338
EPA Region 10
Camille Stephens (907) 465-5220
Alaska Department of fax (907) 465-5244
Environmental Conservation
The State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) members include state agencies and public members. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner is one of the members of the SERC:
Department of Environmental Conservation
Michelle Brown, Commissioner
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
(907) 465-5065
fax: (907) 465-5070
E-mail: Mbrown@envircon.state.ak.us
web site: http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/home.htm
In addition, there are 19 Local Emergency Response Commissions in Alaska. Contact your city or borough government to find out who the members are and when they meet.
A. What Can Be Requested.
The public records of all Alaska state public agencies are open to inspection by the public under reasonable rules during regular office hours. Upon request and payment of the fee, a certified copy of the public record will be provided.
B. Fees.
The fee for copying public records may not exceed the normal photocopying charge used by the public agency. For example, if an agency has a policy that it will not pay more than $.15/pg. for photocopying, it cannot charge you more than this amount. If the production of records for one requester in a calendar month exceeds five person-hours, the public agency must require the requester to pay the personnel costs required during the month to complete the search and copying.
If a public agency determines that a request is in the public interest, it may waive or reduce the fee. Fee reductions and waivers are uniformly applied among persons similarly situated. This means that the agency must treat all requesters equally when deciding whether to waive or reduce a fee. In addition, a fee waiver of $5 or less may be appropriate if the fee is less than the cost to the public agency to arrange for payment.
What Cannot Be Requested.
Every person has a right to inspect a public record in the state, except:
1) Records of vital statistics and adoption proceedings.
2) Records pertaining to juveniles unless disclosure is authorized by law.
3) Medical and related public health records.
4) Records required to be kept confidential by a federal law or regulation or by state law.
5) To the extent the records are required to be kept confidential under 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g) and the regulations adopted under 20 U.S.C § 1232(g) in order to secure or retain federal assistance.
6) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes but only to the extent that the production of the law enforcement record or information would result in any of the following:
A) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
B) Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication.
C) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of a suspect, defendant, victim or witness.
D) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source.
E) Would disclose confidential techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.
F) Would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
G) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT(CERCLA): SUPERFUND 42 U.S.C. 9601 (1980)
CERCLA (pronounced SERK-la) provides a federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spills and other releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through the Act, Congress gave EPA power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup. EPA cleans up orphan sites where potentially responsible parties (PRPs) cannot be identified or located, or when they fail to act. EPA obtains private party cleanup through orders, consent decrees, and other small party settlements. Once a response action has been completed, EPA also recovers costs from financially viable individuals and companies.
EPA is authorized to implement the Act in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities in Alaska are coordinated through the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Pursuant to CERCLA, EPA developed a ranking system to determine clean-up priorities among the many hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. Using this system in conjunction with input from the state in which a site is located, EPA determines whether to include the site on its National Priorities List. NPL designation must occur before EPA can use funds from the Superfund to clean up a site, although it is not necessarily a guarantee that the site will be cleaned up.
If a site makes it onto the NPL, EPA must then enter into an agreement with the state in which the site is located concerning maintenance of the site once clean-up is complete, disposal of wastes from the clean-up and the state’s portion of remedial clean-up costs. Additionally, EPA may enter into an agreement with the state or Indian tribe, to define who will be responsible for conducting the remedial actions at the site. This agreement established responsibilities between the parties and also serves as an authorizing mechanism for EPA to transfer funds for the clean-up from the Superfund to the state or tribe if they will be conducting the necessary work. These agreements also ensure that states and tribes have opportunity to review, consult on and concur with EPA decisions about clean-up plans.
If a site does not make it on the NPL, no money from the federal Superfund can be used to help clean it up, although EPA may still be involved in a shorter-term clean-up action. For the most part, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation will have primary responsibility for ensuring that clean-up occurs, and may do so with more flexibility as to the ultimate standard to which clean-up occurs.
Public participation in remedial clean-up plans is an integral part of CERCLA. Remedial plans are long term strategies to clean-up the contaminated site. Before a plan can be approved by the government, it must be published, at a minimum, in a major local newspaper. After notice there must be a reasonable opportunity for public comment and an opportunity for a public meeting at or near the facility at issue.
Public participation is an important step in adopting a remedial action. Comments and concerns are often reflected in the final decision and can modify clean-up procedures. If there is a Superfund site near you, the only way you can ensure that the best steps for your community are taken is to actively participate in the process.
Alaska Native Tribes are treated in a manner similar to states under CERCLA. A Tribe may assume all levels of enforcement responsibility, from acting as the lead agency to conduct a cleanup response to acting as a support agency. As with other EPA delegations of authority, a Tribe would have to demonstrate that it meets various requirements before it can assume such responsibility. The benefit to a Tribe of assuming a significant role in the cleanup process is the amount of control the Tribe would then have in ensuring the cleanup is done correctly and to standards acceptable to the Tribal community.
EPA contacts for the Superfund program include the following:
Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Response/On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs):
The National Response Center 1 (800) 424-8802
Seattle (24 hours) (206) 553-1263
Alaska, Carl Lautenberger (907) 271-4306
Matt Carr (907) 271-3616
Illegal Dumping
EPA Criminal Investigation Office (206) 553-8306
Patty Kelsch, Criminal Investigator in Alaska (907) 271-6626
Site Discovery, Preliminary Investigation and
Evaluation, Mark Ader (206) 553-1808
NPL Sites/Tribal Involvement, Christine Psyk (206) 553-1748
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) 42 U.S.C. 321 (1976)
RCRA (pronounced "rick-rah") gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes.
The 1984 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. RCRA focuses only on active and future facilities and does not address abandoned or historical sites (for inactive sites see CERCLA).
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA).
HSWA (pronounced "hiss-wa"), the 1984 amendments to RCRA, required phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste. Some of the other mandates of this strict law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.
Citizen Action and Participation.
Citizen participation is vital to solving the hazardous waste problem. RCRA and its 1984 amendments provide ongoing opportunities for public participation in all facets of implementation, enable citizens to take legal action against any individual or group involved in the mismanagement of hazardous waste, and require that citizens be notified about hazardous waste issues. RCRA includes provisions that:
Underground Storage Tanks.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) are responsible for leaking hazardous substances and petroleum products into the ground. RCRA regulations require states to monitor underground storage tanks (USTs). Tank owners must notify and register their tanks with state or local agencies. In addition, anyone who deposits petroleum or hazardous materials in an UST must inform the owner of his/her responsibilities (i.e. the driver of the truck which transports the material) and fill out a notification form. RCRA also specifies the type of tanks to be used. This is to assure leakage due to corrosion does not occur.
The law in Alaska regarding UST follows the federal law. If a person is caught violating the state provision, they are responsible just as if he/she violated the federal law. Everyone who was responsible at any time for the leaking materials is liable. For instance, the generator and transporter of the waste are just as responsible for the violation as the owner of the tank. A new owner of land, who is not even aware of the waste, is also equally liable as the previous owner. The only recourse is to sue someone else in the chain (i.e. the new owner can sue the previous owner who can sue the generator, etc.).
What This Means.
The chain of liability explained above can have grave consequences for an innocent buyer. Before acquiring any land a full inspection should be completed. It is necessary to assure there are no hazardous wastes present. If upon inspection wastes are found, do not purchase or volunteer to take the land unless and until you have thoroughly investigated the extent of the wastes and any potential liability you may have as a landowner and have made a conscious decision on full information that you still want the land. Be sure to contact EPA or one of the numbers listed in the reference section on this handbook before you make any decisions. Remember, be thorough; anyone who owns contaminated land is responsible for it and its cleanup.
The Clean Air Act is the comprehensive federal law which regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. This law authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and the environment. The goal of the Act was to set and achieve NAAQS in every state by 1975. The Act directed the states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs) to ensure the attainment of each NAAQS.
The Act was amended in 1977 primarily to set new goals (dates) for achieving attainment of NAAQS since many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, in large part, were intended to meet unaddressed or insufficiently addressed problems such as acid rain, ground level ozone, stratospheric ozone depletion, and air toxics.
Operating Permits.
The Clean Air Act requires all large sources of air pollution to apply for a permit to release pollutants into the air. Permits are to be issued by the states, but when a state fails to carry out this duty EPA issues the permits. The permits regulate the type and quantity of pollutants being released and establish monitoring and reporting requirements. Sources can only release pollutants in accord with their permit. Any source exceeding the permit limits is in violation of the Clean Air Act.
TRIBAL AIR QUALITY PROGRAMS.
EPA may delegate authority to tribes to implement and administer CAA programs in the same manner as states. Tribes can implement air quality programs or, if they choose, can allow EPA to do so. Examples of the types of activities which tribes can initially address include assessments of air problems, emission inventories, and building an infrastructure for administering more complex programs. Ultimately, tribes could undertake implementation plans to address air problems, permitting activities and oversight of air toxics regulations.
ASBESTOS.
Asbestos is one example of many pollutants specifically covered in the Clean Air Act. The presence of asbestos in buildings is regulated by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) as part of the CAA. Specific emission control requirements for milling, manufacturing and fabricating asbestos are set out in the standards. The NESHAP requires that each owner or operator of a facility or part of a facility thoroughly inspect the facility for the presence of asbestos before commencement of any demolition or renovation activity.
In addition to the CAA, the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires all tribal, public and private elementary and secondary schools to building materials containing asbestos, develop management plans and implement response action in a timely fashion.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO ENFORCE THE CAA.
If you are concerned that a source in your area is emitting too many air pollutants, contact EPA or the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. You can then find out if the source has a permit to pollute, and if so, to what extent the permit allows it to pollute. Some permits also include monitoring requirements, which can help you determine whether or not a source is in compliance with its permit.
If the source is in continuing violation of its permit (emitting more than EPA allows) then you have a right, under the CAA, to bring a suit. Section 7604 (42 U.S.C. § 7604) of the CAA gives affected citizens the right to sue any person or government instrumentality or agency for violating an emission standard or an order issued by the EPA or State. You can also sue the Administrator of EPA for failing to perform an act or duty required under the CAA. Finally, you can sue a new or modified facility operating without a permit.
The main restriction is that if you choose to sue the operator and the government is also suing, you may be precluded from bringing an action. This is applicable only if the government is diligently prosecuting a civil action. If such is the case, however, you can still intervene (be a party to the lawsuit on EPA's side) as a party to EPA's suit.
The goal of the CWA is the "restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Most states have legal authority to implement and enforce the provisions of the CWA, while EPA retains oversight responsibilities for most state water programs. Water quality standards, criteria to assure that streams are "fishable and swimmable," are set by each state, with EPA oversight and approval. State water pollution control agencies and EPA use these standards to set limits on the amounts of pollutants that can be discharged into surface waters. Questions dealing with specific bodies of water, monitoring surveys or permits should be directed to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Congress has authorized EPA to treat Tribes in a similar manner to states for Clean Water Act purposes. Tribes can then establish water quality standards, which can be no less stringent than federal standards, and conduct other activities as noted below.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES).
Polluters cannot discharge wastewater or other pollutants from point sources unless EPA specifically authorizes them to do so through an NPDES permit, which essentially is a license to pollute. These permits regulate discharges for everything from oil and gas production platforms to seafood processors to wastewater treatment plants. The purpose of the permits is to restore the "fishable and swimmable" quality of the Nation's waters by eliminating water pollution.
EPA is required to renew NPDES permits every 5 years so that pollution limits and technology requirements can be made more stringent, although EPA often misses this deadline. By setting this type of schedule, EPA should continually reduce pollution eventually achieving zero discharge of pollutants. In Alaska, EPA has the overall responsibility for issuing and implementing NPDES permits.
Through the Clean Water Act, Congress authorized EPA to allow Tribes to assume implementation and enforcement of the NPDES permitting system. For this purpose, Tribes are treated in a manner similar to states which desire to take over the NPDES program and must meet strict requirements before delegation of this authority can take place.
DREDGE AND FILL (Section 404).
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers share responsibility for regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including most wetlands. Waters of the U.S. include lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands and coastal waters. Wetlands are considered those areas which are saturated by water or flooded during certain times of the year. Wetlands provide fish and wildlife habitat, act as filters for pollution, offer flood protection and buffers against erosion and provide areas for recreation.
EPA provides Tribal wetlands protection grants to Federally recognized Tribes to support wetland protection programs. If you are interested in obtaining such a grant, you should contact Region 10 of the EPA.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO ENFORCE THE CWA.
The CWA provides citizens with an avenue to sue to uphold the purpose of the Act. If you believe an industry or individual is discharging pollutants into the water either without a permit or in violation of a permit report the incident to the EPA or DEC. If you or your community is affected by the illegal discharge you can sue to enforce an effluent standard or limitation.
The main restriction is that if you choose to sue the operator and the government is also suing, you may be precluded from bringing an action. This restriction applies only if the government is diligently prosecuting a civil action. All hope is not lost, however, as you can still intervene as a party to EPA's suit to protect your interests.
The SDWA directs EPA to establish minimum national drinking water standards. These standards set limits on the amounts of various substances sometimes found in drinking waters. Every public water supply in the country serving at least 15 service connections or 25 or more people must ensure that its water meets these minimum standards. Even non-community supplies, such as campgrounds and roadside motels with their own water supplies are covered by the regulations.
In 1986, amendments to the SDWA were passed. These amendments accelerated EPA's regulation of contaminants, banned all future use of lead pipe and lead solder in public drinking water systems, mandated greater protection of ground water sources of drinking water and streamlined enforcement procedures to ensure that suppliers comply with the Act.
The amendments gave EPA three years to set standards for 83 contaminants, including 26 for which it had already set enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). In addition, EPA must set MCLs for at least 25 more contaminants by 1991 and must regulate an additional 25 every three years thereafter. Enforcement of each new standard will begin 18 months after each new or revised standard is set.
Consumers have a right to know if their tap water is contaminated with toxics. Under the SDWA, community suppliers must include a notice with consumers' water bills or send another written notice to each consumer within three months after the public water system does any of the following:
1) Fails to comply with an applicable MCL.
2) Fails to comply with applicable testing or monitoring requirements.
3) Is granted a variance from an MCL
4) Fails to live up to a schedule of water supply improvement imposed by the EPA or the state.
If the system fails to meet an MCL, water suppliers must also publish a notice in the newspaper within fourteen days after discovery of failure and submit copies of the notice to local radio and TV outlets. The only exemption to these public notice rules is if the state finds that the public health threat was eliminated promptly after discovery.
In 1986, Congress authorized the EPA to treat federally recognized Tribes as states for the purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means that EPA can delegate to Tribes primary implementation and enforcement responsibility for the regulation of public water systems and underground injection control to Tribes. As with other environmental programs, Tribes must meet stringent requirements demonstrating their capability to handle such a program. EPA also offers financial and technical assistance to support this program.
EPA has both a Safe Drinking Water Hotline and an issues contact for Alaska Villages:
Safe Drinking Water Hotline 1-800-426-4791
Linda Huber (206) 553-6650
Alaska Villages SDWA Contact
COMMUNITY ORGANIZING.
ENFORCEMENT.
Environmental enforcement is a comprehensive program involving federal, state, local and tribal governments working together to enforce federal environmental laws. These laws set standards for what individuals and institutions must do to control or prevent pollution. Without enforcement, environmental laws would be just words on paper.
The term "enforcement" covers all efforts to encourage compliance with environmental laws. "Compliance" refers to the condition that exists when a person or company fully obeys the law.
The fundamental aim of enforcement is to convince those who are regulated that it is better to comply quickly than to wait until they are caught. Enforcement actions are used to compel a person or company to comply with the law. These actions include civil and criminal prosecution in courts, administrative orders, and other forms of action that take place after a violation has occurred. Although directed at a specific violator, enforcement causes a deterrent effect that motivates other people to comply.
Participation at the local level is extremely important in making the enforcement aspect possible. It is up to local residents to report violations of any environmental regulation. Local awareness of environmental laws is helpful in identifying violators. If you know or suspect someone or some company to be in violation of any environmental regulation contact EPA, an attorney, or one of the groups listed under the "For Further Information" of this handbook.
THE LEGAL PROCESS.
The legal system has its own set of rules and instructions on how to file a lawsuit, the standards for each type of lawsuit, time deadlines and any many other standards. In addition to those rules, environmental regulations often address lawsuits concerning enforcement. These environmental laws usually address who can sue, why someone can sue, what court a suit can be brought in, what the complainant must allege happened, and what remedies can be sought. Before bringing a lawsuit the applicable section for each regulation should be read and complied with. This will not only make your role easier, but it will help ensure the suit will not be dismissed.
To determine how your community should go about starting a lawsuit consult the community organizing section of this handbook. This section will provide the tools your community needs to fight violators of environmental regulations.
Introduction
Did you know that of the 70,000 chemicals currently in commercial use, the U.S. National Institute of Health Sciences has information on the health effects of only 10-20%? The government often depends on health effects studies by chemical manufacturers, a practice that may be likened to the proverbial fox watching the hen house.
This chapter gives a brief summary of three categories of toxics:
I. metals;
II. petroleum-related compounds; and
III. organochlorines.
We also describe some of the more notorious contaminants within each of the categories. At the end of the chapter, we provide information on how to do your own research to get more information on toxic and radioactive contaminants and their health effects.
As Maria Pellarano of the Environmental Research Foundation says in How to Research Chemicals: A Resource Guide: "Knowing how to research chemicals gives us power... When you research a chemical you can find answers to questions such as: what are the components of the chemical; what other names the chemical has; what are the known health effects to humans, plants and animals from the chemical; what kinds of studies have been done on the chemical; how long the chemical lasts in the environment; if the chemical reacts with water or air; what regulations control the use of this chemical; and how to fight a fire that involves this chemical."
Don't be intimidated when agency or industry representatives start throwing around words with names you can't pronounce--get the facts for yourself! Check information with more than one source. Seek reputable scientists that you feel comfortable working with to make independent assessments of agency or industry studies. Conduct a community-based sampling program or health survey using local knowledge and medical and scientific experts as needed. Above all, trust your knowledge and perceptions.
Be wary of ecological and health risk assessments. Sampling data are often obtained from contractors in the service of the polluters. Assumptions used in risk assessment models are simplistic. Risk assessments generally cannot account for synergistic effects of chemical mixtures or the fact that different people have differing exposure sensitivities. While risk assessment may estimate the risk for cancer, many other health effects, such as neurological, behavioral, and reproductive effects, are not adequately considered. Extrapolating toxicity data based on animal experiments to humans may underestimate risks. Risk assessment numbers are based on probabilities, not realities. While risk assessment is often touted by agencies and industry as a scientific process, it is at best a crude game of guesswork. It is not safe to rely on risk assessments when environmental and human health is at stake.
The terms trace metals, heavy metals, and toxic metals are used interchangeably to describe an assemblage of metallic elements, many of which can be hazardous if taken in great enough amounts into the body with air, water, or food.
"Trace" metals: metals present either in the environment or human body, normally in very low concentrations, such as copper, iron, and zinc.
"Heavy" metals: trace metals with densities at least five times greater than water, such as cadmium, lead, and mercury.
"Toxic" metals: metals whose concentrations are considered harmful in the environment or within the body.
Although metals have always been present in the earth, humans have significantly altered the distribution and increased mobilization of metals in the environment. Greater possibilities for environmental and human exposure to toxic metals have resulted from mining, burning of oil and coal, ore smelting, incineration, cement manufacturing, pesticide production, electroplating, landfill failure, and acidification of water from industrial air emissions. Metals never degrade and can always become remobilized in the environment if buried in landfills, incinerated, or attached to sediments.
We need small quantities of metals in our diets to maintain health. Certain metal deficiencies can cause illness. For example, iron deficiency causes anemia. Some metals, such as molybdenum, are necessary for good health in trace amounts, but can become toxic in larger doses. Excessive exposure causes gout. Some metals, such as lead, have no known functions in the human body and any exposure may be harmful. Toxicity of such metals as lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic may be reduced if a person has a selenium-rich diet (e.g. with traditional marine foods such as whale skin).
Arctic haze, a brownish blanket of air pollution that infiltrates the Arctic primarily in winter, was first reported in the scientific literature in 1957. Arctic haze was the first major indication of the vulnerability of the Arctic to pollution originating from distant sources. The first analyses of arctic haze, begun in 1976, revealed industrial pollutants including heavy metals such as vanadium, and high sulphate levels. The haze extends from ground level to at least 18,000 feet and sometimes to the top of the troposphere at 25,000 feet. It wraps halfway around the circumpolar region from Alaska eastward to Norway.
Arctic haze originates as industrial pollution from Europe and western and central Asia. Important sources include smelting (significant source of cadmium, lead, nickel, arsenic, copper, selenium, and zinc); coal burning (major source of mercury, arsenic, chromium, and selenium); and oil combustion (major source of vanadium and nickel); waste incineration (important source of mercury, cadmium, arsenic, and zinc). Mines can be a significant local and regional source of heavy metal pollution in soil, air, and water.
The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) has identified mercury, cadmium, and lead as the major heavy metals of concern. AMAP is part of a larger effort by the circumpolar nations to develop an international system of environmental protection, the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. The Draft 1997 AMAP report states that these three metals may be present in some regions of the Arctic that may threaten environmental and human health.
Cadmium is a rare metal which is mined with and chemically similar to zinc. It is resistant to corrosion and used to galvanize metals, as a pigment in plastics and paints, in batteries, solder, and as a catalyst. The most significant sources of cadmium contamination to the atmosphere are fossil fuel burning, municipal and medical waste incineration. Industrial processes and improper disposal of cadmium-containing waste are the most significant sources in air, water, and sediments.
Cadmium enters the food chain from atmospheric deposition and leaching into soil and water. Food contributes 80-90% of the cadmium dose received by most people. Cadmium, present in pesticides, paints and pigments, plastics, and cigarettes, can also contaminate food. Communities near mining operations for zinc or lead; galvanizing, battery production, and other industries should be concerned about exposure to cadmium through food, air, soil, and water.
Chronic exposure to cadmium may cause kidney and liver disease, emphysema, bronchitis, anemia, depressed immune system function, and weakening of bone. Epidemiological research indicates that chronic exposure to low levels of cadmium can cause cancer, especially cancer of the lung and prostate. Cadmium accumulates in the body throughout a person's life.
Lead is a common metal that has been mined for over 5,000 years. It can cause severe health effects at low levels, especially in children. Gasoline additives containing lead have created a contamination problem of global proportion. Other sources of lead to the environment include mining, batteries, lead-based paint, ammunition, solder, incineration, and chemical fertilizers. Over 43% of the hazardous waste sites in the U.S. contain prevalent sources of lead, resulting in groundwater contamination from almost half of these lead-containing sites.
Present day background concentrations of lead are three to five orders of magnitude greater than in prehistoric times, even in remote areas. Lead concentrations measured in the Greenland ice sheet establish an historical record of atmospheric deposition--present concentrations of lead are 300 times that of pre-industrial times.
Lead can enter the body through food, air inhalation, or contaminated water. For children, accidental ingestion of lead-based paint chips from peeling paint and contaminated soil near industrial or waste sites remains a serious health threat. Restrictions on the use of lead-based gasoline have caused dramatic declines in emissions of lead to the atmosphere. Between 1976, the year of peak emission levels, and 1991, lead emissions have declined more than 94%. Leaded pipe and soldered welds in pipes can contribute harmful levels of lead to drinking water.
Lead causes severe health effects at low levels in the body. It affects the nervous system and may cause irreversible brain damage and injury to the blood-forming system. Lead tends to accumulate in bone because it behaves like calcium. Lead in bones may mobilize into the bloodstream when people are calcium-deficient or when they require high calcium levels, as in pregnant women. Lead has no known physiological function in the human body.
Children are particularly at high risk because of their greater likelihood of exposure and because harmful effects appear at lower blood levels. Pregnant women are also at high risk because lead can pass to the fetus and damage the developing nervous system. Lead can also induce miscarriage. Before 1979, scientists thought that blood levels less than 25 micrograms per deciliter did not cause health problems. Researchers have since discovered behavioral effects of lead and reduced IQ in children caused by lead at increasingly levels as low as 10-15 micrograms per deciliter.
Mercury is the familiar silvery liquid found in thermometers. It is the only metal that is liquid at room temperature. When exposed to air, liquid mercury evaporates easily into mercury vapor. Mercury vapor can be inhaled and absorbed into the bloodstream. Mercury compounds can be even more dangerous. Paints, anti-mildew agents, electrical equipment, and batteries contain inorganic mercury which is easily converted by bacteria into the far more hazardous organic (carbon-based) forms of mercury. Methylmercury is the best known and most important of these forms. It is readily concentrated by fish and other aquatic organisms, increasing in concentration (biomagnifying) in higher levels of the food chain, including humans. Certain carnivorous fishes, such as the northern pike, can accumulate mercury at levels 10,000-100,000 times the concentration in surrounding waters.
Exposure to mercury results primarily from inhalation of mercury vapor or eating food contaminated with methylmercury. Mercury is found in greatest concentrations near mines, smelters, solid waste incinerators, and fossil fuel plants. Workers and people living near these facilities may be exposed to greater than average mercury levels. In Alaska, cinnabar ore mines and retorting sites have leached mercury into the environment.
Acidification of surface waters by acid rain may increase levels of methylmercury into the environment. Global warming and ozone depletion may lead to greater levels of mercury in freshwater fishes, by increasing the levels of mercury deposition and rate of conversion to methylmercury, respectfully.
Mercury is capable of causing severe brain damage in developing fetuses and nervous system damage in children and adults. The expression "mad as a hatter" comes from the mental disorders that occurred in workers who made felt hats, a manufacturing process that once used mercury. Mercury also suppresses the immune system.
Seafood is now the largest source of exposure. Exposure to methylmercury in fish and fish products is the greatest source of mercury exposure (94%). Methylmercury poisoning is also known as "Minimata disease" because of the first major poisoning incident from industrial contamination of fish in Minimata, Japan that first occurred in the 1950s. The chemical factory that caused the poisoning made vinyl chloride. Forty people died and many more suffered from cerebral palsy as a result of the poisoning.
Several groups of people in the north, including Inuit in northern Greenland, and Inuit and Cree in the eastern Canadian Arctic, have mercury in their blood at levels known to cause neurological damage. Recent dietary surveys establish that 29% of eastern Canadian Inuit women surveyed ingest foods with mercury levels that are greater than World Health Organization "tolerable daily intake recommendations."
Crude oil is a complex mixture of organic compounds (carbon-based) and inorganic compounds (non-carbon based substances such as heavy metals and sulphur). The organic compounds are called hydrocarbons because they are composed of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons are further classified into two general categories: aliphatic hydrocarbons and aromatic hydrocarbons.
Aromatic compounds contain one or more "benzene" (see diagram) rings in their structures. They often have an easily detectable odor. Aromatic compounds are generally toxic and many are cancer-causing. These include such compounds as: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (often abbreviated collectively as the BTEX compounds because they usually occur together). Naphthalene, the active ingredient in mothballs and toilet bowl deodorizers, is another aromatic compound that is also a frequently occurring contaminant. Aromatic hydrocarbons containing more than one benzene ring are called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, abbreviated as PAHs. Of all the contaminants associated with petroleum production, PAHs cause the greatest risk to the environment and human health. The structure of aliphatic compounds is chain-like rather than the ring structure of aromatic compounds. Many of the hydrocarbons, such as benzene, propylene, butylenes, toluene, and xylene are the base chemicals used in the manufacture of industrial solvents and plastics.
Benzene is the simplest of the myriad compounds containing the benzene ring. It is derived from oil and coal. It is a clear, colorless and volatile liquid at room temperature. It is the basis of many synthetic chemicals, including paints, resins, solvents, cleaners, asphalt, explosives, pesticides, and plastics. It is both a constituent and additive of jet fuels and gasoline. Benzene is used as a replacement for lead in boosting octane levels of unleaded fuels.
Benzene is a significant constituent of emissions from motor vehicles, as well as chemical manufacturing, and petroleum production and refining. It often is found in groundwater contaminated from leaching of hazardous waste sites and underground fuel storage tanks. It enters surface waters through industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. Benzene persists in groundwater because it cannot easily evaporate or degrade underground.
Workers in petroleum and coal industries are exposed to benzene in the workplace. If chronically exposed, these workers face substantial risk of contracting and dying of leukemia. Inhalation of benzene causes upper respiratory irritation, pulmonary edema, and respiratory hemorrhaging. Acute exposure depresses the central nervous system, resulting in headaches, dizziness, nausea, convulsions, and possibly death. Chronic exposure to benzene can cause blood diseases as anemia and disruption of red and white blood cell production in bone marrow. Benzene can also cause chromosomal damage and leukemia. Benzene is on the EPA's Community Right-to-Know list. EPA prohibits land disposal of benzene under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Toluene is distilled from crude oil and shares properties with other petroleum-derived aromatic compounds such as benzene and xylene. Its vapors are heavier than air and readily ignitable. This makes it a useful additive for gasoline and as a constituent of explosives such as TNT. It is produced in great surplus by oil refining as a by-product, which has led to the search for new uses for toluene. It is removed in the refining process, then often mixed back in gasoline as an anti-knock compound. Toluene is released into the air in significant quantities from refineries and petroleum-burning engines. It is used in detergents, dyes, lacquers, glues, adhesives, pharmaceuticals, and inks.
Most human exposure to toluene results from breathing contaminated air. Leaking hazardous waste dumps and fuel tanks can cause groundwater contamination of toluene, as well as benzene. Toluene wastes dumped by the petrochemical industry into coastal rivers and wetlands has resulted in contamination levels in Gulf Coast waters that far exceeds natural background levels.
Toluene can depress the central nervous system and damage the liver and kidneys. Symptoms may include: fatigue, weakness, confusion, dizziness, temporary euphoria, headaches, and skin irritation. Toluene is on the EPA Community-Right-to-Know list, is restricted under RCRA, and is one of the Clean Water Act's 129 priority pollutants.
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death."
--Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, 1962
Organochlorines are substances containing chemically-combined chlorine and hydrocarbons. Chlorine is generated by separating the sodium and chlorine atoms in salt, a process requiring great amounts of electrical energy. Many of organochlorine substances are produced by reacting chlorine gas with petroleum hydrocarbons. There are approximately 11,000 organochlorines in commerce, including plastics, pesticides, solvents, and refrigerants. Many other organochlorines are by-products of chlorine-based industries, such as bleaching of pulp for paper and other products, waste incineration, wastewater disinfection, and chemical manufacturing. These by-products include dioxins and furans, some of the most extremely toxic and persistent of the organochlorines.
With broad public support and scientific documentation, many governments now recognize the urgent need for a phase-out of organochlorine chemicals and the chlorine-based processes that produce them. Evidence shows that these chemicals, hundreds or thousands of which are accumulating in the global environment, pose serious threats to the health of people, wildlife, and the larger ecosystem. While organochlorines are not the only pollutants of concern, they dominate government lists of "priority" pollutants because they tend to be extremely persistent, toxic, and ubiquitous. Many are bioaccumulative: they concentrate in fatty tissues and increase in concentration as they move up the food chain. Alternatives are available for all major uses of chlorine and organochlorines. The hazards that organochlorines pose to our health and the environment are unnecessary. We cannot afford to ban each chemical one-by-one when the entire class of chlorine-based compounds is extraordinarily harmful.
Organochlorines are largely foreign to nature, although a variety of organochlorines are produced by algae, fungi, and other plants, in minute quantities and largely for chemical defense. Only one the simplest organochlorine, chloromethane, occurs in significant quantities. Chloromethane is produced by marine algae and may play a role as a natural regulator of the ozone layer. No organochlorines are known to occur naturally in the tissues of humans, other mammals or terrestrial vertebrates.
Many organochlorines are very stable, meaning they persist in the environment for decades or centuries. Once released, these chemicals accumulate in the environment, distributed by air and water throughout the world. Organochlorines, also known as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), tend to deposit to a greater extent in cold regions. This phenomenon, "global distillation," partly accounts for the unexpectedly high organochlorine concentrations found in Arctic wildlife and people.
As a result of large-scale production of organochlorines over the past 50 years, these compounds have steadily accumulated in the global environment. Hundreds of these chemicals are now present in the air, water, and food web absolutely everywhere on the planet. Humans, at the top of the food chain, are now contaminated with organochlorines at levels thousands or millions of times greater than levels in the environment.
Exposure and Effects of Organochlorine Contaminants
People are exposed to organochlorines in a number of ways, but most (over 90%) of the human exposure comes from the food that we eat. Foods rich in fats, such as fish, meat, and dairy products contain the highest levels of organochlorine contaminants. Fruits and vegetables sprayed with organochlorine pesticides may also contain high levels. Other organochlorines may enter the body through inhalation, especially those that are ubiquitous in air, such as chlorinated solvents. Pesticides, solvents, and by-products of chlorination are also widespread in ground and surface waters. People who live and work near industries that use chlorine and organochlorines bear greater and more immediate exposures.
At least 177 organochlorine chemicals have been identified in the fat, breast milk, blood, semen, and breath of the general population of the U.S. and Canada and many more are present that have not been identified. Organochlorines accumulated in the body are transferred from one generation to the next, across the placenta and through breast feeding, during the most sensitive life stages. Damage to genetic material in egg and sperm from certain organochlorine contaminants are passed to future generations.
Organochlorine chemicals tend to be highly toxic at low levels. Although the effects vary among the organochlorine compounds, they cause a wide range of effects, including genetic mutations, cancer, birth defects, hormonal disruption, immune system suppression, neurotoxicity, impaired childhood development, infertility, and damage to kidney, liver, nervous system, and and skin. No industrial organochlorines are known to be non-toxic.
A growing body of evidence links persistent organochlorine contaminants to large-scale ecological disruptions and effects on human health. Epidemics of reproductive, developmental, and immunological impairment among numerous species of reptiles, birds, fish, and marine mammals have been attributed to the accumulation of organochlorine chemicals.
Effects of Organochlorines on the Endocrine System
Our endocrine system integrates and regulates many bodily functions, especially growth and development, brain function, and behavior. It is a sensitive and complex signalling system of glands located in various parts of the body. Small quantities of chemical messengers, or hormones, are released from the brain, thyroid, ovaries, testes, and other glands. Healthy functioning of the endocrine system is especially crucial in guiding the development of babies.
Substances such as PCBs, dioxin, pesticides, and other industrial chemicals, primarily organochlorines, act as endocrine disruptors because they mimic or block hormones and interfere with the normal functioning of the body's endocrine system. Endocrine disruptors can have a profound impact on the ability of wildlife and humans to reproduce and develop.
In the recent and important book, Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival?, authors Theo Colburn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers document extensive evidence of the devastating effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on wildlife populations and humans. The authors chronicle the precipitous die-offs of seals, dolphins, and porpoises in the Baltic and North Seas, the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. "The dead animals showed weakened immune systems, and those examined carried high levels of contaminants such as PCBs..." Colburn and her co-authors offer compelling evidence that reproductive failure, genital abnormalities, attention deficit disorders, low sperm counts, and hormonally-triggered cancers, such as breast and prostate cancer, are linked with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The authors provide disturbing evidence that abnormalities of the immune system of children in Inuit children of the Canadian high Arctic may be connected with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Babies in this area ingest seven times more PCBs than babies in southern Canada because their mothers’ milk contains high concentrations. Current concentrations of organochlorine contaminants in several Arctic birds amd marine mammals are close to or exceed levels known to cause suppression of the immune system and neurotoxic effects.
|
Herbicides and Fungicides 2,4,-D 2,4,5-T Alachlor Amitrole Atrazine Metribuzen Nitrofen Trifluralin Benomyl Mancozeb Zineb Metiram-complex Maneb Ziram Tributyl tin Hexachlorobenzene
|
Insecticides
beta-HCH Methoxychlor Toxaphene DDT and metabolites Carbaryl Endosulfan Mirex Transnonachlor Chlordane Oxychlordane Dicofol Heptachlor and Heptachlorepoxide Dieldrin Parathion Methomyl Lindane (gamma-HCH) Synthetic pyrethroids Chlordecone |
Nematocides
Aldicarb DBCP |
Dioxins PCBs PBBs Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Penta- to nonyl phenols Phthalates Styrenes |
(dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane)
DDT was produced commercially during World War II, a time when several insect-borne diseases were killing many American soldiers. DDT became "vital to the war effort," according to the U.S. military, and millions of soldiers and refugees were dusted with DDT to prevent malaria and typhus. Once heralded as a miracle chemical, DDT was implicated in the precipitous decline of eagles, osprey, peregrine falcons, and brown pelican populations resulting from reproductive problems such as egg-shell thinning. In humans and other mammals, DDT is toxic to the nervous system, causes reproductive disorders, and promotes cancer.
DDT was first detected in Arctic fish and wildlife about 30 years ago, indicating that the pesticide had spread throughout the globe. The U.S. banned its use in 1972. Although DDT levels have dropped, DDT continues to be detected in foods, wildlife and humans. "...DDT, a quarter-century after it was banned, is still in the blood of virtually all Americans, even in children who have inherited it through the placenta and breast milk." In the Arctic, levels of DDT/DDE are not declining as they are at temperate latitudes. The concentration of DDE, a break-down product of DDT, is four- to five-fold higher in breast milk of Inuit women of northern Quebec than in southern Canada. DDT use continues in Asia, Africa, and Central and South America. Levels of DDT continue to be high in certain migratory birds, possibly exposed along migratory pathways in Mexico and other southern wintering areas. In Alaska, DDT and DDE (a break-down product of DDT) are found in soils surrounding military bases that used or stored the insecticide.
(polychlorinated biphenyls)
PCB is an abbreviation for a class of chemicals with 209 individual compounds, their toxicity varying with the degree of chlorination and position of the chlorine atoms on the basic structure., Arochlor is the name of some commericial PCB mixtures in the U.S. PCBs are valued for industrial applications because they are resistant to degradation, a quality that also makes them detrimental to the environment. They have low flammability and are thus used in insulating and cooling transformers, capacitators, and for lubricants and hydraulic fluids.
After considerable public pressure about the environmental and human health hazards of PCBs, the EPA began to restrict the manufacture, trade, transportation, and disposal of PCBs in the mid-1970s. PCBs continue to be released into the environment from poorly maintained toxic waste sites or dumping of transformer fluids. In Alaska, most of the Distant Early Warning (DEW Line) sites and other military communications sites and bases have been contaminated with PCBs. The DEW Line system of stations, designed to detect enemy missiles, consisted of 63 stations along the parallel at 66 degrees latitude in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. Thirty tons of PCBs from the DEW Line stations have been disposed at the sites.
All forms of PCBs are highly toxic, although the health effects vary with the commercial mixture. Toxicity generally increases with the degree of chlorination of the compound. PCBs adversely affect the immune and reproductive systems, cause liver damage and possibly liver cancer. Studies show that mothers with high levels of PCBs have children with low birth weights. PCBs have a detrimental effect on development and behavior in children.
(2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD,
the most toxic form of a group of highly toxic and persistent chemicals)
Dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals produced by humans, is a by-product in the manufacturing of certain herbicides (for example, 2,4,5-T) and plastics, paper bleaching, incineration of wastes, cement kilns, metal smelters, and oil refining. EPA identifies garbage and medical waste incineration as the largest source of dioxin, with PVC (polyvinyl chloride) plastic as the primary source of chlorine in the wastes. Dioxin (TCDD) is the toxic constituent of Agent Orange, the herbicide used by the U.S. to defoliate vast areas of the jungle during the Vietnam War.
Times Beach, Missouri is a community that has suffered the effects of severe dioxin contamination. As one resident said: "I cringe when someone says 'dioxin never hurt anybody.' Dioxin has harmed everybody who has come in contact with it. For us it has meant red-lining by insurance companies, a type of forced bankruptcy, loss of property values, community, neighbors, friends, identity and security, and, most of all, loss of our health."
Dioxin is a powerful cancer-causing agent. "The 1994 EPA draft reassessment for dioxin's effects estimated that the levels of dioxin-like compounds found in the general population may cause a lifetime cancer risk between one in 10,000 and one in 1,000. This is 100-1000 times higher than the risk level of one in a million that is deemed acceptable in certain regulations... Dioxin causes reproductive and developmental effects in animals at very low doses. Dioxin exposure damages the immune system, leading to increased susceptibility to infectious disease."
Over 90% of the dioxin exposure for humans occurs through the food that we eat. Higher exposures come from eating meat and dairy products. Each person has dioxin within their body. Adverse health effects can occur with concentrations of dioxin just ten times that currently found in the general population.
Many other organochlorine contaminants are concentrating in the Arctic, transported via air and ocean currents from distant southern sources. Toxaphene is an insecticide, now banned in the U.S., that was used to kill insects on cotton crops. It is used in Mexico and Central America. Toxaphene is one of the most prevalent pesticides in Arctic wildlife. A 1991 study estimated that 32 metric tons of toxaphene per year are depositing in the Arctic. Toxaphene is recognized as an organochlorine of major concern. Lindane (gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane or HCH) is a pesticide used to treat seed, lumber, and produce. It is an endocrine disruptor and promotes cancer. Polar bears from the Bering and Chukchi Seas contain the highest levels of HCH in the Arctic, indicating continuing input from Asia.
A broad-based grassroots movement of community activists, health care workers, labor leaders, scientists, and others are working to eliminate the threat of toxic exposures and environmental degradation from organochlorine contamination. We must ensure that the clean-up of hazardous waste sites does not result in harmful exposure to people in an another area. Working together, we can eliminate toxic pollution by ensuring clean production technologies.
While this is a short overview of the basic chemistry, sources, problems and health effects of metals, petroleum-related compounds, and organochlorine contaminants, anyone wanting to focus on the contaminants in their own communities will need to do further research.
We have found the following publications, organizations, and Internet connections useful in obtaining information that sheds light on environmental and health effects of toxic and radioactive contaminants, as well as ideas for alternative clean-up technologies that prevent further damage to the environment, and clean production technologies. While not meant to be an exhaustive list, this will hopefully take you a long way. All of the following publications are available in the Alaska Community Action on Toxics resource library.
A. Publications
Bertell, R. No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. Summertown: The Book Publishing Company, 1985.
An important source of information that reveals the military's secrets about the nuclear industry and health effects of low-level radiation.
Bullard, Robert, ed. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston: South End Press, 1993.
A powerful book of essays written by and about people of color that are fighting environmental racism.
Chivian, E. et.al. Critical Condition: Human Health and the Environment. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1993.
A report by the Physicians for Social Responsibility on the health consequences of environmental degradation.
Colburn, T., D. Dumanoski, and J.P. Myers. Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? New York: Dutton, 1996.
An important book on the effects of synthetic chemicals on reproduction and development in wildlife and humans.
Dadd, Debra D. Non-Toxic, Natural and Earthwise: How to Protect Yourself and Your Family from Harmful Products and Live in Harmony with the Earth. NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1990.
A book that provides a buyer’s guide for non-toxic products available through retail and mail order sources.
Gibbs, L. Dying from Dioxin: A Citizen's Guide to Reclaiming Our Health and Rebuilding Democracy. Boston: South End Press, 1996.
An essential book on the politics and science of dioxin, and an inspirational resource for grassroots organizing to protect our health.
Greenpeace publications concerning toxics/environmental and human health:
Body of Evidence: The Effects of Chlorine on Human Health, 1995.
Chlorine, Human Health, and the Environment: The Breast Cancer Warning, 1993.
Nuclear Flashback: Report of a Greenpeace Scientific Expedition to Amchitka Island, Alaska--Site of the Largest Underground Nuclear Test in U.S. History, 1996
The Product is the Poison: The Case for A Chlorine Phase-out, 1991.
The Burning Question: Chlorine and Dioxin, April 1997
The PVC Lifecycle: Dioxin from Cradle to Grave, April 1997
Harker, Donald and Elizabeth Unger Natter. Where We Live: A Citizen’s Guide to Conducting a Community Environmental Inventory. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1995.
A resource workbook to help people find information concerning their local environment and to use it in developing strategies to protect environmental health.
Harte, J. et.al. Toxics A to Z: A Guide to Everyday Pollution Hazards. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
A good basic, understandable, and comprehensive guide to the environmental and health effects of over 100 toxic substances.
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Radioactive Heaven and Earth: the Health and Environmental Effects of Nuclear Weapons Testing In, On, and Above the Earth. New York: Apex Press, 1991.
This book provides an excellent review of the public health and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons testing.
Jorgensen, E. ed. The Poisoned Well: New Strategies for Groundwater Protection. Washington: Island Press, 1989.
This book offers technical information, organizing and legal strategies for protection of groundwater.
Legator, M.S. and S.F. Strawn. Chemical Alert! A Community Action Handbook. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993.
This book offers strategies for communities to conduct health surveys and a summary of known health hazards.
May, J. The Greenpeace Book of the Nuclear Age: The Hidden History and Human Cost. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989.
This book discloses a comprehensive record of nuclear accidents and radiation incidents, many of which have been kept secret by the military and nuclear industry.
Metal of Dishonor: Depleted Uranium (DU)—How the Pentagon Radiates Soldiers and Civilians with DU Weapons. NY: International Action Center, 1997.
This book includes essays that discuss the new generation of radioactive weapons, the connection of DU to Gulf War Syndrome, and information on an international movement to ban DU weapons.
Pellarano, M.B. How to Research Chemicals: A Resource Guide. Environmental Research Foundation, June 1995.
Available for $10 from the Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, Maryland 21403-7036, Telephone: (410) 263-1584; Fax: (410) 263-8944; E-Mail: erf@rachel.clark.net
An excellent, indispensable source that covers how to conduct research on the toxic effects of chemicals for non-scientists.
Steingraber, Sandra. Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment. Addison-Wesley, 1997.
A beautifully written and scrupulously researched book that provides an account of the growing body of evidence linking many forms of cancer with environmental contamination.
Steinman, D. and R.M. Wisner. 1996. Living Healthy in a Toxic World. New York: Perigee, 1996.
This book offers practical advise about reducing the hazards of toxics in your home and community.
Strategy Recommendations from the Third Citizens' Conference on Dioxin and Other Synthetic Hormone Disruptors. Taking Action to Stop Dioxin Exposure, March 1996.
Available from Center for Health, Environment, and Justice for $10. Call (703) 237-2249.
An extraordinary proceedings from an important conference, this book provides essential information on strategies to stop dioxin exposure.
Wargo, J. Our Children's Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us From Pesticides. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.
This book provides a comprehensive review of pesticide regulation and the failures of science and law to prevent toxic exposures to pesticides that threaten our health.
For connecting with organizations working for environmental justice, get this directory:
The People of Color Environmental Groups Directory
This is much more than a directory. It provides an annotated bibliography of publications on environmental justice, profiles of environmental justices organizations, and ways to access technical and legal support.
Available from: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, 1200 Mott Foundation Building, Flint, Michigan, (810) 766-1766. The People of Color Environmental Groups Directory is also available on the web through the EcoJustice website (www.igc.apc.org/envjustice/)
For organizing strategies and basics on non-violent direct action:
Handbook for Non-Violent Action and War Resister's League Organizer's Manual, available from the War Resister's League, 339 LaFayette Street, NY, NY 10012; (212) 228-0450
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Pamela Miller, Program Director
135 Christensen Drive, Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
phone: (907) 222-7714; fax (907) 222-7715; E-Mail acat@akcf.org
Provides computer maps from a geographic information system (GIS) mapping project to develop a comprehensive database of contaminated sites in Alaska. Works with communities in Alaska to eliminate the sources of toxic pollution from military and industrial sources that threaten environmental and human health. Can supply copies of the publications listed above and others.
Center for Health, Environment, and Justice
(formerly Citizens' Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste)
P.O. Box 6806
Falls Church, Virginia 22040
phone: (703) 237-2249; fax (703) 237-8389; E-mail cchw@essential.org
Publishes "Everyone's Backyard: the Journal of the Grassroots Movement for Environmental Justice" and many other effective organizing and information sources.
Chemical Weapons Working Group
coordinated by the Kentucky Environmental Foundation
Elizabeth Crowe
P.O. Box 467
Berea, Kentucky 40403
phone: (606) 986-0868; fax: (606) 986-2695
email: kefwilli@asc.eku.edu
website: http://www.cwwg.org
CWWG is a network of organizations and individuals working to ensure safe disposal methods for chemical weapons.
Citizens' Environmental Laboratory (CEL)
Dr. Fred Youngs, Director and Senior Scientist
160 Second Avenue
Cambridge, Mas