Facility Siting and Health Questions: The Burden of Health Risk Certainty

Dr. James M. Melius

James M. Melius is Chief, Hazard Evaluations & Technical Assistance Branch, NIOSH, in Cincinnati, Ohio.

I am going to speak about the mismanagement of hazardous waste and its effect on public health. The Superfund and other sites I will be discussing illustrate the variety of unanticipated incidents to occur at hazardous waste sites over the last several years.

Cousin to Love Canal, the Hyde Park landfill near Buffalo, New York, was operated by Hooker Chemical, and handled various wastes, including dioxins and pesticides from manufacturing plants in the Buffalo/Niagara Falls area. The landfill was located near an industrial complex, Niagara University, a residential area, and, most importantly, a small creek. After a rain storm, water would leak out of the facility and leach up out of the ground into what was appropriately called Bloody Run Creek, and flow through a little swampy area into the industrial and residential areas nearby. The sediment in the creek after several years of operation contained the pesticides myrex and lindane, and traces of dioxin. The waste eventually migrated all the way to the Niagara River and caused a significant contamination problem that has not yet been remedied.

In our health impact study of the site, we focused primarily on the industrial population. We were able to demonstrate that toxic waste material had migrated into neighboring manufacturing plants through a system of culverts and a diversion of Bloody Run Creek. Although no dioxin was found beyond the creek bed and drains, we found surfaces in most plants contaminated with pesticides and other materials.

It is not clear to what extent there was contamination in the residential area. Amidst a great deal of political and media pressure, we conducted a health study of residents and workers in the nearby industrial facilities. We found no major medical problems directly attributable to exposure from the landfill, but there are still questions of long-term health effects and unknown risks. Contamination was sufficient to recommend a complete cleanup, but the usual long-term risks will continue to concern the residents and workers inadvertently exposed to the chemicals. A series of lawsuits has been brought through which a determination of significant contamination to the area residents will be made.

We became involved a few years ago with the Rollins Environmental Facility in Louisiana. Also a landfill, this facility received petroleum, refinery, and other chemical wastes from the area. An Allied Chemical plant manufacturing various organic chemicals was nearby, and a low in come residential area was across the road. The landfill had been operating for a number of years with an increasing number of residential complaints of dermatitis, irritation, and other health problems. We began our investigation after the workers at the Allied Chemical plant complained of similar problems. Employees also reported a high incidence [15 ELR 10243] of dermatitis and chronic upper respiratory problems, which they claimed were caused by dust from the landfill. Allied had carefully monitored its own facility, so contamination from its production of organic chemicals had been virtually ruled out.

The Rollins facility used a process by which petroleum wastes were pumped into the ground and then tilled into the soil. We demonstrated that the dust from the operation contained significant concentrations of polynuclear aeromatic compounds (carcinogens that also come from coke ovens and are extremely irritating), to account for the reported health problems. What began as a nuisance complaint of dust from the landfill revealed a very real chemical harm. When bulldozers and other earth-moving equipment were operated, enough contaminated dust was generated to cause the intermittent complaints from the workers and residents of the area.

Water contamination is one of the most frequent contamination problems, and the one for which the most control technology has been developed. A few years ago I sat on an expert panel in Muskegon, Michigan to review data collected by the state on water contamination from another Hooker Chemical facility there. The plant was producing hexachlorocyclopentadiene or C-56, a toxic chemical found in Love Canal and also in the Louisville sewers a few years ago. The Hooker Chemical plant and several of the dye manufacturing plants nearby had contaminated the are's major aquifer. This had happened quite readily and was easily explained, given the local geology. The water table in the area was fairly high, and the soil very sandy, so that any material pumped into the ground percolated down into the water supply and stayed there for many years.

It has been difficult to identify the amount of contamination in the Muskegon area and to prevent the contamination from spreading into Lake Michigan. A water treatment plant costing over $1 million has been built to clean up the waste from the Hooker facility and treat it before the aquifer enters Lake Michigan. Water contamination from chemical facilities can easily occur, and, depending on the hydrology and geology of the particular area, pose a serious health threat. Florida is very susceptible to this type of spill and its widespread water contamination.

I was first involved in studying the effects of hazardous waste at a chemical control plant in Elizabeth, New Jersey. The facility originally operated primarily as a transfer station with only limited on-site treatment. That function was gradually expanded, however, until 1979 when the site was finally taken over by the state, and a cleanup begun. The facility is located off Newark Bay near a residential area and a major water body. Until the occurrence of the incident I am about to describe, people actually fished near the site. Over 40,000 55-gallon drums were piled on-site.Most were unlabeled, while the remainder contained small, unclear warnings reading "Pumpable Chlorinated" or "Carbolic Acid Corrosive — Caution — Cancer Suspect Agent."

As you may remember, four years ago the facility caught fire, and the drums burned for 24 hours. Arson was suspected, but I don't believe the cause of the fire was ever determined. Fortunately, the wind was blowing out over Newark Bay so that there was relatively little exposure to the residential area surrounding the facility. Approximately 400 firefighters and other emergency personnel responded to the fire and fought it without any personal protective equipment. The fire's size overwhelmed their capacity to refill their respirators, and most were on-site the entire 24 hours.

We were called in the next day to investigate the site. The EPA and Coast Guard closed off the area, and anyone entering the site had to wear a moon suit. The firefighters wanted to know why they were allowed onto the site to fight the fire for 24 hours without any protective equipment, and the following day moon suits were required to approach the facility. The firefighters were most concerned about the medical effects of the prolonged exposure to unknown amounts and types of chemicals, their combustion and pyrolysis products. To illustrate: one firefighter was in a rowboat trying to get a hose out of the water and onto the site. He dropped something into the water, reached after it with a gloved hand, and developed second degree chemical burns on his hand and forearm.

We conducted a study of firefighting personnel at the site, analyzed various parameters of their health risk, and are continuing to monitor them at the present time. In our follow-up examinations we have found a fairly high incidence of acute and chronic respiratory problems. With the onset of heavy smoke exposure, they appeared to develop a chronic lung condition related to the chemical exposure. This is not an uncommon finding, but has been seen in other types of fires including the MGM Grand Hotel blaze. With heavy exposure to irritant materials in the smoke caused by chemical combustion, there is a large insult to the respiratory tract tht is not easily, or ever completely, repaired.

A few months ago, a hazardous waste transport facility in Jacksonville, Florida caught fire and burned for quite some time. Several prior attempts had been made to close the facility down: it was located in a residential area, and there had been numerous complaints from residents of health problems associated with the operation. Several thousand gallons of PCBs¹ were stored at the site, and we were concerned about a possible uncontrolled burn.

After the fire, smoke, and other particulates, including a very oily soot, settled on swimming pools, plants, and other surfaces throughout the residential area. It took a public outcry to get the government to respond to the problem, but eventually some testing was done. Results showed significant amounts of PCBs in the soot, but fortunately did not reveal high concentrations of furans or dioxins.

Concern about other methods of disposal of PCBs, particularly through incineration and landfills, has been raised. Sufficient testing has been done to show that, with the right technology, PCBs can be incinerated safely. The degree to which incineration of other substances forms more [15 ELR 10244] toxic chemicals like dioxins and furans is not known, but studies are underway to develop technologies that could permit their safe burning.

Public concern about the siting of hazardous waste facilities has increased with each of these incidents. Moreover, concerns are not being adequately dispelled. Physicians, medical health and environmental experts are unable to quantify and explain the health risks associated with a leak, spill, fire, or other incident. The public is fearful of cancer and is intolerant of the imposition of additional cancer risks, no matter how slight. Once risk has been established, it is often exaggerated by the public.

It is difficult to explain the unexpected risks associated with landfills and other facilities. The public is very knowledgeable and concerned about transportation accidents and they view the possibility as imposing catastrophic risks. The public wants both definite answers to their questions and guarantees that accidents won't happen.

The public also needs to know whom to trust when seeking information. The government and industry are not believed by many communities. I have attended several public meetings to explain the government's approach to a particular environmental or occupational health problem and have seen that we do not always have credibility with the public, particularly when we are addressing past mistakes or contradicting advice given in the past. Love Canal demonstrated the government's poor response to hazardous waste incidents and its inability to manage a competent health assessment.

Several types of health risks will continue to be of concern. Contamination of the water supply is the major risk, but can be dealt with through technology, public awareness, and monitoring of exposure. Airborne exposures of nearby residential and commercial areas are also a concern, but, again, can be controlled through extensive monitoring and appropriate technology. Concerns are also expressed about fires and other accidental exposures to residents and the local community. We can better protect firefighters and others responding to emergencies by assuring that they have appropriate equipment available. In Waterbury, Connecticut, for example, firefighters were very concerned because they had been responding for many years to fires and other incidents at a hazardous waste facility without the appropriate protective equipment. They wanted to know about the possible health risks, but their inquiries had been ignored by the facility's management. We acted as mediators, and recommended the equipment needed by the local fire department to respond adequately to emergencies at the site. The facility eventually agreed to purchase the equipment and developed a proper response and notification system.

The concern about accidents when material is transported to and from a site is tremendous because the risks are largely unknown. It can be allayed by providing appropriate response mechanisms and planning transport procedures. Properly equipped with information and an understanding of the situation, local fire and safety officials can then help to convince the public that, should an accident occur, exposures and adverse health effects can be minimized.

We do not know all of the risks involved, but I am afraid that new studies now under way at Superfund sites will reveal more of the negative health impacts on those exposed to hazardous wastes. The publication of these expected findings will have to be addressed in siting new treatment and disposal facilities.

Discussion

PARTICIPANT: What is actually known about the long-term health effects of exposure to hazardous waste?

MELIUS: We don't have the knowledge to accurately estimate the risks. A chemical we now consider to be innocuous may turn out to be carcinogenic. There are ways of managing facilities to minimize the risks of exposure. We have almost reached the point where exposures are so low even during cleanups that they can't be quantified. We have lost credibility because we can't precisely estimate health risks once there has been exposure. We just don't know the answers yet.

1. PCBs are commonly used in electrical equipment. PCBDs, called dioxins, are chemically very similar and are formed when chlorines are added to PCBs. This chemical reaction has triggered major health problems in Missouri and elsewhere.

Furans are similar to dioxins and PCBs. Both dioxins and furans have been found to be extremely toxic to animals and to humans, but little is known about the ramifications of human exposure. Dioxins are one of the most toxic of all man-made chemicals, and furans are quite close: both are several orders of magnitude more toxic then PCBs.

When PCBs are heated to the right temperature, as in a fire, furans, and according to some of the evidence, dioxins are formed. Chlorinated benzene, a solvent used in transformers, can form furans and dioxins at the right temperature and combustion condition. We have learned a great deal about these reactions from studying transformer fires, but now need to apply this knowledge to the hazardous waste field.