So the government didn't clean the arsenic up, and the residents returned.
The problem gnawed at me. I worried about the health risks, and I wondered where all that arsenic came from. I searched the scientific literature and State data, finding no useful information on historic levels of arsenic in New Orleans. Until one day in late-2006 when I talked with Dr. Howard Mielke, a soils expert at Xavier University, who told me about his soil archive. Dr. Mielke and his team of graduate students had spent two years from 1998-2000, collecting soil samples from throughout New Orleans for studies of lead contamination (lead was a KNOWN preexisting problem in New Orleans). Their samples were carefully geo-coded, sealed in polyethylene, and stored at 20-24 degrees Centigrade for the past six years, undisturbed and unaffected by the flooding of New Orleans. What a gold mine! The results of our research were published this month in the journal Environmental Research.
Our team of researchers identified 70 residential locations in the City of New Orleans where post-Katrina samples showed levels of arsenic above Louisiana soil screening levels, and where location-matched samples were available from the soil archive. When the laboratory results came back, the findings were stunningly clear: the arsenic was new!
Every single one of the samples had higher levels after the flooding compared with pre-flood. The average level of arsenic in the soil samples post-flood was over 23 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3); pre-flood, the average was below 4 mg/m3. The Louisiana soil screening level is 12 mg/m3, and EPA suggests a cancer concern at even lower levels, so this dramatic increase was highly significant - both statistically and from a health perspective.
When the arsenic results came in, we decided to go back to all these residential locations one more time, to see whether the arsenic was lingering during the recovery period. During that trip, we also sampled at 15 schoolyards and 15 playgrounds that had reopened to children. We were reassured to see that the arsenic contamination in the residential neighborhoods had dropped significantly - Probably some had washed down storm drains, some had been cleaned by street sweeping, and some had been ground deeper into the soil. But in some areas, such as the Lower 9th Ward, 75% of the samples were still higher than they were pre-Katrina.
The more worrisome story was at the schools and playgrounds. One-third of the samples taken in schoolyards, and 13 percent of samples at playgrounds still exceeded the Louisiana soil screening level that could (and should) trigger clean-up. Yet as far as I know, these sites have still not been cleaned up.
We still don't know where the arsenic came from. There are numerous theories, but the most likely source was arsenic-treated wood used in the past to build decks, fences, playground equipment, and even houses. The wood can leach arsenic into the soil below the wooden structures, and when the wood is soaked in water it can also release arsenic. A group of researchers found arsenic contamination in 23 percent of the wood waste from destroyed structures after Katrina. This arsenic was mobilized by the flood waters and deposited as a layer of grayish sediment all over people's land and homes after the flooding.
Some community groups have undertaken volunteer efforts to clean up their own neighborhoods, such as the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice's Safe Way Back Home campaign. But the money to clean up these remaining contaminated sites has been tied up at the state level for years. Now the professional staff in city government with the expertise to oversee proper spending of the clean-up funds will no longer be employed after this month.
The Federal EPA had walked away years ago. Fortunately, this week, the new EPA Administrator , Lisa Jackson, and other senior EPA officials are in New Orleans to talk about the problem of contaminated soil, and to listen to the community's concerns.
I hope that this new research convinces the Agencies to re-engage. It's definitely not too late to learn from the mistakes of the past, and to move forward and rebuild a safer New Orleans.
]]>Although scientists can't say that Katrina was caused by climate change, there's agreement that climate change will increase the frequency and severity of major storms and hurricanes over time. Communities along the Gulf Coast will remain in the crosshairs for flooding disasters. That means that we are likely to see more Katrinas in the future.
The experience of Katrina made me aware of the human toll of climate change, and has given me a sense of urgency about the need to reduce greenhouse gases in order to prevent some of these future diseasters. But there are also things that need to happen to be better prepared for future public health disasters.
Four years after Katrina, it seems appropriate to list four central principles for preparing for climate change:
I. Identify Local Vulnerabilities - Maps of local vulnerabilities, including flood-prone areas, and where at-risk populations live are important to help guide preparedness and response efforts.
II. Enhance Global, National, and State Tracking Systems - Disease surveillance, improved weather and flood forecasting, and tracking of environmental conditions is vital to understand normal patterns, as early warning systems, and to know when public health intervention is successful.
III. Create Climate-Resilient Communities - Establish limits on residential and commercial expansion within flood plains and estuaries; restore and protect coastal wetlands as buffer zones.
IV. Educate People to Protect Themselves - Educate populations at risk of flooding about where to go in case of evacuation, and how to negotiate flooded transportation systems.
For more information about the health impacts of climate change and steps we can take to prepare, check out this link. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has created a new focus on preparing for climate change, yet the effort remains small and under-funded. More information about the CDC effort is here.
In honor of the people killed or displaced by Katrina, the Federal government should do more to help communities prevent and prepare for climate-related disasters and respond effectively to disasters when they do occur.
]]>What they didn't know is that cement kilns also release significant quantities of dangerous heavy metals, such as mercury and chromium. In fact, we found contamination near this facility, and at other sites as well.
A new analysis by USA Today specifically mentions Oro Grande as a school at risk. But it's certainly not unique. The analysis identified over 400 schools in 170 cities that have potentially dangerous air quality due to nearby toxic emissions.
This is awful news for parents and children in all of those places, but it also reveals several deeper problems:
First, why isn't the EPA doing analyses like this, instead of leaving it to NGOs and reporters?
Second, why are the government regulators quoted in the USA Today story so reluctant to take action? These are children who need protection, after all!
Third, what will we do when the data disappear?
Yes, disappear.
The modeling software that USA Today used for their analysis relies on data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Last year, the Bush Administration made sweeping changes to the TRI which will dramatically decrease the amount of information that polluters need to report. So if someone repeats the analysis next year, the picture may look a lot rosier - even though it's not.
Last week, we released a report called "Deepest Cuts: Repairing Health Monitoring Programs Slashed by the Bush Administration". Check out the report here. The report shows a pervasive and systematic unraveling of the tracking and monitoring programs that keep tabs on the safety of our air, water, food, and health. This is really a priority job for the new administration.
Children and parents that I met in Oro Grande, and across the country want their communities to be swept clean, not swept under the rug.
]]>Joe told me about Exide Technologies, a nasty smelter that needs to clean up. According to the LA Times, this facility melts down about 40 truckloads of old car batteries each day, five days per week. People nearby were complaining about smoke and ash from the facility. Just a few months ago, an investigation by the local air district found high levels of lead, and the facility was required to cut back on production by 50% until it cleans up its act. Go get 'em Joe!
But due to last-minute White House meddling with the lead standard, the EPA would not require air monitoring downwind from the Exide smelter. You see, Exide only releases 0.6 tons of lead per year (that's 1200 pounds of this toxic metal) and that doesn't meet the threshold for monitoring under the new EPA rule.
Although I support the new EPA lead standard, I complained a lot last week when I saw how few air monitors the Agency is planning to deploy. Now documents have emerged that show that EPA was planning to require monitors downwind of all polluters that emit more than 1/2 ton of lead per year, but the White House insisted on a higher threshold of one ton per year. Doubling the threshold means that more than 200 polluters nationwide that should have lead monitors, won't. Could it be a coincidence that the organization that represents Exide and other lead smelters was meeting with White House officials right before the 11th hour change was announced?
Folks living in Cass County, IN; Charlevoix County, MI; Lawrence County, PA; Cuyahoga County, OH; Oswego County, NY; Harris County, TX; and Dakota County, MN; to name just a few, won't have the benefit of lead monitors downwind of the cement plants, refineries or smelters in their communities, thanks to this last-minute change in the monitoring threshold.
To find out if your community has a facility that should have an air monitor (but won't), check out our map of lead polluters.
Those of us who are sick of the White House meddling in EPA rules are calling on the Agency to reconsider their monitoring network. The monitors need to be downwind of all the major lead polluters. Children in these 200 communities deserve protection from lead poisoning.
]]>
The devil remains in the some of the details. For example, the standard will be averaged over a 3-month period (rolling average). The EPA science advisors and the public health community advocated for a 1-month averaging period or even shorter. That's because short spurts of lead from polluting factories or smelters might not cause a violation if they're averaged over a 3-month period of lower emissions, but they can still cause a health hazard. That's because the lead doesn't go away, but instead it falls to earth - on playgrounds and in backyards - where children get it on their hands and into their mouths. The battery industry was meeting with the White House as recently as the beginning of October to advocate precisely for this longer averaging period because they knew it would allow these bursts of pollution.
The standard won't come fully into effect until 2017, which is too long. The babies living near these lead polluters shouldn't have to wait until they're 9 years old to be protected from toxic lead. That's too late! We've already waited 30 years for this new lead standard, and it's crazy to wait almost 10 more years for it to come into effect.
Then there's the little problem of the lead monitoring network. I've complained about this before, but bear with me. As a scientist it burns me up when scientific information vanishes. Yet half the lead air monitors in the U.S. have vanished over the last ten years, and with them the data on what's going on in most communities across the country. EPA must rebuild the air monitoring network, or all of the good standards in the world won't help us, because nobody will be able to enforce them. Their proposal is not sufficient. For example, they propose only one lead monitor in cities with more than 500,000 people, and they don't commit to keeping monitors downwind of the big polluters. Also there are thousands of major lead polluters in the U.S., and EPA is talking about only 236 "new or relocated" monitors. Get with the program guys! How will anyone know if the standard is being met if nobody's monitoring?
So today, I'm congratulating EPA on a job well-done. But I also want them to know that we're watching. If those lead monitors don't start appearing in our communities and at the fencelines downwind of the big polluters, then EPA will be failing our children. Not only is the devil in the details, the proof is also in the pudding.
]]>