“Virtually Useless” - Report faults government assessments of toxic waste sites
An in-depth study of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) echoes THEA’s concerns about the agency, saying it “regularly downplays and disregards neighbors’ health concerns” in analyzing exposure threats from contaminated waste.
For nearly 40 years, ATSDR has provided public health assessments for nearly every site on the EPA’s Superfund National Priorities List, but its track record for accuracy is pretty spotty, to say the least. The Reuters News Agency examined hundreds of ATSDR reports and found that 68% of the time, it declared communities safe from hazards or did not make any determination at all. In the process, it missed some serious problems in communities. The news report on the study featured a site in Missouri where ATSDR did not identify any radioactive material outside the landfill, even though it contains nuclear waste from the Manhattan Atomic Bomb Project, EPA testing has found radioactive waste outside the site and residents are getting sick.
The Reuters team reviewed ATSDR reports from sites all over the country, including the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site (SJRWP)
The study supports concerns that THEA has expressed about the agency. In the case of the San Jacinto River, some of the ATSDR’s findings were that:
"Exposures to groundwater near the SJRWP site are not expected to contribute to people's overall risks from contaminants coming from the SJRWP site."
"Exposures to surface water near the SJRWP site are not expected to contribute to people's overall risks from contaminants coming from the SJRWP site."
"Exposures to ambient air near the SJRWP site are not expected to contribute to people's overall risk from contaminants coming from the SJRWP site."
"DSHS and ATSDR cannot conclude whether or not past or present exposures to sand from sand mining activities near the SJRWP site could harm people's health."
"DSHS and ATSDR cannot conclude whether or not past or present off-site migration of dioxin-contaminated sediments could harm people's health."
The problem is that those conclusions were not based on data. In fact, ATSDR decided that groundwater contamination was not a health concern without even looking at a single water sample. In fact, it decided in advance that groundwater contamination wasn’t a problem and so it didn’t see the need to review samples.
The agency also produced a report on the Jones Road Ground Water Plume Superfund Site. The government said that air, water and soil contamination “pose no apparent health threat.” Part of that analysis was based on the fact that the state was supplying water filtration systems for businesses and homes when the report was written in 2005. However, the state later removed those systems and the EPA has not pushed community members to use water filters. 20 years later, residents and THEA are still pushing the EPA to protect the community.
Why is this important?
First, when ATSDR reports finding no apparent health risk, it means it lacked the data to determine the actual risk, but the public and politicians are likely to assume “no apparent risk” means there is no risk.
Second, an analysis that rules out a contamination pathway can delay serious investigation of toxic hazards. ATSDR said groundwater contamination was not an issue at the San Jacinto River in 2012 and it took more than a decade to launch a serious investigation into groundwater intrusion. (This is a particularly sore point with THEA’s founder Jackie Medcalf who became seriously ill and then discovered contaminated chemicals in the family water well in nearby Highlands.)
Finally, and this may be the most important problem, When an ATSDR report says there is “no apparent health threat” at a site the polluters who are responsible for the site use that to argue for no or minimal remediation. In fact the Reuters investigative report begins with these words:
Companies and others responsible for some of America's most toxic waste sites are using a federal health agency’s faulty reports to save money on cleanups, defend against lawsuits and deny victims compensation.
The Bottom Line
THEA firmly believes that the government needs unbiased experts who can provide understandable, accurate information that the EPA, communities and victims can rely on. ATSDR does not fill that need and, as long as it is seen as the “official’ source of hazard analysis, the public will suffer.