Industrial Sources of Dioxin Poisoning in Mossville, Louisiana: A Report Based on the Government's Own Data

Since 1998, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) -- which is a division of the Centers for Disease Control -- has conducted an Exposure Investigation of dioxins in Mossville, Louisiana, an historic African American community located next to the city of Lake Charles.The Exposure Investigation, a collaborative effort involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), documents that Mossville residents have an average level of dioxins that is 3 times higher than the average level of dioxins in the general U.S. population. However, the Exposure Investigation entirely fails to identify the sources of the dioxins harming the health and environment of residents. Dioxins are the most toxic chemicals known to science, and scientists have determined that there is no safe level of dioxin compounds. Dioxins can cause cancer, reproductive damage, and extensive harm to fetal and child development. Dioxin compounds build up in the human body where they are stored in fatty tissues, such as breast milk, and can be passed on to the unborn during pregnancy and lactation.Mossville residents are surrounded by 14 toxic industrial facilities, several of which routinely release dioxins into the air, water, and land. Residents have long complained about health problems that a university health study has linked to industrial pollution. However, governmental agencies continue to issue permits which allow the industrial facilities to increase the amount of toxic pollution, including dioxins, that they release into the Mossville community.Notwithstanding ATSDR's and EPA's obligation to protect human health and the environment, and Mossville residents' repeated demands that these agencies identify and eliminate the sources of the dioxin exposures, ATSDR and EPA have never attempted to investigate any link between the local industrial dioxin emissions and the dioxins detected in the blood and environment of Mossville residents.This report presents an analysis of the data collected by these very same agencies, which these agencies could have, but failed to analyze. As discussed in this report, the following local industrial facilities are the sources of the elevated dioxin levels in the Mossville community:Conoco Phillips oil refineryEntergy Roy S. Nelson coal-fi red power plantGeorgia Gulf vinyl manufacturing facilityLyondell chemical manufacturing facilityPPG Industries vinyl manufacturing facilitySasol chemical manufacturing facility. Furthermore, notwithstanding the incontrovertible fact that dioxin exposure is a serious threat to human life and health, ATSDR has not offered any meaningful assistance to Mossville residents in formulating an effective and expeditious method for addressing their situation, nor has ATSDR recommended that EPA or any other agency take action to prevent the critical public health threat of dioxin exposure in Mossville.Against great odds, Mossville residents continue to struggle to protect their health and future generations from toxic exposures that threaten their very survival. This report provides recommendations for corrective governmental action that would protect the human right to a healthy environment which is being violated in Mossville and numerous communities across the United States that are severely burdened with toxic pollution

A Community-Integrated Geographic Information System Study of Air Pollution Exposure Impacts in Colfax, LA

A community-integrated geographic information systems (CIGIS) study assimilating qualitative and quantitative information about human exposures and health was conducted in Colfax, Louisiana, which hosts a commercial open burn/open detonation thermal treatment (TT) facility that destroys waste from Superfund sites, explosives, military ordnances, and propellants. Fifty-eight percent of residents identified as Black, and median annual income was $16,318, with 90% of the population living below the poverty line. We conducted oral history interviews of twenty-nine residents and mined public records to document the community\u27s experiences. Interviews focused on themes of Colfax\u27s history, changing community fabric, resident health, and air pollution. The oral histories and public comments by community members provided information about lived experiences, including several health conditions, toleration of noise and vibration, property damage, and resulting changes to activity levels. These statements provided insight into the extent of suffering experienced by the local community. We also ran dispersion models for dates in 2020 when the waste stream composition, mass, and burn/smoldering times were provided in the facility\u27s public records. The dispersion models placed the air pollution at the homes of residents during some of the time, and waste stream records from the TT facility agree with community testimony about health effects based on the known health effects of those compounds. CIGIS integration of our community-based qualitative data and maps with quantitative air pollution dispersion model output illustrated alignment between community complaints of impacts to health and property, known toxicological information about waste stream compounds, and dispersion model output

613 Occupational health and safety perspectives of louisiana first responders involved in the 2010 deepwater horizon oil spill

Introduction The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill is considered the largest accidental marine oil spill in United States history. The oil spill had severe environmental impacts on the United States Gulf coastline as well as far-reaching effects on the health and safety of first responders. Despite national significance of the oil spill, there is limited information documenting the long-term health and safety experience of this workforce. This study examines the occupational health and safety perspectives of first responders involved in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Methods Six focus group sessions (8–10 participants each) were conducted in May 2017. Firefighters were consented and invited to complete a self-administered questionnaire, followed by a 60 min semi-structured focus group session assessing perceptions of safety and health conditions related to the oil spill event. Focus group audio files were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a general inductive approach to identify emergent themes. Result Study participants (n=50) were mostly male (98.0%), non-Hispanic (95.3%), white (98.0%), with a mean age of 40.6 years (standard deviation [SD]=9.8), and mean job tenure of 15.3 years (SD=8.2). Among respondents, 56.3% of participants reported direct contact with oil, 36.7% visited a doctor after the oil spill, and 18.8% reported feeling chronic (≥3 months) musculoskeletal pain following recovery efforts. Major themes that emerged included concerns regarding personnel decontamination procedures, heat-related illnesses, ocular disorders, fear of cross-contamination, and unknown long-term health impacts of chemical exposure from the oil spill. Firefighters expressed interest in additional safety training, worksite specific knowledge, and environmental monitoring for necessary protection of their health. Discussion Exposure to environmental disasters may contribute to long-term health and safety consequences. Improved systemic strategies in pre-disaster recovery planning and response preparedness are needed. The potential improvement of occupational health and safety outcomes with necessary environmental monitoring procedures deserve further study

Sediment from Hurricane Katrina: Potential to Produce Pulmonary Dysfunction in Mice

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall along the Gulf Coast as a Category 3 hurricane. The associated storm surge and heavy rainfall resulted in major flooding throughout the New Orleans area. As the flood waters receded, thick sediment was left covering the ground and coating the interior of homes. This sediment was dispersed into the air and inhaled as dust by returning residents and workers. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the potential pulmonary effects associated with the respirable particulate matter (PM) derived from Hurricane Katrina (HK-PM) in mice. Samples of PM were collected from several locations along the Gulf Coast on September 30 and October 2, 2005 and had a mean aerodynamic diameter ranging from 3-5 μm). Chemical analysis and cytotoxicity assays were performed for all HK-PM samples. A few samples with varying levels of cytotoxicity were chosen for an acute inhalation exposure study. Airborne PM10 levels recorded in the New Orleans area post-Katrina were variable, ranging from 70 μg/m3 in Gentilly to 688 μg/m3 in Lakeview (residential areas). Mice exposed to one of these samples developed significant pulmonary inflammation and airways resistance and hyperresponsiveness to methacholine challenge. These studies demonstrate that dispersion of certain Katrina sediment samples through either natural (e.g., wind) or mechanical (e.g., vehicles) processes promotes airflow obstruction in mice

Addressing systemic problems with exposure assessments to protect the public’s health

Abstract Background Understanding, characterizing, and quantifying human exposures to environmental chemicals is critical to protect public health. Exposure assessments are key to determining risks to the general population and for specific subpopulations given that exposures differ between groups. Exposure data are also important for understanding where interventions, including public policies, should be targeted and the extent to which interventions have been successful. In this review, we aim to show how inadequacies in exposure assessments conducted by polluting industries or regulatory agencies have led to downplaying or disregarding exposure concerns raised by communities; that underestimates of exposure can lead regulatory agencies to conclude that unacceptable risks are, instead, acceptable, allowing pollutants to go unregulated; and that researchers, risk assessors, and policy makers need to better understand the issues that have affected exposure assessments and how appropriate use of exposure data can contribute to health-protective decisions. Methods We describe current approaches used by regulatory agencies to estimate human exposures to environmental chemicals, including approaches to address limitations in exposure data. We then illustrate how some exposure assessments have been used to reach flawed conclusions about environmental chemicals and make recommendations for improvements. Results Exposure data are important for communities, public health advocates, scientists, policy makers, and other groups to understand the extent of environmental exposures in diverse populations. We identify four areas where exposure assessments need to be improved due to systemic sources of error or uncertainty in exposure assessments and illustrate these areas with examples. These include: (1) an inability of regulatory agencies to keep pace with the increasing number of chemicals registered for use or assess their exposures, as well as complications added by use of ‘confidential business information’ which reduce available exposure data; (2) the failure to keep assessments up-to-date; (3) how inadequate assumptions about human behaviors and co-exposures contribute to underestimates of exposure; and (4) that insufficient models of toxicokinetics similarly affect exposure estimates. Conclusion We identified key issues that impact capacity to conduct scientifically robust exposure assessments. These issues must be addressed with scientific or policy approaches to improve estimates of exposure and protect public health

A science-based agenda for health-protective chemical assessments and decisions: overview and consensus statement

The manufacture and production of industrial chemicals continues to increase, with hundreds of thousands of chemicals and chemical mixtures used worldwide, leading to widespread population exposures and resultant health impacts. Low-wealth communities and communities of color often bear disproportionate burdens of exposure and impact; all compounded by regulatory delays to the detriment of public health. Multiple authoritative bodies and scientific consensus groups have called for actions to prevent harmful exposures via improved policy approaches. We worked across multiple disciplines to develop consensus recommendations for health-protective, scientific approaches to reduce harmful chemical exposures, which can be applied to current US policies governing industrial chemicals and environmental pollutants. This consensus identifies five principles and scientific recommendations for improving how agencies like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach and conduct hazard and risk assessment and risk management analyses: (1) the financial burden of data generation for any given chemical on (or to be introduced to) the market should be on the chemical producers that benefit from their production and use; (2) lack of data does not equate to lack of hazard, exposure, or risk; (3) populations at greater risk, including those that are more susceptible or more highly exposed, must be better identified and protected to account for their real-world risks; (4) hazard and risk assessments should not assume existence of a "safe" or "no-risk" level of chemical exposure in the diverse general population; and (5) hazard and risk assessments must evaluate and account for financial conflicts of interest in the body of evidence. While many of these recommendations focus specifically on the EPA, they are general principles for environmental health that could be adopted by any agency or entity engaged in exposure, hazard, and risk assessment. We also detail recommendations for four priority areas in companion papers (exposure assessment methods, human variability assessment, methods for quantifying non-cancer health outcomes, and a framework for defining chemical classes). These recommendations constitute key steps for improved evidence-based environmental health decision-making and public health protection

A science-based agenda for health-protective chemical assessments and decisions: overview and consensus statement

Abstract The manufacture and production of industrial chemicals continues to increase, with hundreds of thousands of chemicals and chemical mixtures used worldwide, leading to widespread population exposures and resultant health impacts. Low-wealth communities and communities of color often bear disproportionate burdens of exposure and impact; all compounded by regulatory delays to the detriment of public health. Multiple authoritative bodies and scientific consensus groups have called for actions to prevent harmful exposures via improved policy approaches. We worked across multiple disciplines to develop consensus recommendations for health-protective, scientific approaches to reduce harmful chemical exposures, which can be applied to current US policies governing industrial chemicals and environmental pollutants. This consensus identifies five principles and scientific recommendations for improving how agencies like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach and conduct hazard and risk assessment and risk management analyses: (1) the financial burden of data generation for any given chemical on (or to be introduced to) the market should be on the chemical producers that benefit from their production and use; (2) lack of data does not equate to lack of hazard, exposure, or risk; (3) populations at greater risk, including those that are more susceptible or more highly exposed, must be better identified and protected to account for their real-world risks; (4) hazard and risk assessments should not assume existence of a “safe” or “no-risk” level of chemical exposure in the diverse general population; and (5) hazard and risk assessments must evaluate and account for financial conflicts of interest in the body of evidence. While many of these recommendations focus specifically on the EPA, they are general principles for environmental health that could be adopted by any agency or entity engaged in exposure, hazard, and risk assessment. We also detail recommendations for four priority areas in companion papers (exposure assessment methods, human variability assessment, methods for quantifying non-cancer health outcomes, and a framework for defining chemical classes). These recommendations constitute key steps for improved evidence-based environmental health decision-making and public health protection