Special water issue: PCBs and Warren County

Full text

PCBs
and
WARREN
COUNTY
"Water,
water
everywhere
and
N'ere
a drop to
drink"
-Samuel
Taylor Coleridge
by
Ken
Geiser
and Gerry Waneck
Water
is
a
precious
resource
on the
surface
of this
planet.
It is required
by all life
forms-the
average hu-
man
consumption
is
two
quarts per
day-and
it repre-
sents most
of the
mass
of living
organisms.
It
covers
most
of the
earth's
crust
but
it
cannot
escape
the earth's
atmosphere-it
can only move
from
place
to
place.
Thus
the water
cycle is a
closed
system.
Throughout
the industrial
world
today, vast
bodies
of water
are being
contaminated
by
synthetic
toxic
chemicals.
Whole
lakes
and rivers have
been declared
too dangerous
for
human
exposure. As
these
pollutants
seep into
creeks and
groundwater,
water
acts
as a
ve-
hicle
that
carries these
toxins
from
our
physical
environ-
ment
into
our
biological
environment.
This
article
wishes
to
call attention
to the
serious
consequences
of chemical
contamination
of the earth's
water
resources.
It focuses
on one of the most
hazar-
dous
of contaminants:
PCBs,
a close relative
of
dioxin.
Some
of the
scientific
background needed
to understand
the
chemistry
and biology
of these
compounds is
pro-
vided.
It shows how
industrial
negligence
and
govern-
ment
ineffectiveness
are responsible
for the
crisis. As
more
and more
communities
are faced with
this threat,
people
often find
that
they themselves
must
take
action
if
they are to
overcome
it.
In
the fall
of
1982,
a
large
protest
occurred in War-
ren
County,
North
Carolina,
against
an effort
by the
state to
dump
over
6000 truckloads
of PCBs-laden
soil
into
what
officials
called
"a secure landfill."
Protestors
Ken
Geiser teaches Urban
and
Environmental Policy
at
Tufts University. He is active with Msssachusetts Fair
Share
on
hazardous wastes
issues, and has been involved in efforts to
pass
stote Right to Know
Legislation.
Gerry
Waneck
is a
graduote
student in
Immunology at
Tufts
Sackler
Graduate School.
He is
an
active
member
of
Science for the People ond a
representstive
of
Federation For
Progress,
based
in New York
City.
July/August
1983
\
,AJ
\
\,
q
(J
o
Demonstrstors
ot
the
front
of the march
face
the
trucks
at-
tempting
to
bring PCBs
to the
Warren
County landfill,
Octo-
ber 1982.
came
from
miles
around
as
blacks
and whites,
young
and
old,
united
in
a
courageous
attempt
to
block roads
to
the landfill
with
their
bodies.
Over
500
arrests were
made
as the
protest
drew national
attention.
Why
are
PCBs
so frightening
that
people
were
willing
to risk
ar-
rest
while
using
their
bodies
to stop
the
dumptrucks?
Chemistry
and Biology
of PCBs
PCBs
is
an
abbreviation
for
"polychlorinated
bi-
phenyls,"
members
of the family
of halogenated
aro-
matic
hydrocarbons.
This family
also
contains
DDT
and
TCDD
(Dioxin),
some of
the
most
toxic
sub-
stances
known
to life.'
(Their
chemical
str;;ctures
are il-
lustrated
in
Figure
1.)
All
of these
compounds
are syn-
thetic:
they
do
not
occur
naturally
and must
be made
by
t3

Pol
ych'lorinated Bi
phenyl
s
(
pCgs
)
Dich'lorodi
phenyl
trich'loroethane
(DDT)
Figure l. Structural
similarity
between
PCBs, DDT and
Dio-
xin. All are members of the
fomily
of Chlorinated
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. Most cctmmercial PCBs are actually
a
mixture
of
50 or
60 individual structures
where
the
X may be either
H
(hydrogen)
or Cl
(chlorine).
There
are
210
possible
structures,
but dsta are scant on
which
structures
are the
most toxic.
reacting
chlorine
or
other halogens
with certain
petro-
leum derivatives.
Commercial
PCBs are
inevitably con-
taminated
with
dioxin
because of
their common
manu-
facturing
process.
The
very
properties
of PCBs
that
make them so
hazardous to
life
are
the
properties
that
make them so
attractive
to
industry: they
are
virtually
indestructible.
PCBs are chemically
inert,
heat resistant,
nonflam-
mable, and electrically
nonconducting.
They are
most
commonly
used
in
transformers
and capacitors,
but
have also
been
used
in
pesticides,
heat exchanger
fluids,
paints,
copying
paper,
adhesives,
sealants,
and
plastics.'
Much
of the PCBs
have already
escaped
into
the
general
environment
although
"hot
spots"
have been
identified. PCBs have
been
found
in lakes, bays
and
riv-
ers
across the country.
The list includes
the Great
Lakes
(see
Dioxin and
Dow in box
on the next
page);
Escambia
Bay, Florida; the
Waukegan
River
in Illinois; the Ohio
River;
the Housatonic
River
in
Connecticut;
the Ches-
apeake
Buy; San
Francisco
Bay; Puget Sound,
Washington, and
in New York's
Hudson
River. Most of
these
waters have
been
polluted
by
discharge
of
indus-
trial
wastes,
either
directly
or
indirectly through
munici-
pal
sewer systems.3
The
problem
encountered
in all
attempts
at dis-
posal
is how to detoxify
the
PCBs, contaminated
soil
and
river
sludge.
Thus
far, high temperature
inciner-
14
ation
is
the
only EPA-approved
method.
However, sci-
entists
debating
how to dispose
of PCBs
from the
Hud-
son River
found that burning
the contaminated
sludge
at temperatures
as
high as
10000C
merely drove
PCBs
out
of the
residues into
the
gas
stream exiting
from the
furnace.
Treatment
in
an after
burner
at
18000C
was
necessary to completely
destroy
the
PCBs.
The
main
problem
with incineration
at such
extremely
high
tem-
peratures
is that
it
consumes
a tremendous
amount
of
fuel-approximately
one
gallon
of oil
for every cubic
foot of
river bottom
treated.o
It is ironic
that
incomplete
incineration
is also one
way in
which PCBs can
be con-
verted to dioxins.'
Of
the
PCBs that
have
made their
way into the en-
vironment,
a large amount
have
entered
the
food
chain
and
the
EPA
estimates
rhat 90Vo
of the
world's
popula-
tion
have
measurable
levels of
PCBs in their
bodies.
Al-
though PCBs and their
relatives are
poorly
soluble
in
water,
they are
carried
by
water and accumulate
in the
oils and fats of
plants
and animals
where they cannot be
excreted.
As
Joseph
Highland
of the
Environmental
De-
fense
Fund has stated,
"The
levels
of
contamination
and
the
number of
people
affected
continue
to
increase
every
year.
Human breast
milk is so
heavily contamin-
ated
that currently
the average
nursing
infant exceeds by
ten times
the
maximum daily
intake level
for PCBs set
up
by
the Food and
Drug
Administration.
Fish,
birds
and
livestock in
many
parts
of
the U.S. are
literally sod-
den
with PCBs."u
Animal studies
have shown
these
chemicals
to
be
carcinogenic,
toxic
to the liver and
to
in-
terfere
with reproduction. Studies
of
their effects on
hu-
mans have been
limited to accidental
or occupational
exposure.
One such
incident
is described
below.
In 1968, some
1200 Japanese
developed
severe
rashes, accompanied
by
discharge
from the eyes,
dark
brown
pigmentation
of the skin
and
nails,
headaches
and
physical
weakness. Scientists
painstakingly
traced
the
problem
to a specific
batch
of
rice oil that
was
used
for cooking
by all the
affected
families.
The oil
was
found to be
heavily contaminated
with heat exchanger
fluid
that
had leaked
into the
oil during
processing.
PCBs,
long
known
to
produce
rashes and
other
skin
symptoms
in
industrial
workers,
was found to be
the
major contaminant
of the
fluid.
When this
was
dis-
covered,
the doctors treating
these
patients
focused
pri-
marily on these skin symptoms,
while
tending
to
ignore
the
more
general
complaints.
As
time
passed,
however,
the skin
rashes disappeared
while the
general
symptoms
persisted
and
grew
worse. In the
years
since
the
incident,
these
patients
have shown
disturbances
in the
liver,
blood,
nerves, immune
responses and
reproductive
function.
There is
also some
indication that
the
cancer
rate may be unusually
high among
these
people,
al-
though even
now it
is
still
not
long
enough
after
the acci-
dent
to
be certain.'
The
"Yusho"
patients
(Yusho
is
Japanese
for
"oil
disease")
along
with
victims
from
a chemical
plant
ex-
plosion
in Seveso,
Italy, constitute
the
largest
group
of
people
known
to be
suffering
from exposure
to
PCBs or
xx
xx
llll
zc-ir zc-\r
x-c
c-c
c-x
\.:./
\.:./
llll
XX
XX
HH
tt
C_C
/\\
c c-cl
r C:C
'tl
HH
J-J
H
{
\-3
ta:.'.,-l
trt
HH
C
t
4
,
l,/
I
:
:t
tl
c
|
-.azc
-.a
-o-.a
-c-=a -c
I
lililt
a,,-c
-=a
-c
-
o
-c-..a
Zc
-a,
HH
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(Dioxin)
Science
for
the
People

dioxin.
Their
specific
symptoms
are
probably
a result
of
the
close
chemical
resemblance
of these
chlorinated
aro-
matic
hydrocarbons
to
certain
growth
or
sex hormones
and
to
certain
mutagens.
Liver
enzymes
are
also
thought
to
play
a role
in
the induction
of
cancer
as
they
attempt
to metabolize
these
chemicals.'
The
effects
on
the ma-
jority
of the
population
who
chronically
receive
much
lower
exposures
over
a
lifetime
can
only
be
extrapolated
from
the
available
data
on
acute
exposures.
The
Role
of
Government
and Industry
Many
of the
problems
caused
by toxic wastes
are
due to
a combination
of negligence
by industry
and
failure
of
governmental
afencies
to
take
proper
action.
In many
cases
the
desire
for
a favorable
business
climate
and
increased
profits
subordinate
their responsibility
to
society.
We
are
just
beginning
to
see the hidden
costs
of
our
technological
society
and
have
yet
to
understand
how
we
will
pay
the
price.
According
to Dr.
Mary-Jane
Schneider,
in her
book
Persistent
poisons:
Even.
if
no
further
pollution
were
to
occur,
enough
PCBs
are
already
dispersed
throughout
the
environment
to
cause
concern
for
the indefinite
future.
The
cumula_
tive
production
of PCBs
in
North
America
through
1970
(after
which
production
fell
offl) has
been
estimated
at
500,000
tons,
and world
wide
production
was
about
twice
that.
In
North
America,
an estimated
300,000
tons
have
been
disposed
of into
dumps
and landfills
and may
or may
not
be leaking
into
air
and waters.
About
30,000
tons
have
been released
into
the
atmosphere
and were
probably
carried
back
to
earth
by rain
and
snow. And
about
60,000
tons were
released
into
fresh
and
coastal
waters.e
With
clean
and inexpensive
detoxification
technol-
ogies
still
years
off,
what
actions
can be
taken
to reduce
the PCBs
threat
to
our
environment?
One
step has
al-
ready
been
taken-that
of
"source
reduction."
The
effort
to reduce
the
source
actually began
some
time
ago.
Although
little
concern
was
raised
over the
chemical
between
1929
(when
Monsanto
first
began
pro-
duction)
and
1968,
the news
of the
"yusho"
poisoning
incident
in
Japan
brought
the issue
squarely
to
public
attention.
The
reaction
here
in
the
U.S. was
so signifi-
cant that
in
1972
Monsanto
voluntarily
restricted
sales
of
PCBs
to
closed
electrical
and hydraulic
systems.
In
1976
the
U.S.
Congress
took
an even
bolder
step with
the
passage
of the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
by
spe-
cifically
banning
the
manufacture
or
continued
use
of
PCBs
except
in
sealed
systems.
Monsanto
ceased
pro-
duction
of
all PCBs
in 1977
which
left
only
the
problem
of
regulating
continued
use
and disposal.
In regulating
use
and
disposal
of
pCBs
manufac-
tured
prior
to 1977
,
the
government
has
been less
than
aggressive.
In
1979
the EPA
published
regulations
limit-
ing
the
use
of PCBs
to intact,
non-leaking
capacitors,
electromagnets
and transformers.
The
Environmental
Defense
Fund
petitioned
the
U.S.
Court
of Appeals
to
review
these
regulations
as less
than
adequate
and in
July/August
1983
l98l
the
court
ruled
the
regulations
invalid
and
granted
an
l8
month
interim period
to
promulgate
new
regula-
tions.
The
new
regulations proposea
by-Eee
in
l9g2
are
limited
to
providing
for
indefinite
use
of
current
trans-
formers
containing
PCBs
and
a
ten
year
phase
out
of
PCB
containing
capacitors.
The
U.S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
firsr
es_
tablished
standards
for
pcBs
in
food
in
1973.
Those
regulations
permitting
2.5
parts
per
million
in
milk
and
dairy
products
were
later
reduced
to
even
lower
levels
in
1979.
Similarly,
the
National
Institute
of
occupational
Safety
and
Health
has
recently
reviewed
occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
standards
foi
worker
exposure
and
recommended
tighter
standards,
but
osHA
under
the
current
administration
has
failed
to
act.
Regulations
outlawing
pCBs
have
now
left
us with
large
amounts
of
PCBs-ladened
substances
facing
dis-
posal.
The
government
has
been
procrastinating
here
as
well.
Almost
two
years
elapsed
between
the
time
EpA
promulgated
disposal
regulations
and
the
first
inciner-
ation
facilities
were
licensed.
presently
there
are
only
two licensed
incinerators
on land
and
the
incinerator
ship
Vulcanus
is
occasionally provided
temporary per_
mits
to
burn
PCBs
at
sea.
There
are
nine
landfills per-
mitted
to
accept
solid
PCBs
wastes (less
than
500
ppm)
and
several
Mobil
chemical
treatment
plants
are
permit-
ted
to
detoxify
PCBs-contaminated
oil. with
ruth
lirn-
ited
facilities
the
problem
of
backlog
and
srorage
of
PCBs,
particularly
in
discarded
transformers,
remains
serious.
Thus,
although
pCBs
production
has
actually
stopped,
the
struggle
to regulate
the
use
and
clisposal
has
mov€d
more
slowly.
One
of
the
printary
impedi_
ments
to more
aggressive government
action
has
been
the
pressure
of
current
industrial
users
for whom
tighter
regulations
on
use
would
increase
costs.
The
current
federal
administration's
reluctance
to
advance
regula-
tions
will
mean
that
any
increased
efforts
to
reduce
the
source
of PCBs
contamination
must
come
from
inter-
ests
outside
the
government.
Neither
government
nor
in-
dustry
is
likely
to move
forward
on further
source
re-
duction
or
clean-up
of
existing water
and
soil
contamin-
ation
without public
pressure.
That
message
has
clearly
been
read
in
neighborhoods
and
communities
across
the
country
and
the result
has
been
a
groundswell
of local
citizen
action.
Community
Action:
The
Source
of
Real
Solutions
In
many
communities
across
the
country,
citizens
have
come
together
into
local
voluntary
organizations
to
struggle
against
the
threat
of PCBs.
These
grassroots
organizations
have
become
the wellspring
for
generating
the
political
muscle
necessary
to
confront
government
officials
and irresponsible
industries.
Citizens
have
organized
to
press
for
state
enforce-
ment
of existing
laws
and regulations.
Citizen
groups
I5

t
,
t
,/
I
,
,
have also
pushed
ahead
in
researching,
advocating
and
demanding
many
new and
innovative
approaches
to
toxic
chemical
contamination.
In clean-up
efforts,
citi-
zen
groups
have
pressured
state
agencies
for studies
of
contaminants,
removal
of above-ground
containers
and
remedial
action
to contain
chemicals
discharged
into the
ground.
In the area
of
health, citizens
groups
have con-
ducted
their
own door-to-door
health surveys,
pressed
for
professional
epidemiological
studies
of
potentially
affected
populations
and
advocated
long term
health
screening
programs
for
monitoring
exposure
victims.
Recently
citizen
groups
have
initiated
campaigns
aimed
at
the
industrial
sources
of
the chemicals
themselves.
Broad-based
coalitions
have
formed
in several
states
advocating
source
reduction, "right
to
know"
and "right
to
inspect."
Source
Reduction
as
discussed
in the case
of
PCBs
above,
generally
involves
a
whole
series
of technological
changes
in
industrial
production
ranging
from simple
chemical
substitution
to complex
treatment
and detoxification
processes
whereby
the
amount
of
hazardous
material
produced
as
waste
is re-
duced.
Right to
know
provides
workers
in
plants
and
community
residents
living
near
plants
the
right
to
gain
the name of
and
information
about
toxic
chemicals
used
in the
plant.
Right to
inspect
provides
workers and
com-
munity
residents the
right to
tour
industrial
facilities
and
review current
health
and safety
features.
While
much of this
citizen
action
is recent,
it
is
off
to a strong
start,
offering
hope of a comprehensive
ap-
proach
to the
massive
and
widespread
problem
of
chemical
contamination
in
water and soil.
The
character
of the citizen
action
is
yet
emerging,
but
so
far it appears
to
be based
in working class
communities
where
the
haz-
ards
are
most
prevalent
and
to draw
upon
the
direct
ac-
tion
tactics developed
over
years
of community
organ-
izing experience.
The
protest
in
Warren
County,
North
Carolina
is a
good
example.
Demonstrators at
the march
reaching
the
landfill,
Warren
I6
to stop the dump
trucks
from
County,
NC, October
1982.
PCBs contamination
in
the state
of
North
Carolina
was
caused
by the deliberate
criminal dumping
of
PCBs
fluid
from the
Ward Tiansfer Company
of
Raleigh
by
the
Robert
J.
Burns trucking
operation
of Jamestown,
New
York.
Court
records show that,
faced with
an eco-
nomic
loss
brought
about
by the
EPA's ban on
resale in
1979, Burns
and
Ward chose
to
illegally
dump
the
PCBs.
Burns and
Ward are
now
serving
sentences
for
their
crimes,'o
but there
are
only
a
handful
who
have
been
brought
to
justice
for similar
actions.
Meanwhile,
thirty-thousand
gallons
of
the PCBs
fluid
remained
on 270
miles of
roadway
in fourteen
North Carolina
counties
for four
years
before
the
EPA
and the state
began
the clean
up.
Because
of the techni-
cal
difficulty
and
prohibitive
expense
of
permanent
de-
toxification,
the state
decided
to build
a
landfill in
which to store
the
contaminated
soil
indefinitely.
As
soon
as the state
announced
that
Warren Coun-
ty
was being chosen
as
a
potential
site
for the
landfill,
Warren County Citizens
Concerned
About
PCBs was
formed under the
leadership of
Ken Ferruccio, one
of
the
residents of
the town of
Afton
(in
Warren
County).
Warren
County
is
the
poorest
county
in
the state
with
per
capita income of around
$5,000
in
1980. Its
population
is 65Vo black.
According
to Ken
Ferruccio,
"The
trend
is
very
clear.
They
would rather
experiment
with
poor
black
people,
poor
white
people,
than
to ex-
periment
with
the
middle and
upper classes
. . .
The
regulations are
such that
allow
landfills to be
placed
in
environmentally
unsafe,
but
politically
powerless
areas."
Landfills
were
discussed
at
a
citizens
meeting
in
Moore
County
in February
1982,
attended by
Ken and
his wife Deborah.
Moore County
is
one
of several that
is
being
considered
by the
Chemical
Wastes Management
Co.
for
siting
of
landfills. Speaking
at
this
meeting
were
Mr.
William
Sanjour,
branch
chief
of the
EPA's Haz-
ardous
Wastes Management
Division, and
Ms.
Lois
Gibbs,
organizer
of
the
Love Canal
residents. Accord-
ing to
Deborah Feruccio,
"Mr.
Sanjour
supervised
stu-
dies
on the damages
caused
by
hazardous
wastes, on
in-
dustries
which
generate
hazardous
wastes,
and on
the
technology
to
handle these
wastes. Nearly
$20
million
were spent
in
these studies.
The
results,
which
were
quite
conclusive,
were that
landfills
inevitably
leak; and that
safe
landfill technology
is only a concept,
not a
reality.trtt
In New
Jersey,
construction
of
landfills
with
the
same basic
design
have been
outlawed
because
of
leaching
problems.
There are economic
factors
involved
in the
political
decision
of
where to site
landfills.
Landfills
have
federal
common
law liability
regulations that
absolve
landfill
operators
from all
liability after
five
years.
The
produ-
cer
passes
the
responsibility
for
damages
from
hazard-
ous
wastes onto the
landfill operator.
Landfill operators
usually
operate at
the edge
of bankruptcy,
so
when a
landfill
leaks, the company
goes
bankrupt
and
the
tax-
payers
are
left
with the burden.
\
,qJ
>.\
\
q
\)
o
Science
for
the
People

In
the
case of Warren
County, it
became
clear
that
the
state of North
Carolina had
other
economic
and in-
dustrial
considerations
in mind
when
Afton was
sited.
According
to Ken
Ferruccio,
"The
Afton
site
is
only
three miles
from
a
new
regional
industrial
waste water
treatment
plant
connected
by
pipeline
to Soul
City,
po-
tentially
one of the industrial
parks
in
North
Carolina.
The Afton
site would
begin
the completion
of
an
indus-
trial
package
consisting of
Soul City
(production),
the
treatment
plant
(waste
processing),
and
landfills
(waste
storage).
"As
the
ploL
unfolded,
the scenario
became
even
more
depressing.
Documents revealed
that the overrid-
ing
consideration
for
the
state's desire
to acquire the
Af-
ton
site
was
the
need
for
a
legal
chemical waste
dump in
North
Carolina. This
would mean
that
Afton would
have
to
eventually
store
not
only
the PCBs,
and not
only
waste
eventually
generated
during
production
at
Soul
City, but
also waste
imported
from
various
parts
of the
region
as well."'2
The
site at Afton was
not
even scientifically
the
most
suitable.
The water
table
of Afton, N.C.
(site
of
the landfill)
is
only
5-10 feet
below
the surface,
and the
residents
of the
community
derive
all of
their drinking
water
from
local
wells.
Only the most
optimistic
could
believe that
the heavy
concentration
of PCBs in
the
Af-
ton landfill
will
not
eventually
leach into
the
groundwa-
ter.
Unless
a more
permanent
solution is
found, it will
only
be a
matter
of time
before
the
PCBs
end up
in
these
people's
wells.
The
October 1982
protest
by the
Warren
County
Citizens
Group represented
the first
time
people
have
gone
to
jail
trying
to
stop a toxic wastes
landfill.
Actions
like
these have
been characteristic
of the
civil
rights
and
anti-nuclear
movements.
Both
analogies
have
merit.
The
issue
at
Warren
County
rs
a
question
of
civil rights;
and
the
danger
of the
toxic wastes
threat rs
related
to
the nuclear
threat. In the
case of the
toxic
wastes,
how-
ever, "meltdowns"
have
already
occured all over
the
country.
The PCBs
protest
failed
to
prevent
the landfill
from
being
completed,
but
it
succeeded
in
a
number
of
ways.
The
governor,
James Hunt, had
initially refused
to meet with
the
group
but was
then forced
to
make
con-
cessions
to their
community.
These were
that no more
landfills
would
be built in Warren
County and that well
water
and
body
levels
would
be
monitored.
The
Con-
cerned Citizens
group
is
still actively
pressuring
the
state
to remove
or
detoxify
the
landfill
as
soon as
possible.
The
Warren
County
protest
illustrates
some of
the
real
opportunities
of
citizen action. The
common threat
of the waste
dump in
Afton
united the
community in
a
concerted
action
of defense. Black
and
white residents
met
together, worked
together
and were
arrested togeth-
er. In fact,
the
presence
of national
civil
rights
figures
and members
of the
national
Black
Congressional
Cau-
cus served
to
link
the
protest
to larger
civil rights
and
"poor
people's"
movements.
Participants
in
the com-
munity
organization
educated
themselves
about the
July/August 1983
Police
arrest
dentonstrator
tr
pcBs
march,
warren
count-v,
October
1982.
technical
issues,
learned
about
pcBs
and
health
hazards
and
developed
an in-depth
analysis
of
the
policy
and fi_
nancial questions
which
led
to
the
selection
of
Afton
as
the
dump
site.
united
and
educated,
the
citizens
of war-
ren
County
have
developed
a
true
sense
of
community
and
a heightened
sense
of
community
efficacy.
REFERENCES
l.
A
great
controversy
surrounds
the
attempt
to
deiine
just
how
toxic
these
chemicals
are. variables
such as
acute r
. chronic
effects,
synergism
with
other
environmental
factors,
the
root
ol administra-
tion,
and
the
species
tested
all
contribute
to
problems
in
quantitating
a
"hazardous
exposure."
However,
the
U.S.
Center
for
bisease
con-
trol
(cDC)
in
Atlanta
considers
50
parts
per
trillion
of Dioxin,
and
I
part
per
million
of
PCBs
hazardous,
based
on
chronic
effects in
non-
human primates;
DDT
falls
somewhere
in
between.
2.
Mary-Jane
Schneider,
Persisrent
poisons:
Chemicat
poilutanrs
in
the Environrlenr,
New
York:
The
New
york
Academy
of
Sciences,
1979,p.13. (This
book was
published
by the
Academy
for the
general
public
on
the basis
of the
proceedings
of
an Academy
conference
in
1978,
entitled
"Health
Effects
ol Halogenated
Aromatic
Hydrocar-
bons."
The
full
proceedings
of
the conference
have
been
pubrished
as
Volume
320 of the
Annals
oJ'the
it/ev,
york
Acacletny
o.l-
Science.)
3.
Ibid,
p.15.
4.
Ibid,
p.59.
5. Ward
Worthy,
"Both Incidence,
Control of
Dioxin
Are
Highly
Complex,"
Chemical
und
Engineering
|yews,
Volume
61, Number
23,
June
6, 1983,
pp.5l-56.
(This
whole volume
of C&EN
is
devoted
ro
the topic
of Dioxin.
Although
most
of the
articles
are apologetic
for
industry,
many
of the facts
are indisputable
regardless
of
how
they're
interpreted.)
6. Joseph
H.
Highland,
"PCBs:
An Environmental
Catastrophe,"
published
by
the Environmenral
Defense
Fund,
1979.
7.
Schneider,
pp.5-6.
8.
U.S. Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water
Regula-
tion and
Standards,
Atnbient
water
euatity
criteriu
for
polychlorinu-
ted
Biphenyls,
Publication
No.
410/5-80-068,
Washingron,
D.C.,
Oc_
tober 1980.
9.
Schneider,
p.15.
10.
Kimberly
French,
"A
Community
Unites
Against
Toxic
Waste," Whole
Life Times,
January,/February
1983,
p.25.
11.
Deborah
Ferruccio,
"Experts
Testify
Against
Hazardous
Waste
Landfill:
Letter
to
the Editor,"
The f:ranklin
Times
(North
Carolina),
February
16,
1982,
pp.4-5.
12.
Ken
Feruccio
and Dollie
Burwell,
"Angry
Warren
County
Re-
jects
Landfill:
PCB
Direct
Action
Stuns
Local,
Srate
Authoriries,"
Mountain
LiJe
and W'ork,
Volume
59, Number
5, May
1993,
pp.26-27.
.v
q
!
\
9t
t7