| Log in - Help - July 8, 2008 | |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
WHAT'S NEW
RSVP now for the next CHE Partnership Call - Table Matters: How Industrial Animal Production Impacts Health and the Environment Now available: MP3 recording and useful resources from the recent call on environmental impacts on autoimmune diseases - July 1, 2008
5/9/08: CHE featured in AARP: "The Body Toxic" 5/9/08: CHE Partner Dr. Philip Landrigan interview in Discover: "How Much Do Chemicals Affect Our Health?"
4/15/08: Now available: State of the Evidence 2008: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment 2/20/08: CHE LDDI scientific consensus statement on environmental factors. 9/1/07: The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields
|
|
Addyston, Ohio: The Plastics Plant Next Door
Bernard “Buzz” Bowman, Jr. is proud of his antiques collection. He has 3,000 antique toy cars and trucks on shelves in his basement in Addyston, Ohio. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. His yard is full of dozens of old-fashioned gasoline pumps and stashed in his basement is a lovingly restored doctor’s one-horse sleigh, upholstered in crushed red velvet and sporting a black convertible canopy that snaps into place with well-oiled precision. “We’re on the map,” he says, pointing out a designation of his museum on a local tourist map. He also has a write-up in a book that features attractions along Route 50, the winding River Road that snakes through this West Side factory town located on the banks of the Ohio River 12 miles from downtown Cincinnati on the Ohio/Kentucky state line.
Addyston, population 1,200, is also on the map because of toxics problems that state officials and residents say come from the 130-acre Lanxess Corp. plastics plant (formerly owned by Monsanto and Bayer) built across the street from the elementary school and just a few blocks from the Bowman residence. In December, 2005, the school was closed after elevated levels of butadiene and acrylonitrile were discovered by monitoring equipment installed on the roof of the building.“This is cancer valley,” asserts Buzz Bowman, whose wife, Carol Bowman, died recently of lymphoma. Her oncologist described her lymphoma as “an environmental cancer” but refused to speculate as to whether or not it might have been caused by living next to a plastics plant all her life. This infuriated Buzz’s daughter, Lynn Bowman, 52: “Do they think we are stupid? My mother died of an environmental cancer and we live right across from a chemical plant. In years to come they will find out that it was caused by the plant,” she predicts. “The air pollution had a lot to do with it. It killed my mother,” she charges. “It is amazing what big corporations get away with,” she adds. Before she died Carol Bowman – known locally as the “candy lady” for the fudge she baked – joined other residents in protesting chemical releases from the plant. She said the protests came too late to prevent her illness but perhaps they would save others, her daughter recalls.
Ruth Breech, 26, an organizer for Ohio Citizen Action, says she wants to make public the “dirty little secrets” about how industrial polluters cause health problems in adjacent “fenceline” communities such as Addyston. A tenacious, high-energy community activist, Breech wants to “tell the untold story” of the people who suffer in silence in these communities where it is not common practice to speak out about the odors coming from the plant. Addyston is a largely white, working-class company town where 97 percent of the tax revenues come from the Lanxess plant, she explains, and most residents have family members or friends who work at the plant. Speaking out against Lanxess is seen as threatening to local jobs: “It is a culture where it is not accepted to rock the boat,” Breech observes.
In addition to the release of acrylonitrile, 34 pounds of butadiene and 387 pounds of styrene were also released.4 Company officials explain that it escaped from tiny cracks in a duct that normally conducts the gas to an incinerator within the plant. Lanxess officials reported the release to the Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services, as required by law; they did not, however, tell residents about the release. It wasn’t until late November that Breech found a reference to the accident in public records and alerted town officials. A previous leak of 371 pounds of acrylonitrile over a five-minute period in June, 1999 sickened two employees and resulted in a civil county fine of $37,500.5 Jean Owens, an Addyston resident who lives across Route 50 from the plant on Sekitan Street describes acrylonitrile as having a sweet smell. ”It just turns me inside out,” she told a reporter. “It’s like I can’t breathe and I can’t move. I do move but I’m just moving like someone who has something really wrong, like cerebral palsy, or something like that…It’s just a horrible feeling.” 6 Ken Perica, the plant director of health and safety assured local citizens that their safety was not endangered by the release. He said that the chemical release, which occurred over a 49-hour period, would have been very dilute by the time it escaped from the plant. He also noted that 10 employees working near the leak showed no ill effects. But Perica’s assurances were overshadowed by a second accidental release that occurred on December 15, 2004, when Addyston residents were told that they had been exposed to 700 pounds of acrylonitrile, the “probable” cancer causing agent, as a result of a worker error. Once again, the plant manager at the time, Bill Ward, said that air samples showed no “problem with the gas leaving our plant.” However, Peter Sturtevant, an enforcement officer with the county, suggested that the gas might have carried over the company fenceline without tripping the air monitoring sensors. This time Lanxess officials promptly notified the town mayor and other public officials of the release.7 A third release two months later on February 23, 2005, received major coverage in the local press and suggested a problematic pattern of releases from the plant. This time the unintentional release was comprised of 750 pounds of butadiene. The company is required to report releases of 10 or more pounds of the substance which is known as an extremely toxic, cancer-causing gas. “Obviously, that’s not acceptable,” observed Jay Richey, Lanxess vice president and general manager for North America. Richey promised that policies and practices at the plant would be reviewed promptly. Company officials noted that none of their workers had been made ill by the release and suggested that the wind was blowing away from Addyston at the time of the release.8 “These unintended releases did not expose our employees or anyone in the community to harmful levels of chemicals,” he asserted.9 An Ohio Department of Health study, which used computer modeling and company data, agreed that the three releases did not pose a significant health risk to nearby neighbors. Only the December 15th release “rose to the level of potentially causing headaches, sore throat, or watery eyes,” the report suggested.10 However, Ruth Breech, at Ohio Citizen Action, argued that the study was suspect because it relied on company data. “These accidents are so consistent that everyone needs to be more proactive” to prevent future releases, she commented.11 “The Lanxess Plastics Plant in Addyston has chronic, serious problems, including 107 accidents in 2004,” Breech wrote in a guest column for a local newspaper.12 Breech views the series of accidents at Lanxess as dangerous to the local residents. “I definitely believe there is wrongdoing that is going on here, and it needs to be changed,” she told a TV reporter.13 “If the company can’t operate responsibly then they should not be permitted to operate at all,” she asserts. But Breech is not trying to close the plant. “We want them to stay here. We don’t want them to shut down. That is not our intention. We are here to clean them up. We want them to be good neighbors for a very long time,” she says.14 Mike Kramer, environmental enforcement supervisor at the Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services also sees the series of accidents at Lanxess as constituting a problem: “I think there is a legitimate concern for air quality,” he said. “We feel it is a serious enough issue that we’re going to make sure the experts…determine if there were any health impacts,” he continues. Kramer went on to say that it was unusual to have three accidents in a row such as those experienced at Lanxess and that it worried him.15 He officially notified the company that it had violated state air pollution laws in three incidents since October.16 On March 9, 2005, Lanxess officials reported an additional accidental release of 170 pounds of volatile organic compounds (VOCs); and four days later conceded that 99 more pounds of VOCs were released. Acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene are all VOCs, notes Breech, and could have been among the chemicals released on either of these two days. Furthermore, VOCs, when mixed with sunlight and heat create ground level smog that can cause lung irritation and they are considered a health hazard.17
Challis notes that his allergic attacks don’t take place on July 4th, when the plant closes down, providing further evidence to him that Lanxess is the source of his problem. “I don’t think I have patriotic allergies,” he observes. The worst time for Challis is from midnight to 4:30 in the morning when he believe the plant emits the most butadiene. Unable to sleep during those hours, Challis has taken the second shift at the airport where he works so that he can sleep in the late morning. On a recent vacation to Europe, Challis found that his allergies disappeared: “It was wonderful to sleep through the night,” he adds.
Challis says he has recently noticed some improvements in the air since they installed new valves at the plant. “But do I think the plant will ever be a safe plant? No I do not…People are dying from this slowly,” he concludes. Elevated Cancer Rates Detected With nasty odors in the air and heavy media coverage of accidental releases from Lanxess, many Addyston residents began to voice their concerns about the impact on their health from this local source of pollution. Some of them began to speculate that cancer rates in town were elevated. Nancy Scott, a 48-year resident of the town said that her mother, mother-in-law, brother, uncle and grandfather – all Addyston residents – also had cancer. “You go up and down these streets and just about every house has experienced it. I don’t want to see anybody lose their job at Lanxess, but I don’t think they have been honest with us,” she told a reporter.18 Sue Lloyd, 63, a breast cancer survivor who has lived with her husband in Addyston three blocks from the plant for 40 years had similar concerns. “I’ve worried about it [cancer] every time since I smelled this odor,” she observes. Lloyd includes in the Addyston cancer list herself, her next door neighbor, two people two-doors down from her home, two residents in the house behind her, friends at the plant, and many others. But these anecdotal reports of a cancer cluster had no scientific standing until a study was done at the request of the Hamilton County General Health District and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) in 2005. The study indicated that “people who inhaled fumes for decades from the plant have a 50 percent greater risk of developing cancer,” than the population at large. Among the chemicals of concern are acrylonitrile and 1, 3 butadiene. Both chemicals are used by Lanxess and are linked to cancer in humans.19 Lung cancer and leukemia would be the most common forms of cancer cause by the chemicals released from Lanxess, notes Paul Koval, air pollution toxicologist at OEPA.20 This information hit close to home, Lloyd says. “When you know so many people who have had it [cancer], it’s just distressing,” she observes. Lloyd describes the effects of the pollution from Lanxess as follows: “It would burn my nostrils and my eyes would tear and my throat would get very raw from it. It would just take your breath away,” says Sue Lloyd about her reaction to emissions from Lanxess.21 Then on May 25, 2006, over 100 residents, crowded into a VFW hall in Addyston where they were told that cancer rates in their community were 76 percent higher than expected in the general population. This estimate came out of an Ohio Department of Health Study which found that 55 residents in town were diagnosed with cancer from 1996 to 2003 compared with an expected rate of 31.2 cases. Lung cancers were 4 times higher than expected rates, and mouth and colorectal cancers three to four times above normal. Health commissioner Tim Ingram described the Addyston cancer rate as troubling. “This study does not rule in Lanxess [as the cause of the additional cancers], and it does not rule it out,” Ingram observed. He called for follow-up studies.22 Officials at Lanxess, however, deny that their plant is the cause of elevated levels of cancer in the community. Sandy Marshall, Lanxess plant manager, argues that concentrations of chemicals emitted from Lanxess are hundreds of times lower than those associated with cancer development; and that while butadiene can cause cancer if inhaled continuously over a number of years, the study found none of the cancers associated with the chemical were “statistically significant.”23 Reacting to community health concerns and community sampling data about the impact of emissions from Lanxess, the Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services installed air monitoring equipment on the roof of the Meredith Hitchens Elementary School located across the street from the plant.24 The installation of the rooftop monitor came after citizen air monitoring showed serious problems. On May 6, 2005, an air sample collected by local resident Cheryl Siefert, found 87 ppb of butadiene in the air in her backyard. Ruth Breech described the reading as “extremely high” and urged the installation of more sophisticated monitors that continuously take samples. Lanxess officials questioned the accuracy of the sample.25
One sample Kelley captured in Addyston on May 6, 2005, detected 85 ppb of butadiene in the air. Butadiene causes reproductive and developmental disorders as well as producing eye, nose, and throat irritation. In high doses it can affect the central nervous system; and it also has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. Mike Kramer, permits and enforcement supervisor for the Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services, described that sample as well above the level that causes physical irritation. At 1,000 ppb the chemical can cause nervous system damage and unconsciousness.26 Kramer faults inefficient flaring
Some residents near the plant are so concerned that they have taken on the job of doing their own air monitoring with air sampling “buckets” made from 5 gallon plastic buckets, plastic liners, and sealed lids with a small air pump to create a vacuum. These citizen air sampling devices cost about $150 to produce, notes Denny Larson, director of Global Community Monitor, who introduced their use to the region. The buckets are in use in 30 communities around the country and a dozen other locations around the world, Larson explains. They have been useful in proving that air is polluted in fenceline communities adjacent to heavily-polluting industries.27 Ohio Citizen Action landed a $7,500 grant to ensure that air samples taken by residents could be processed by an independent California laboratory. School Closed
For Jennifer Janzen, a mother who pulled her children out of school because they complained of headaches, this was a moment of vindication. Janzen had tried to approach school officials about health concerns related to emissions from Lanxess but had been rebuffed. When she took her children out of school they were listed as absentees and some neighbors thought that she was just trying to stir up trouble, Ruth Breech recalls. But with the school being closed Janzen suddenly appeared more prescient than hypochondriacal. The question of whether or not to close the school split residents in the communities surrounding the Lanxess plant. “I’m elated,” said Sue Wullenweber, who lives near the plant and has a son at the school. “We need to think about the safety of our children…I guess they have gotten the proof that our children aren’t safe…(that) there’s a true, real concern here, and we aren’t crazy,” she added.30 “They should keep Hitchens closed,” agreed Charity Hollin, whose six year-old daughter Madison complained of headaches and stomach pains after beginning kindergarten classes at the school, her mother reports.31
Industry Perspective On the other side of the fenceline, people who work at Lanxess argue that the plant does not constitute a threat to the health of its neighbors or workers and that they are making significant progress in reducing odors that come from the plant and accidental releases of chemicals. Those who work at Lanxess see the plant as an integral part of the community. The plant was founded in 1891 as a factory town to supply workers for industrialist Matthew Addy’s pipe foundry. It subsequently became a plastics plant and was purchased by Monsanto in 1951 and subsequently by Bayer in 1996. It currently makes plastic pellets which are sold to companies that melt and mold them into dashboards, telephone headsets, blenders and refrigerator liners. The company has 410 employees and a $32 million payroll. In 2004 Bayer spun off Lanxess as a subsidiary. Tim Bentner, 43, a big-shouldered man wearing a yellow hard-hat has worked at Lanxess for 20 years and his father and brother have worked there longer. He is convinced the plant is not causing illness in the community. Bentner grew up in Addyston, attended school there, and now lives in the nearby neighborhood of North Bend where he can see the plant from his second story window. After working at the plant all these years and living next to it he argues that if anyone were made sick by the chemicals it should have been him. “If anything happens at the plant we are seen as guilty before being proved innocent,” he complains. The media has not done a good job of reporting the story about the plant, he continues. Reporters mention the high cancer rate but they fail to point out that the cancers that are the highest are not ones associated with exposure to the chemicals used at the plant. They also don’t report that cigarette smoking is three times the average in town. Bentner believes the operation of the plant is safe enough that he continues to work there and would urge his kids to work there when they come of age. It is only a very small minority of people in the surrounding communities who are concerned about health effects from the plant, he argues. Yes, there have been three accidents that community members have every right to be angry about, he acknowledges. But the vast majority of 102 malfunctions reported last year are minor technical difficulties that the company is required by law to report but constitute no threat to the public. Ohio Citizen Action has misrepresented the facts, used scare tactics, and created am unwarranted sense of panic in town, he adds. OCA’s campaign has been successful at challenging plant managers to do a better job and it has hastened the purchase and installation of pollution control technologies, Bentner concedes, and that was a good thing. “But they have left the community with bitter resentment about the plant and people no longer trust the facility” and that is unwarranted, he asserts. Duane Day, the Lanxess manager whose job it is to track the company’s environmental compliance with state and federal regulations also has problems with Ohio Citizen Action’s campaign to clean up the plant. “The campaign took a negative approach and they were not clear what they wanted,” he observes. First they focused on odor problems, then dust, then water contamination, then they were worried about upsets [accidents], and then they wanted a cancer study. The campaign never seemed to have clear priorities and whenever the company would begin to respond they would shift to another issue, he adds. One of the biggest issues for residents was the odors coming from the plant. In response, Lanxess invested $300,000 to improve its sewer treatment plant and reduced the odors by 90 percent, Day points out. As for the three accidental releases that received so much media attention, Day says that while they were not a cause of health problems in the community it was not acceptable for the company to argue that these malfunctions were just a cost of doing business. “We recognized that there was room for improvement,” Day observes. As a result the company committed $1.5 million for new equipment to improve the efficiency of flaring and improve the thermal oxidizer unit. The company had already spent $300,000 to replace some giant valves, he explains. The company is also reaching out to the community and going door to door talking with residents. “A high percentage of people are OK with us. Only a few had negative comments,” Days reports. They also have improved their complaint process so that when residents call to complain about an odor, Lanxess sends someone out to talk to the resident and attempt to capture information immediately in order to investigate.
“I struggle with the accusations that Lanxess is making people sick,” says Kay Rowland, 53, Lanxess Human Resource Coordinator, who started work at the plant in 1980 at the age of 26 and lives a seven minute, 2.5 mile drive away from work in Miami Township. “I’m here at ground zero and I have always felt safe working here,” continues Rowland who observes that many Lanxess employees have parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who have worked at the plant. Rowland is also not convinced that many of the cancers in Addyston should be attributed to chemical releases from the plant. As an example she cites the case of her father-in-law who died of cancer in 2002 and lived across the street from the plant. “He will be counted as one of the 52 cancer cases but he both drank and smoked for years prior to his death, she points out. “I don’t agree that it is all about Lanxess,” she says. There may be other factors as well that explain the increased cancer rates, Rowland points out. A lot of people who live in town are in older houses where radon may be a problem, she observes. Then there are multiple other industrial operations such as Kaiser Chemicals and Cinergy that are putting out pollutants. Posted: 1 October 2006
NOTES
|