If they only had a RCRA permit...Part 6

April 24, 2013:

A separate report submitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District by Exide demonstrates that emissions from the facility operations pose a significant risk to the surrounding community.

That's the reason DTSC gave for telling Exide to "CEASE OPERATIONS EFFECTIVE APRIL 24, 2013."

That report, called a "Health Risk Assessment" was required by the SCAQMD and approved by them on March 1, 2013.  The next step was for Exide to make a public notice and develop a Risk Reduction Plan (RRP) which they did on August 28, 2013.

The DTSC, with the data from the HRA - along with the stormwater pipe issues - struck Exide with a cease operations mandate, which Exide challenged and won, starting operations back up on the last week of June, 2013.

That's a nice little history lesson you might be thinking, but what does it have to do with anything?

My question, at this point in time, regards harm or risk to the community around the Exide facility in Vernon.  The public wants it shut down and they are concerned for their health, as the Los Angeles Times wrote October 8, 2013:

Joe Gonzalez of Boyle Heights demanded of regulators: "How dare you come back here and ask us what we want. You're killing us...at what point does this become blatant racism?"

De León, who called the meeting, noted that "there are no Exides in Brentwood ... in Malibu."

"Are our children worth as much as any other child?"

 Does Exide present a "significant risk to the surrounding community."?

Well, I guess that would depend on how one defines the term "significant."

Here is how the SCAQMD defines it:

Rule 1402

What's a MICR?

Rule 1402

What did the DTSC find in the HRA that indicated a "significant risk level?"

Source

Based on the data from the HRA, Exide presents a "significant risk level" for workers but not for the folks who live in the area.

The problem with those numbers; 156 in one million and 22 in one million, is that they are theoretical and based on a model.  Here is what the formula looks like:

Rule 1402

The MICR that is calculated is an estimate based on the premise that the receptor will be exposed to the maximum emission rate every day for a particular length of time (70 years for a residence).  All of this predicated on a calculated annual average concentration for all the chemicals emitted.  Those numbers are then multiplied by this thing they call in California the "Cancer Potency."

Cancer Potency, or the Slope Factor is how we determine that one in a million risk.  I written about it a lot in previous posts.  It assumes a straight line dose-response where no exposure = no cancer and any exposure = risk of cancer.  Remember that SCAQMD graph on arsenic in and around the Exide facility?

Source

Look at the sentence at the bottom.  The cancer potency derived from the slope of the line calculates 16.6 additional lung cancers per million for one nanogram of arsenic in one cubic meter of air inhaled everyday for 70 years.

Let me remind you how small a nanogram is.

• 1 milligram = 0.001 grams
• 1 microgram = 0.000001 grams
• 1 nonogram = 0.000000001 grams

I was curious to how that number was derived.  So I went to the Google and found a document from the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Neutron activation analysis (NAA) has a detection limit of 0.1 ng for total arsenic

Okay, I was wondering how they can detect with any degree of confidence to the nanogram level.

Then I read this in the WHO document:

WHO

Wait...if the breathing rate is 20 cubic meters a day, and the estimated lower end is 20 ng, that would mean in a rural area the average amount of arsenic in air is about 1 nanogram per cubic meter.  The SCAQMD graph shows the average arsenic in the SCAQMD area to be just above 0.5 nanograms.  I thought that seemed low when I first saw the graph, but now it does not jive with what the WHO states should be found in industrial areas.

But I digress.  Back to slope factors:

WHO

Okay, that's a bunch of words.  What does it all mean?

WHO

The WHO estimates about 2 additional cancers per nanogram while the SCAQMD estimates 16 per nanogram.  That's how this process of looking at cancer risk works.  It's kind-of-sort-of quantitative but how accurate it is in actually determining the real risk is anyone's guess.  So what ever model they use, or data they depend on, once accepted becomes the way it is calculated.  They hope it reflects reality, but really what they want is the most protective model they can "scientifically" support.  The WHO supports 0.66 ng/m3 for a one in one million risk while California supports about 0.06 ng/m3 for the same risk.  Which one is correct?

As I have said before, this is how we do it, this is all we got, so...if you can support your slope factor then I will need to accept your estimated cancer risk.

The problem I have with this as it relates to Exide is that the DTSC used this calculated risk to meet the definition of "significant" which they then used as the reason to tell Exide to cease operation.

That's not what the estimate of risk calculated in the HRA was to be used for, and somebody at the DTSC should have known that.

Those values calculated by Exide and reported in the HRA are used to determine where effort needs to be placed in terms of controls.  This is done through the submission of a Risk Reduction Plan (RRP)

DTSC used those numbers claiming that they required the operation cease to "prevent or mitigate the substantial danger pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25186.2."

25186.2.  The department may temporarily suspend any permit, registration or certificate issued pursuant to this chapter prior to any hearing if the department determines that the action is necessary to prevent or mitigate an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or safety or the environment.

I went looking for California's definition of "imminent" in the Health & Safety Code

113810.  "Imminent health hazard" means a significant threat or danger to health that is considered to exist when there is evidence sufficient to show that a product, practice, circumstance, or event creates a situation that can cause food infection, food intoxication, disease transmission, vermin infestation, or hazardous condition that requires immediate correction or cessation of operation to prevent injury, illness, or death.

I went looking for the definition of "substantial" in California and this is what I found:

A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm.

Okay, so you get the picture.  I think DTSC misused the information in the HRA - theoretical risk - to claim actual risk.  Apparently so did a Judge and Exide was up and running the last week of June 2013.

Remember that graph from the SCAQMD?  They included the data along with the graph.

Back to my question.  Does Exide pose a significant or substantial risk to the community?  Or, looking at it another way, would the community see their health positively impacted if Exide were closed?

Next Post:  If they only had a RCRA permit...Part 7

.