A Spatial Study of the Location of Superfund Sites and Associated Cancer Risk

Abstract

Superfund sites are geographic locations selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as having extreme toxic chemical spills. In this article, we address three main research questions: (1) Are there geographical areas where the number (or density) of Superfund sites is significantly higher than in the rest of the USA? (2) Is there an association between cancer incidence and the number (or density) of Superfund sites? (3) Do counties with Superfund sites have higher proportions of minority populations than the rest of the USA? We study the geographic distribution of the overall cancer incidence rate (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011) in addition to the geographic variation of Superfund sites for 2013. We used the disease surveillance software package SaTScan with its scan statistic to identify locations and relative risks of spatial clusters in cancer rates and in Superfund site count and density. We also used the surveillance software FlexScan to support and complement the results obtained with SaTScan. We find that geographic areas with Superfund sites tend to have elevated cancer risk, and also elevated proportions of minority populations.

Protecting Children from Toxic Waste: Data-Usability Evaluation Can Deter Flawed Cleanup

“…Given lifetime exposure, TOTAL = certainty of cancer = 1 1 Contaminant list, maxima in soil gas, and screening levels are from [67]. 2 To determine excess cancer risk, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) mandates dividing the maximum contaminant level by the screening level (1.0 × 10 −6 , a one-in-a-million cancer risk)-and then multiplying this ratio by 1.0 × 10 −6 [67]. 3 For the majority of site industrial solvents (VOCs), that were tested using adequate detection limits, all samples (those not shaded above) violate allowed levels of the contaminant.…”

“…Fourth, child-site-resident risks should be assessed because they are very high, and cleanup levels do not protect children from birth defects. As Section 3.3.6 noted, to avoid cardiac and other birth defects, US ATSDR says airborne/inhaled TCE doses must be no higher than 0.4 ppb/day-about 2 micrograms/cubic meter (ug/m 3 )/day [2,5,162,163]. Yet remediation documents allow beside-building, carcinogenic/mutagenic TCE soil-gas levels as high as 480 ug/m 3 -240 times higher than what causes permanent heart defects in children [67] (pp.…”

“…Most are in densely populated urban locations whose residents include disproportionate numbers of minorities and people living below the poverty line. Although these near-toxic-site residents must confront statistically significant increases in cancer and other diseases [2], children face the worst threats [3][4][5][6]. Roughly 25 percent of all US children live within 2 km of a toxic-waste site [7] (p. 159).…”

“…It now hopes to purchase the site and build shops and 550 small apartments on it [68] (pp. [1][2]41).…”

“…(1) They may help prevent PCE/TCE health harm, like that suffered by 60 Indiana youngsters who have been diagnosed with, or died from, rare TCE/PCE-associated blood/brain cancers from a local toxic site [31,73,74]. (2) As US EPA has recommended since the 1980s [74], the findings also may provide an economical, noninvasive, early-warning method, a focused DUE, to help avoid wasting money on ineffective toxics' cleanups. (3) The findings likewise may help deter scientific fraud in site remediation [75][76][77][78][79][80][81], like the fraud that has just occurred in San Francisco's Hunter's Point [55][56][57]82,83].…”