|
You have reached a web page on our old web site. To visit our new web site click here. |
Environmental Monitoring – RTK Conference – November 2001
by Denny Larson, Director, Global Community Monitor
November 2, 2001
1. Critical
analysis of when and where environmental monitoring makes a difference.
Activists are
appropriately skeptical of “monitoring”, since the tactic has been effectively
used by polluters and agencies to “prove” that pollution problems don’t
exist. This is similar to the
well-known problem of health studies.
Monitoring is a tactic that can however work to support and win a
campaign in conjunction with effective community organizing. Data alone rarely triumphs, but with a clear
strategy and in combination with good community organizing, it can be a key
campaign component.
Let’s look at
one example where this is working right now.
In Louisiana, polluters and their government cronies have been very
effective in an endless toxic assault on many communities. Many efforts have failed to reverse the
trend. How could something as simple as
a focus on air monitoring make a difference?
An examination of existing air monitors and their data provides the
first glimpse of the Louisiana “house of cards” ready for collapse. The state’s monitors have been located many
miles upwind of large industrial centers, so claims of “clean air” look suspect
when fenceline data is presented.
In a recent case
in Norco, LA, the Concerned Citizens of Norco began taking air samples in
support of their campaign to win relocation.
Showing that their air is constantly filled with toxic gases, including
benzene at levels that would violate state health standards, gave evidence to
the relocation demand that the area had become unhealthy to live in. The target (Shell) responded by citing air
monitoring data from the state’s monitor showing that air quality was “in compliance.” The group then counter-attacked with the
information about the location of the monitor at 10 miles upwind. The media, regional EPA enforcement
officials and the general public have been convinced by the concentrated Bucket
Brigade efforts that Shell is polluting too much and that the citizen
monitoring is the best data out there.
When:
·
you know
your target(s) is lying about pollution going offsite.
·
chemical of
concern can be monitored by using readily available methods.
·
conditions
indicated pollution might be causing health and/or environmental problems
offsite.
·
you know
what you will (probably) find.
·
a campaign
has used other strategies and needs re-invigorating.
·
monitoring
can be integrated into a campaign as an organizing strategy and made community
friendly.
·
the
education and capacity building of your base will help a community win a
campaign and sustain their continuing efforts.
·
you need
something new and/or data to convince fence sitters to support your campaign
whether they are fellow community members or agency officials or politicians
(allies you decide you need).
·
industry
and agencies insist that studies and the “non-monitoring” of pollution “prove”
that there is “no problem”.
Where:
·
Fenceline
neighborhoods/public areas adjacent to industry.
·
There are
health problems offsite that can result from chemical exposure.
·
Strong
odors and/or visible pollution cause acute health effects/environmental damage.
2.
An assessment of when data is used most
effectively.
The purpose of generating community-based monitoring data is to document toxic impacts that often take the form of “anecdotal” evidence. In many cases communities may call or file a complaint which official agency inspectors fail to confirm due to their lack of timely on scene investigation. Since fenceline community people are ideally located near the sources of pollution, they can use tools to document the problem in a more effective and timely way than most agencies.
Data is used most effectively when it supports and gives weight to community complaints. Data is also best used when it is compared and analyzed in relation to other data which also lends support to the impacted community. For example, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade uses air sample data to draw a link between TRI data showing that a polluter admits they emit benzene and benzene found in nearby air samples. The levels of benzene are compared to relevant state and other health-based standards to give a sense of the severity of the exposure. A list of accidental releases/chemicals from the target facility occurring during the sample period is also compared to the air sample. Finally each chemical’s known and suspected health effects is reported and compared to observations of health effects observed during the sample.
Challenges to the data are successfully defeated due to the intentional failure of industry and government to monitoring fenceline areas with appropriate techniques. Polluters and agencies have repeatedly failed to use adequate fenceline monitoring systems. Instead they mislead the public by citing monitoring data far from the scene of the crime or using equipment which cannot detect pollution except at very high levels. The latter tactic is often reported as, “we tested and found nothing.” While technically correct, nothing may equal large exposures of hazardous chemicals.
3. Analysis
of the array of monitoring available, critical look at cost vs. applicability.
My expertise is
in the area of air monitoring for toxic organics and sulfur compounds detected
by the use of EPA’s TO-15 and Method 16 sulfur analysis. Conventional incident air monitoring is done
through a brief capture of air or “grab” sampling. The suspect air is stored in a stainless steel container or a
special sample bag known as Tedlar.
The container
approach or suma canister method has certain disadvantages for community-based
monitoring. The containers cost about
$450 and the entire apparatus must be shipped to and from the sampler to the
lab. The sampler will need multiple
canisters to be always at the ready thus increasing the cost and decreasing the
number of samplers. The canisters are
shipped from the lab with a negative pressure so that upon opening, air from
outside will rush in. If there is a
problem with the pressure or the device, the sampler will not be able to fix
it.
In 1995, a
cheaper, easier and more community friendly version of the canister was
developed in a refinery area near San Francisco California. The stainless steel container was replaced
with a simple 5-gallon plastic bucket.
The bucket was fitted with basic vales and a vacuum to create a negative
pressure system. A special inert
plastic bag, which is also widely used to collect air samples, called Tedlar is
attached to one of the bucket’s valves.
When the bucket is sealed and the vacuum turned on, the valve to the bag
is opened so that outside air rushes in.
Buckets cost only $125 and the bags costs $15 each (cannot be
reused). With reduced costs, more
people can be involved and more area can be monitored. Unlike the cans, multiple samples can be
taken merely my attaching a new bag.
Any sampler can easily fix problems with the negative pressure or the
bucket.
Under the
methodology I have developed, the buckets are built by community samplers to
de-mystify the process of sampling.
People begin to learn “hands on” about monitoring, chemicals, evidence
gathering, health effects and the whole science behind pollution and health
issues. Everyone has a role to log and
complain about incidents as well as alert the samplers.
The most
expensive part of the process is the lab analysis which costs $425 for analysis
of 100 compounds. The cost is the same
for cans and buckets.
4.
Overview of how communities respond to
the process of, and results from environmental monitoring. (How companies and agencies respond as
well).
The response to
the Bucket Brigade method of environmental monitoring has been incredible. Since 1995, over 20 communities have
employed the method to verify their pollution complaints and incorporate it in
their organizing. Because the method is
very “hands on” and the community owns it, it has excited many people in
environmental health issues in a way other data can not. It is energized new and old campaigns alike
as an organizing tool. Through the
process people learn what chemicals they are breathing, their health effects
and what can be done to prevent/reduce the releases.
Agencies and
industry alike usually begin by attacking the bucket as “unscientific”. This begins a helpful cycle of these
entities digging a “deeper and deeper” hole for themselves. Despite the fact that the method has been
developed in conjunction with US EPA and several sampling programs have been
supported by EPA funds, the attack comes.
Next they
sometimes will try to take their own samples to disprove the bucket samples-
(deeper and deeper). EPA has noted in
official memo on the subject, bucket data “may not represent the worse cases
scenario” due to the brief period of sampling.
When appropriate follow up sampling has occurred in most cases, the
results are worse. Of course
agencies/polluters will soon try to point the finger at highways and other
sources of pollution rather than industry when pressed in their deep hole.
5.
How environmental monitoring is used as a
tool for organizing work, building the base, expanding to new environmental and
health constituencies and empowerment?
Most people have
never seen a list of chemicals that they breathe into their bodies every
day. Unlike drinking water, food
products and drugs, no informative labels inform us when we take air into our
lungs. The BB method was designed by
organizers as a tool for organizing, base building and expansion of new
constituencies. It works effectively
because the process is “hands on” and is owned and controlled by the
community. From start to finish, the
community builds the equipment, trains on it and uses it with pride and
satisfaction. A role is created for everyone
starting with the sampler and reaching out to the entire community to be part
of the “sniffer” patrol. Sniffers alert
the sampler to potential releases, write down observations in their logbooks
and make complaints to agencies.
When data is
effectively presented through the method previously described, people who never
showed concern are shocked into action when they see that they are breathing
dozens of toxic chemicals at high levels.
Presenting information of possible health effects triggers recognition
that pollution is causing negative impacts.
As new people delve into issue they begin to recognize that industry and
agencies have misled or concealed the public’s right to know. This anger can be channeled into positive
action to win clean up campaigns.
Empowerment
becomes complete as communities understand how they can control their lives
rather than give it over to bureaucrats and polluters who live far away from
impacted communities.
6.
A wish list for the future of
environmental monitoring.
1. More research and development into inexpensive community friendly
tools for monitoring a wider variety of pollutants, such as:
·
Particulates
·
Heavy
metals
·
PCB’s and
other POPs
·
Radioactive
materials
2.
More
funding for organizers to develop and test new monitoring methods, trainings
and ciriculums.
3.
More
funding to train more communities to monitor.
4.
A
dedicated lab to provide free lab analysis.
5.
Funding
to build a comprehensive toolkit for community monitoring.
Send comments on this paper to Denny Larson