Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10271998 - D5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTYFROM: SUPERVISORS GAYLE B. UILKEMA AND JIM ROGERS DATE: October 6, '1998 SUBJECT: REPORT FRom THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON"SCHOOL HAZE:AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS" SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)'OR RECOMMENDATIGN(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommendation: APPROVE the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on"School Haze: Air Pollution Near California Schools" as outlined below. AUTHORIZE the County Administrator and the Health Services Director to take the necessary steps to implement these recommendations. BaAuroun& On June 16, 1998,Supervisor Gerber brought before the Board the just-issued report"School Haze: Air Pollution Near California Schools" by the Environmental Working Group. The Board appointed Supervisors Uilkema and Rogers as an Ara Hoc Committee to consider the document and report back to the Board. The Board referred the document to the Hazardous Materials Commission,the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board(PEHAB) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for their review and reports back to the Ad Hoc Committee,and asked Dr. Wendel Brunner,Director of Public Health,to coordinate those reports and provide his comments and recommendations. &-port of the.rod Hoc Committee: The Committee met on September 21, 1998. Supervisor Uilkema welcomed members of the public and staff, and provided an article from the August 17, 1998 issue of the Cghohe voice,Diocese of Oakland C Group admits errors on list of toxic-endangered schools"),about Martinez schools and "School Haze." She and Supervisor Rogers accepted the collected written reports and heard comments from Dr. Brunner;Leslie Stewart,Chair of the Hazardous Materials Commission; MaT Leeds,member of PEHAB; and Brian Bateman of the BAAQMD. The Committee heard farther public comment from Bill Walker of the Environmental Working Group, author of"School Haze;" and Denny Larson of Communities for a Better Environment. Also in attendance were Mark Hughes of Martinez Refining Co.; Steve Gallo of PG&E;and Health Services staff Elinor Blare,Michael Kent, and Tracey Rattray. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE{S Gaylet. Uilkem Jim tigers j V RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER ACTION OF BOARD ON OCTOBER 27, 1998 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X SEE ADDENDUM VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact Person:Elinor Blake(370-5022) ATTESTED October 27998 _ CC: Public&Environmental Health Advisory Board PHIL eTGHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Hazardous Materials Commission(via HSD) SU VISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Bay Area Air Quality Management District Health Services Director BY: DEPUTY Board of Supervisors Page 2 Report from the Ad Hoc Committee on "School Haze" Date: October 6, 1998 After discussion,the Committee made the following recommendations: 1. All members of the Board should receive the materials presented to the Committee. 2. The California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)should consider children's health in developing environmental standards. 3. Measures of environmental health should be included in the County's Children's Report Card. 4. Children in areas of high levels of exposure to pollutants should be identified and receive appropriate treatment. 5. Data in the UEPA's Toxic Release Inventory(TRI) should be improved. 6. Chemical toxicity data specific to children should be expanded. 7 A recommendation should be made to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that children's health be considered in the evaluation of air monitoring data. 8. State funding for additional air monitoring should be increased. 9. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District should focus greater attention on mobile sources of air pollution. 10. The Board should request that the two companies operating refineries,meet with County Health Services to discuss setting up a mobile air monitoring program. There should be a report back to the Board on these discussions and more specific recommendations as appropriate. 11. The Hazardous Materials Commission should proceed with their proposal to request from industry recent air emission and other specified data that they have submitted to USEPA. ADDENDUM D.5 October 27, 1998 On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered accepting a report from the Family and Human Services Committee on the Probation in the Schools program. After discussion of the matter,the Board took the following action: APPROVED the recommendations of the Ad Hae Committee on"School Haze: Air Pollution Near California Schools"as outlined;ADDED a twelfth recommendation, "Explore with the Contra Costa County state legislative delegation the sponsorship of legislation to require pollution prevention and reduction plans for air emissions of toxic chemicals and harmful particulates"; and AUTHORIZED the County Administrator and the Health Services Director to take the necessary steps to implement these recommendations. The Board of upervisorsContraftleft" CIS*Offt Sowd cout*Administration Buik#ing 861 Room 106 Costand a Courdy Admkgosw Wiz,U la x.,293 County iii , ft"% t i Mork D1iialhalrr.4th nia�rict December 15, 1998 Ms. Carol Browner Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Ms. Browner: On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors,I am writing to support your initiatives to take children's health into consideration in reviewing and developing all environmental health standards and programs, and to urge their continuance. Our Board is quite familiar with environmental health issues, as our county is home to a large concentration of petrochemical and other industrial facilities and our residents have a high environmental awareness. We also operate an active childhood lead poisoning prevention program and attempt to integrate environmental health into our other public health activities. In the course of reviewing a document about industrial air emissions and schools,we recently heard reports from our Public Health Director, two of our Commissions, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. They provided us with additional information about the special needs of children due to their physiologic difference from adults from fetal stage through adolescence,their behavior, and the different environments in which they spend their time. About 880,000 people live in our county, and some 230,000 are age seventeen or younger. Helping to protecting their health is one of our most important responsibilities. We are aware that you have established the Office of Children's Health Protection to implement President Clinton's Executive Order on Children's Environmental Health and Safety,and that USEPA is funding the new Pediatric Environmental Health and Safety Centers(including one in our neighboring county at the University of California). We urge that you continue to incorporate the protection of children's health throughout the Agency, including in the implementation of child-protective legislation. Carol Browner,Administrator Page 2 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency December 11, 1998 Should you have any questions,we would be very interested in hearing from you. Please contact Dr. Wendel Brunner,Public Health Director,at(925)313-6712. Sincerely, 4 / l "- Jrm Rogers Chair cc. Felicia Marcus,Regional Administrator,Region IX William B. Walker,Health.Services Director Wendel Brunner,Public Health Director Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board Hazardous Materials Commission The Board of Supervisors Contra C**Of 2"B" C.mmqf AdmdrAfttion SuRdIng � , 851 pin$StMet, 3� oto (a,o)�s-a sa Inez,�110 84553-,283 County AM ftWO,It DisM December 15, 1998 „k Ms.Barbara Reardon,Chair California Air Resources Board 2020 L Street Sacramento,CA 95814 Dear Ms.Reardon: On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors,I am writing to urge that the Air Resources Board take children's health into consideration in evaluating and utilizing air monitoring data. We also urge that you support an increase in state funding for air monitoring. Our Board is quite familiar with environmental health issues,as our county is home to a large concentration of petrochemical and other industrial facilities and our residents have;a high environmental awareness. In the course of reviewing a document about industrial air emissions and schools,we recently heard reports from our Public Health Director,two of our Commissions,and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.'Together they provided us with additional information about the special needs of children due to their physiologic difference from adults from fetal stage through adolescence, their difference in behavior,and the different environments in which they spend their time. We also learned about the air monitoring network statewide,and in our county,from which the Air Resources Board gathers data. We need additional monitoring stations,which would provide an improved data base on which to base policy decisions,and from which answers could be drawn about air quality at a local—even neighborhood--level.The monitoring system now in place does not allow us to obtain the assurance we need to respond to our concerns and those of our residents. We urge you to support the establishment of a monitoring network that is more representative not only of potential exposures of the general population,but also of subpopulations who have sustained exposures to emissions from both mobile and point sources,such as major transportation routes and industrial facilities. About 880,000 people live in Contra Costa County,and some 230,000 are age seventeen or younger. Helping to protect their health is one of our most important responsibilities. Should you have any questions,we would be very interested in hearing from you. Please contact Dr.Wendel Brunner,Public Health Director,at 925-313-6712. Sincerely, Jim Rogers Chair cc: William B.Walker,Health Services Director Wendel Brunner,M.D.,Public Health Director Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board Hazardous Materials Commission The Board of Supervisors Contra OW*of ft ftwd WW County A&MMItrat M 8uiidtrVCosta c w a 1 900 651 PIM Street,Room 106 Mar#nez,Caltbmta 94553-1293 3 j o u r ty Go*is.UNWO,sw _ DOMW December 15, 1998 Mr. Peter M. Rooney Secretary California Environmental Protection Agency 555 Capitol Mall,#525 Sacramento,CA 95814 Dear Secretary Rooney: On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors,I am writing to urge that Cal/EPA take children's health into consideration in reviewing and developing all environmental standards that impact on health. Our Board is well aware of environmental health issues, as our county is home to a large concentration of petrochemical and other industrial facilities and our residents have a high environmental awareness. In the course of reviewing a document about industrial air emissions and schools,we recently heard reports from our Public Health Director,two of our Commissions, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. They provided us with additional information about the special needs of children due to their physiologic difference from adults from fetal stage through adolescence,differences in behavior, and the different environments in which they spend their time. About 880,000 people live in our county, and some 230,000 are age seventeen or younger. Helping to protect their health is one of our most important responsibilities. We urge that in developing Health Risk Assessments,recommendations for standards, and related documents that your agency and its constituent departments incorporate factors to protect children's health, to the greatest extent possible. From the reports we received we also learned about the air monitoring network statewide,and in our county, from which the Air Resources Board gathers data. We need additional monitoring stations,which would provide an improved data base on which to base policy decisions,and from which answers could be drawn about air quality at a local--even neighborhood—level. The monitoring system now in place does not allow us to obtain the assurance we need to respond to our concerns and those of our residents. We urge you to support the establishment of a monitoring network that is more representative not only of potential exposures of the general papulation,but also of subpopulations who have sustained exposures to emissions from both Peter M.Rooney Page 2 California Environmental Protection Agency December 15, 1998 mobile and point sources,such as major transportation routes and industrial facilities. Should you have any questions,we would be very interested in bearing from you. Please contact Dr.Wendel Brunner,Public Health Director, at 925-313-6712. Sincerely, 4 dam�.ogei`5 Chair cc: William B. Walker,Health Services Director Wendel Branner M.D.,Public Health Director Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board Hazardous Materials Commission Contra Costa County -.. Health Services Department •; .• Public Health`'Division 1'1+ • 14drnlnt9tnrilVe office$ i 597 Center:AVenue.Suite 200 Mardnez,Callbrnla 94553 ;y. Phone: (510)313-6712 Fax:{510}313-6721 E-Mail:wbrunnerQhsd.00.00ntra-oosta.caous September 16, 1998 Supervisor Jim Rogers,District 1 Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema,District 2 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Supervisor Rogers and Supervisor Uilkema: I am pleased to enclose reports from the Hazardous Materials Commission, the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District concerning the document, "School Haze," by the Environmental Working Group. The Board requested the reports on June 11, 1998,along with our review and recommendations. Air quality,particularly with regard to industrial releases,has long been an issuer of key importance in the county and has received considerable attention and action by the Board and by Health Services. Too often,accidental releases have affected school children and teachers and so have been of special concern. "School Haze"addresses non-accidental releases and grouped certain industrial emissions data with proximity to schools. Though some of the data in "School Haze" is inaccurate, the underlying point noted in all the enclosed reports is that the impact toxic chemicals may have on children has not been adequately addressed. Nationally and locally,we need information about the nature of children's exposures to toxic chemicals and the effect that these substances individually and in combination may have uniquely on infants and children. Health Services supports efforts by USEPA and CaVEPA to develop and apply such data. We support legislation along the same lines, such.as Senator Boxer's proposed Children's Environmental Health Protection Act which would provide a level playing field for toxic materials standard-setting that tabes children into account,throughout the nation. We are also advocates for the public's right to know,and urge USEPA to improve the Toxic Release Inventory and other emissions data bases so that more accurate information is available. The review of more recent data review suggested by the Hazardous Materials Commission could tell us about overall emission trends. Proximity to an emission,though, does not necessarily mean there is exposure. We could obtain better data on children's actual exposure to air contaminants through expanded'air monitoring. The Hazardous Materials Commission has provided a helpful overview of air monitoring in the County, and Ms. Garvey's letter reviews the recent cutbacks in the Air District's program. However, the Health Services Department believes that additional monitoring of air near schools and residential areas for toxic materials is indicated in Contra Costa and throughout the country. This data, combined with toxic standards that consider the impact on children,developed by California and US EPA's,would form the basis for sound, scientific policy decisions. Public Health Division Review Page 2 "School Haze•, September 16, 1998 Though"School Haze'addressed only industrial sources,children--indeed,all of us—are exposed to pollution from.several sources. Among these are industry, motor vehicles, and agricultural practices. Earlier this year, Health Services recommended including on the county's Children's Report Card two relevant measures: 1) Number of Violations of State Air Quality Standards Annually in Three Contra Costa Cities and 2) Number of Releases from Industrial Facilities in Contra Costa in Violation of Local Air Quality Standards. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the department's views on these important aspects of children's environmental health. Please.let me know if i can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Av - wolz- /,z~. AV Wendel Brunner,M.D. Director of Public Health Enclosures CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAZARDOUS AMTERIALS COMMISSION ,•+ -,► , Date: September 8, 1998 To: Supervisor Rodgers and Supervisor Uiikema Ad Hoc Committee From: Leslie Stewart,Chair Subject: Hazardous Materials Commission Response to the"School Haze"Report I am pleased to enclose the report that the Board requested of the Hazardous Materials Commission on "School Haze,"by the Environmental Working Croup. The Commission's report,"School Children and Air Quality in Contra Costa County:Resolving Concerns about Data and Health,"provides a useful overview of public notification,data-gathering,and other programs in place to protect our health with regard to air_ quality. It also highlights possibilities for further action. In light of our findings, we have three recommendations for your consideration. The basis for them is described in the report. They are: o Call on USEPA to review Toxic Release Inventory facility location/spatial data for accuracy and to institute measures to ensure accuracy of reporting in the future. In the meantime,USEPA should employ better methods to alert users to limitations of the data. One model is the alert provided in the Scorecard web site developed by the Environmental Defense Fund. o Explore with the Contra Costa County state legislative delegation the sponsorship of legislation to require pollution prevention and reduction plans for air emissions of toxic chemicals and harmful ,particulates. a Ask local industrial facilities for air and other specified 1997 data submitted to USEPA for the TRI and AIRS data bases. Analyze these and previous years'data to determine trends in air emissions. I will be available to answer any questions at the Ad Hoc Committee meeting on September 21, 1998. If you have any questions before then,please call me at(925)283-7093,or Elinor Blake at(925)370-5422. Enclosure cc: Phil Batchelor,County Administrator Board of Supervisors William Walker,M.D.,Health Services Director Tracy Itattray,Public Environmental Health Advisory Board Ellen Garvey,Bay Area Air Pollution Control Officer Clerk of the Board Munbers: Leslie Stewart.Glair Pam Aguilar Maria Alegria Scott Anderson Henry Clank Paulette Lagano Marj Lttds Steven Linsley Jim Payne Michael Polkabla dintmy Rodgers Mike Shimansky Stuart Shoults Gayle B. Vilkema Emotive Assistant: Elinor Blake 20 Allen Street, Martinez, CA 94553 (925)370.51122 Fax(925)370-5098 School Children and Air Quality In Contra Costa County: Resolving Concerns about Hata and Health A report to the Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee Supervisors Gayle Uilkema and Jim Rogers by the Hazardous Materials Commission September 8, 1998 Health risks to people in the County from industrial emissions have long been a subject of concern and attention by residents,the Beard, industry,and health officials. The focus has usually been on visible or foul-smelling accidents that are readily apparent. Sometimes schools have been in the path of accidental emissions, and so public awareness of potential harm to children is heightened here. Contra Costa's under-18 youth population numbers over 227,000,* and is growing. When the Environmental Working Group issued"School Haze"in,Tune, 1998, its conclusion that a number of Contra Costa schools were among the"S0 most exposed California schools in 1995" received considerable attention. The Board of Supervisors asked the Hazardous Materials Commission to review the document and report back to the them. The Commission's committees each reviewed "School Haze"over two meetings. Mr. Bill Walker,co-author of the report,attended the first of each committee's meetings to provide additional information and answer questions. The committee also gathered information from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,and other agencies. In spite of data errors and other concerns about the report noted below,the Commission believes that air quality is a critical issue for the County's economic and public health,and took the opportunity presented by reviewing the report to consider actions that the County and other parties might take to address the public concern it generated. Our findings are reported below. Data aua tv 4 The report contains numerous errors regarding location of schools relative to industrial facilities. Mr. Walker acknowledged these errors but said that in recalculating,he found that they do not change the report's overall conclusions statewide:though some schools were counted as within a mile of facility that were actually Rather away,others had not been counted that should have been. Mr. Walker said that the location errors were due to the data bases from which they drew. Schools report locations variously to the state Department of Education, some reporting their district headquarters address, for example. In the case of the USEPA's Toxic Release Inventory, some of the facility locations are inaccurate,according to Mr. Walker. *California Department of Finance projection for 1996 School Children and Air Quality Hazardous Materials Commission September 8, 1998 Page 2 The Commission contacted USEPA's Toxic Release Inventory office and learned that latitude/longitude location reported by facilities results in a single point that for very large facilities(such as petroleum refineries)does not reflect their size;the listed location may be at one edge of the facility due to the regulation's methodology. The data base does include a cautionary note to users regarding the limitations of the facility location data; the agency is interested developing additional ways to display that warning so that users can not miss it. Recommendation: Call on USEPA to review TRI facility location/spatial data for accuracy and to institute measures to ensure accuracy of reporting in the future. In the meantime,US"EPA should employ better methods to alert users to limitations of the data. One model is the alert provided in the Scorecard . web site developed by the Environmental Defense Fund.- Utilky of the data f or detsmininghealth The"School Haze"report spurred concern that children in schools up to a mile from certain facilities were at greater risk of ill health due to daily emissions that are permitted under current laws. The report,however, contains no data to support that conclusion and in its own conclusion (page 19)notes that"This analysis does not attempt to measure or evaluate that risk." The Commission also noted that motor vehicle emissions are not included in the report, and may be a significant contributor to total emissions in areas near major transportation corridors. ,cif monitoriagIn tbS,ggunty According to information provided by staff of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD),the District collects air samples from 30 Bay Area sites, of which eight are in Contra Costa'County. Seventeen of the Bay Area sites sample for toxic chemicals,of which four are in this county. Contra Costa sites are below; those marked with an asterisk sample for toxic substances in addition to the criteria pollutants listed. Criteria pollutants are air contaminants for which state or federal ambient air quality standards have been established. Abbreviations are as follows: CO=carbon monoxide; H2S =hydrogen sulfide;NOx i nitrogen oxides, PM 10 particulate matter of 10 microns or less; SO2=sulfur dioxide. *Bethel Island(CO,ozone,NOx, SO2,PM 10) *Concord,on Treat near Oak Grove(CO,ozone,NOx, SO2,hydrocarbons, and PM 10) Crockett, end of Kendall Avenue(SO2) Martinez, 521 ,Tones (flare station)(SO2) Pittsburg, at 583 W. 14th St. (CO,ozone,NOx, SO2) *Richmond, 1065 7th St. (H2S, SO2) Point Richmond, 140 W. Richmond Avenue(112S) *San Pablo,El Portal shopping center(CO,ozone,NOx, SO2) Monitoring devices at the.sites with an * collect a sample for toxics over a 24-hour period every twelve days. The samples are analyzed in the District's lab for twelve volatile organic School Children and Air Quality Hazardous Materials Commission September 8, 1998 Page 3 compounds,most,though not all of which contain chlorine. The California Air Resources Board (CARB)separately analyzes samples collected at the San Pablo and Concord locations for other toxic pollutants,including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), aldehydes, and over 30 metals. The PMIOs are measured by 24-hour samples taken every six days. The other substances are monitored continuously,with hourly averages reported electronically to District headquarters. In July 1998 the District stopped monitoring for lead, as no Bay Area monitoring station had seen an excess for lead since 1978. Lead is,however,one of the metals included in CARB's toxic monitoring program. .For.criteria pollutants,monitoring results are compared with ambient air quality standards in order to evaluate potential adverse health effects. For non-criteria pollutants,the district uses as a guideline for evaluating potential non-cancer health effects the Reference Exposure Levels published'by Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA). The RELs are levels below which no health problems would be expected among the general public. They are based on scientific studies and include safety factors for sensitive populations, including children. The District estimates the cancer risks associated with exposure to measured levels of toxic air contaminants separately,by applying cancer potency values developed by OEHHA. For example,the OEHHA REL for perchloroethylene("perc"), the chemical used in dry cleaning, is 5'parts of perc per billion parts of air(5 ppb)averaged over a year, and 1 part per million(1 ppm)during a one-hour period. This may be compared with Cal/OSHA's exposure limit for workers. Over an 8-hour day, a worker may legally be exposed to an average of 25 ppm of perc,with a ceiling limit of 300 ppm that may never be exceeded for any length of time. There is also an inhalation cancer potency value for perc. The annual average level of"perc"that the district sees in the field is about 0.1'ppb. At one site, not in this county,they have seen 6 ppb in a 24-hour sample, with an annual average level over 1 ppb. They used that finding to identify a dry cleaner(located about 50 feet from the monitoring site)that was not in compliance with regulations. The district also uses the monitors to learn whether their control measures are working. Ten years ago, for example,the annual average levels of"perc"were about twice as high as they are now. The refineries in Contra Costa County also have air monitors and air monitoring programs which collect data. The Commission appreciates the above-noted efforts to monitor the air and protect the population from pollution caused by industrial,vehicular,and other sources. Nevertheless,we are concerned that there may not be sufficient information about air quality on a neighborhood basis, due to the County's geography and microclimates. We will invite the Air District to present more detailed information about its monitoring system, the data it generates, and uses of School Children and Air Quality Hazardous Materials Commission September 8, 1998 Page 4 that data,so that Commissioners can consider whether there are important gaps. If gaps are found,the Commission may recommend additional monitoring by the Air District or, should the District decline,by the County. Notiflcation of schoolLer nd the general 'c when As the Board is aware,the Air District has a"Spare the Air"notification program implemented on days when an exceedence of ozone might occur,based on monitoring and meteorologic data.. The notification,widely announced by Bay Area media, is intended to reduce use of motor vehicles, other gasoline-powered equipment, and other activities that contribute to ozone formation. It includes a warning that "Residents throughout the Bay Area--especially young children, senior citizens and people with respiratory conditions such as asthma,bronchitis and emphysema--could be sensitive to poor air quality conditions. Because air pollution levels leach their peak in the afternoon hours, it is prudent to defer vigorous outdoor activities to the morning hours." From Thanksgiving through the end of January,the District's "Don't Light Tonight/Spare the Air Tonight"program issues similar announcements in the morning on cold days when the weather is expected to allow pollutants, especially carbon monoxide and particulates,to build up during the evening and hug the ground until the sun warms the earth the next morning. These announcements urge people not to use.fireplaces and wood stoves during the day or evening. Motor vehicles are another main source of those pollutants. The District provides individual notification to people and institutions who ask to be personally advised of Spare the Air notifications. Schools are advised of potential ozone exceedances under state and federal law. When ozone is predicted to reach .15 ppm(based on monitoring and weather data),the District notifies school district offices. The last time the District issued such a notification was in 1995, to an Alameda County school district. The Air District bases its notifications on ozone because that is the only regulated pollutant for which the Bay Area is not in attainment with state and federal standards. This means that on a specified number of days over a specified number of recent years, the air in one or more Bay Area locations exceeded the ozone standard for a number of hours. Other pollutants have not exceeded the health standards on any regular basis. Health risk assessmenU The Commission considered whether health risk assessments would be a fruitful approach to learning whether particular schools and neighborhoods might be at increased risk. While time constraints prevented a full exploration of this option, the Commission concluded that these studies are very time-consuming and difficult for community participation, due to the highly technical nature of the assessments and the uncertainty in the data. Moreover,there are _. .. .. School Children and Air Quality Hazardous Materials Commission September 8, 1998 Page 5 numerous data gaps for conducting health risk assessments in many neighborhoods,including detailed air monitoring data. Many Commissioners feel that resources would be better spent developing both pollution prevention and reduction measures,and improving our data base. Pollution Rrev nt on pr9grams State law(known as "SB 14")requires several facilities in the county to prepare and implement plans to reduce hazardous wastes that are disposed of off-site. The state Department of Toxic Substances Control issued an assessment of these efforts by the petroleum industry(June 1997) and concluded that very significant reductions had resulted-- fully a third of the waste tonnage, with further reductions expected. The Commission would like the Board to explore with our state delegation the sponsorship of legislation that would require similar plans that address air emissions. Recommendation: Explore with the Contra Costa County state legislative delegation the sponsorship of legislation to require pollution prevention and reduction plans for air emissions of toxic chemicals and harmful particulates. Are industrial-air emissiQns getting lower,9,,, v' wof recentdata to determine- ds The"School Haze"report was based on 1995 data submitted by facilities to USEPA. Since the report was issued, facilities have filed their reports for 1997. These are not yet available from USEPA, but a copy could be provided to the County by the facilities. The 1996 data is also now available. Together these data could indicate trends: are emissions increasing or decreasing, for which substances and from which facilities? The findings could be reassuringand/or lead to recommendations for further pollution prevention programs. Recommendation: Ask local industrial facilities for air and other specified 1997 data submitted to USEPA for the TRI and AIRS data bases. Analyze these and previous years' data to determine trends in air emissions. Permits for industrial facilities near schoids The Environmental Working Group recommended that"tougher regulations"be established regarding permits for facilities near schools. The Commission took note that in this county, the current and proposed ordinances concerning industrial safety both go beyond state and federal law in their oversight of industrial operations, including additional land use permit requirements. The.Air District provides notification to parents of school children regarding any permit application for a new or modified source with hazardous air emissions that is within 1000 feet of a school (Health and Safety Code Section 42301.6). Residents within 1000 feet of the source are also notified, and the District conducts modeling for these applications. Relocation assistance for schools where r�atential ex ac r it hiah The report also recommends relocation assistance for schools in areas of greatest potential School Children and Air Quality Hazardous Materials Commission September 8, 1998 -Page 6 exposure. The Commission considers this a prudent step of last resort,preferring to focus on pollution prevention. The County has,however,engaged in one such successful effort,when the Health Services Director supported the John Swett District's appeal for state funds to relocate Hillcrest School in Rodeo. .............. ............ ......... ............ PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD Mmbeil The Honorable Gayle B. Uilkema Mary tont rH00*1 ne Honorable Jim Rogers Maio*' s 1551 Pine Street sea�:�td Martinez,CA 94553 Xay Mcvy Dream Supervisors Rogers and Ulkema, aa�►n s t The Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board(PEHAB)received a Mtc ek rhocnpsan west from the Board of Supervisors asking for comments and Thmm Zinxnetrrrsrtn recommendations regarding the School Haze report published by the Ex:g kigg hft3t m: Environmental Working Group. ca � PERAB's Environmental Health Committee met on July 31, 1998. 'The group considered the report and developed seven recommendations for you to consider E.aww��,in your report back to the Board of Supervisors on this issue. Pala a Lnvtronmontid moatth AdWsary I Overall,the Environmental Health Committee considers air quality to be an importantissue throughout Contra.Costa County. And,though some of the data in the report about the location of schools and pollution sources is inaccurate,the Committee feels that the policy issues generated by the report will remain even after corrected figures are released. PEHAB's recommendations are: 1» State and federal legislation must be supported that creates environmental health standards for children. Current standards for environmental health are based on levels of pollution which are considered safe for adult white males,not the more sensitive developing bodies of infants and children. 2. Federal-legislation must be created to reduce pollution to standards that are safe for everyone, including those most sensitive to toxics. Industrial facilities must be mandated,not just encouraged,to reduce their output of pollutants to levels that are safe for everyone,including children and the elderly. 3. More local data roust be collected in Contra Costa about;exposure to pollution, both in the air and soil, in areas where.children are concentrated. 4. Based on the data collected,schools,and other places where children are concentrated, that have excess levels of exposure to pollutants should be r. .costs COU* moved. SOFA ss 0"Mrtnrmnt 1597 Csrtter AV*..SUN*700 Mafdm,fill 94553 (6#0)313-0836 ............................. . . .. 5. Children who live or spend time in areas where there are high levels of exposure to pollutants should receive appropriate treatment and studied over time. 6. The accuracy of data in the report should be improved. This would help determine if particular schools really are at higher risk than other places where children congregate. However,as stated above,the main policy .' issues generated by the School Haze report will remain even after the data about school locations is corrected. 7. Legislation needs to be created that requires schools to be notified on days of excessive pollution. Attached are the minutes from the meeting which PEHABIs Environmental Health Committee held on July 31, 1998 to discuss the report and develop the recommendations above. Thank you for your work on this very important issue. Please call me if you have any questions or need further information. Sincerely, Our,, Thomas Zimmerman Michele Thompson co-chair,PEHAB co-chair,PEHAB cc: William Walker,M.D.,Health Services Director Wendel Brunner,M.D.,Public Health Director �. AIR QUALITY "....� A4ANAGEMENT DISTRICT September 9, 1998 ,u taxarawnr Gayle Ufilkemt,Supervisor Contra+Cresta County Con Haqw 651 Thine Street,Room 108•A (Chaitpe►son) Martinez,CA 94553 Mary Kft San C.'Carver COMM CCWACOUtM Re:Environmental Working Group's Sc$ool Haze Report P*W Lr cooper Mark wnier r 5u erv�isor.Uill ea: Gayle tsekerr,a P MAWCOURTf Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "School Haze" Report. Brian Hamed C.Baum,dr, Bateman of my staff attended the Beard of Supervisors meeting of June 16 and WA OOVWVY provided preliminary District comments on the report. We are now pleased to Vince Feniole comment more fully on the content of the report, as requested by the Board of Supervisors. am rawaaoc�couwrr Mabel Tang The "School Haze" report calls attention to an important concern for elected officials, axMx+.71000okrY parents, and regulatory agencies--the environmental safety of school settings, This is a critical aspera of the general societal. issue of land use planning. Zoning and laud Midi j � use decisions,usually by low jurisdictions(cities and counties), sometimes refit in (Vioa.Cnaiepe nw"3 incompatible uses on adjacent lir nearby parcels. Residential developments or schools may be allowed to build new industrial facilities. This can(but dors not necessarily) SAWACLAMOOMW result in unhealthy exposure to air pollutants. R1Wy Altaw4y 00M GAP The report provides a preliminary minaary analysis of possible air pollutant effects by Tree 3onmn reporting aggregated emission rates of air pollutants within one mule of cel school eia".Mcxa" t" ung sites. The emissions data alone, however, should not be considered proof of halm. The: progd=ty of emissions is, rather, ars indicator that €rather analysis may be SOLA14000WM needed. The real measures of sir pollution, threat are quantitative analyses of vti d"M canon exposure and health risk. C In recent years,procedures have been developed to calculate exposures and health Jwras Harbevaon risks. These procedures have been widely applied and accepted. They require specific e>aulds Haug*" identification of nearby air pollution sources PLUS: the amount and timing of emissions; geometry, elevation, and physical properties s of pollutant streams; modeling of the atmospheric dispersion of emissions due to local wtather and the sale"Ganow topography between source and receptor, the potency of'the chemical compounds in „i,,.a raaus% pith problems; assessment of the "background" setti W and the schedules eawl"con"*NNW and activities of the people affected. Much of this additional analysis has already been carried out wader existing regional and State programs, particularly under AB258$ (HSC 44300-44394), the Toxic Hot Spats Information Act of 1987,which addresses risk from routine and predictable air pollutant emissions. The results in most cases are reassuring, in that airborne pollutants have been shown to he a relatively small part of our overall cancer and non- cancer health,risks. Analyses of the risk from air pollutants point to motor vehicles as the principal contributor of airborne risk. . as 939 ELLIS STREET + SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 • (415) 771-6000 + FAX School Haze 9/9!98 Page 2 Odors may be a problem at schools and other facilities near industrial (or agricultural) operations. But in general, the health of students has been considered and protected through State laws (e.g., AB2588, Proposition 65), California air quality standards, Airborne Toxic Control Measures,and the Air District's regional programs. Following are some specific comments on the School Haze report: i, missi nes: Table I of the report lists carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and heavy metals in pounds emitted. The discussion of these data implies that students at schools on this list are at high risk without giving due consideration to the toxicity of the pollutants and factors that affect exposure (including meteorological conditions, topography, release characteristics, and the proximity of students to sources). 2. Qg=sources: The tables of this report list only emissions from stationary (industrial) sources . and ignore emissions from mobile sources (e.g., gasoline and diesel fueled automobiles and trucks)and area sources(e.g., fireplaces). Impacts from these sources may in fact be greater than the impact from industrial sources in close proximity to the students. 3. Pro Y' t : The report erroneously lists the proximity of many of the schools relative to sources of concern. In addition, the report implies that all schools anywhere within a one-mile radius of emitting facilities arc equally"at risk'. This is an oversimplification of hove exposures occur. The staff of the District's Toxic Evaluation Section has considerable experience in evaluating site-specific facility risks as a consequence of implementation of AB2588. In addition, HSC 42301.6 (the Waters bill) requires that the Toxics staff specifically evaluate risks from new and modified sources located new schools and notify the surrounding parents and neighborhood of any risk as part of permit approval. This.experience has demonstrated that the maximum impact of a facility's emissions tends to occur within very close proximity; receptors located a quarter of a mite away receive much less impact, sometimes 5 to 10 times less. It follows that risk to receptors located even fiuther away (one-half to one mile) is oven less, and is in fact usually determined to be not significant by the District. 4. -Tgdc'ty: The report gives the impression that all the chemicals in question are of equal potency, or effect, and that all the chemicals are well-characterized as to their effects. This,,of course, is not so. Both carcinogens and non-carcinogens vary widely as to their toxicity. The individual potencies of the chemicals from a source must be considered when estimating impacts (as is done by the District Tonnes staff in their analyses of risk). Likewise, it is important to remember that complete toxicity data are not available for all the chemicals that are being considered. Much toxicity data can only be described as preliminary or inconclusive; care should be taken in drawing far-reaching conclusions from such data. __. ......... ..........._. . . .. __..... ...._ ........ ........ ........ _..... ......... ..... School,H'aze 919198 Page 3 5. Sc re MMors:The report expresses what has become a widespread topic, i.e., air pollution standards and risk assessment procedures do not specifically address the responses of children to toxic emissions. The meat is frequently made that children are more sensitive to toxic emissions than are adults, and that this increased sensitivity should be incorporated into all regulations. This concept is currently under active consideration by the 13SEPA and also by California.EPA. The main reason why regulations do not contain specific provisions for children is a current lack ' of data to demonstrate the exteut of the dif'f'erences between adults and children. This is a problem that has to be addressed by U.S.EPA and CalEPA. In the meantime, there is the question of whether or not children are adequately protected under existing regulations and procedures. Because there are still data gaps and uncertainties in the available information, regulatory agencies have routinely assumed that all receptors, both adults and children, are sensitive receptors. In order to account for this sensitivity, a series of very conservative assumptions (often refearred to as default values) are used in the calculations;of risk and impact on individuals. it is hoped that more data on the responses of children to individual compounds will became available with time and will replace the default assumptions. In the meantime, the regulatory agencies are satisfied that the practice of using conservative default assumptions is a protective one for all receptors. The report also ignores the decades of significant progress in reducing air pollution and the positive impact on all sensitive receptors,including children. For example, the phaseout of lead in gasoline reduced ambient levels in the Bay Area to about 11100` of the ambient air quality standard and new reformulated fuel standards significantly reduced benzene and other toxins. In addition,the District's Risk Malnagement Policy,AB2588., and Airborne Toxic Control Measures have caused many f ilities(e.g., dry cleaners,chrome platers, foundries)to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants and the associated risk. 6. a�7 Page 3 of the report states facts not established: "two schools in Martinez were at the top of the list„br exposure to N©y, SO2, and PM, the same schools were among those in proximity to the highest amounts of carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and heavy metals". The report lists criteria emissions but does not present data on exposure. In addition, the Martinez schools are not found on Table 1 or Table 4 that list tonic emissions; in fact, many of the schools listed in this report are not within 1 mile of the sources of concern. The authors also state that "industrial air pollution near California schools is a significant problem, potentially affecting 2.8 million children every school day." While excess exposure may possibly exist at some schools,this statement is unsupported by the data found in this report. School Haze 919/98 Page 4 7. Additional monitorig a: The report recommends extensive new monitoring near schools. Budget shortfalls in the last several years have forced the District to evaluate the relative importance of different programs and balance available resources. This has resulted in reduced financial and human resources for air monitoring in the Bay Arca. The District's air monitoring network is primarily designed to meet EPA requirements. In fact,EPA's new PM2.5 standard requires the District to add additional monitoring to our network to measure attainment of the new standard. At present this agency does not have additional resources available to add or operate additional monitoring stations. The cost of establishing a single full air monitoring station is approximately $100,000 to S 125,004,not including ongoing operational costs(—S40,000 per year). The District might consider additional monitoring when a clear need is demonstrated, however,the additional monitoring must not impact existing programs and will be limited by the District's budgetary constraints unless an ongoing source of new fttriding were made available for that purpose. 8. Uther recommendations. The report also advocates relocation assistance for schools, tougher permit criteria and pollution reduction plans for facilities near schools. This report does not provide enough information to evaluate the merits of these recommendations. I hope these comments are helpful to you. please let me know if we can be of further assistance. For technical assistance,you may call Brian Bateman,Engineering Manager, Toxic Evaluation Section at (415) 744-4653, Scott Lutz, Supervising Air Quality Engineer at (415) 749-4676, or Avi Okin,Meteorology and Data Analysis/Air Monitoring Manager at(415)749.4616. Very truly yours, Ellen Garrey Executive Officer Air Pollution Control Officer cc: Elinor Blake,Executive Assistant,Hazardous Materials Commission EJGsbl Contra Cosh County Health Services Department ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH September 16, 1998 Mr. Overlin J. Zamora Pittsburg Unified School District 2000 Railroad Ave. Pittsburg, CA 94565 Dear Mr. Zamora, I am writing in response to your July 29h letter to Supervisor Uilkema regarding concerns about safety of students and staff during a hazardous material release. Your concerns are valid and it is critical that they, along with others working and living in the area, be familiar with what actions to take should an industrial accident occur in their area. The Community Awareness and Emergency Response(CAER) Group, Inc., which Health Services is a member, has been working diligently to design and implement one of the most comprehensive alert and notification systems in the country. The Community Warning System(CWS) is made up of safety sirens, an automated telephone dialing system, computer terminals at large industrial facilities and emergency response agency locations, direct links to media, and Emergency Alert Receivers(EARS). While some of the tools of the system have been used in recent industrial accidents,the complete system__ will not officially go on line until later this fall. To address your specific concerns expressed in your letter, all schools are identified as "sensitive receptors". This means that during a hazardous materials accident requiring Shelter-in-Place, schools in the affected area will receive one of the first telephone calls from our automated dialing system. Each school will also be given an EAR so that they will be alerted to the accident shortly after it occurs. Both of these tools will instruct the schools to Shelter-In-Place. The CWS project has included extensive work to educate schools on the system and what actions to take if they are asked to Shelter-in-Place. As part of that effort each school was given a copy of the Model Emergency Plan for SchgQls which addresses planning for industrial accidents as well as other emergencies. Each school was also given enough"In Class Displays" for each classroom which give specific instructions on what to do during those emergencies. In addition, school mentors were assigned to work with schools to familiarize them with the CWS and how to Shelter-In-Place. I °►'. `" ►" 5tt)6 .228 ......... ......__. ......... ._.........__._.. Page 2, Mr.Overlin J.Zamora,9/16/98 Continual education on industrial accidents,the Community Warning System and Shelter-In-Place is very important and we would welcome the opportunity to further educate the students and staff in your district. Please feel free to contact me at (925)646- 2286. I would be happy to discuss how best we can suit the district's educational needs. Thank you for your concern. I will look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, J Tracy L. Hein-Silva Community and Media Relations cc: Supervisor Uillrema Supervisor Rogers Supervisor Canciamilla Dr. Wendel Brunner,Public Health Director Elinor Blake,Executive Assistant to the Hazardous Materials Commission ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ' 00 Ittsburg Uniped Schoor strict 200th q (road Ave., 9PIttsburg, CA94565 t July 29, 1998 ,:ECEIVID Gayle B. Uilkema, Supervisor 1998 CCC Board of Supervisors ULCounty Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 108A SUPVISOr. ... Martinez, CA 94553-1293 ©ear Supervisor Uilkema: In response to your advisory letter on School Haze: Air Pollution Near Schools, - Pittsburg Unified School [District is situated in the vicinity of various industries that produce or may produce hazardous materials. This situation has in the past and will continue in the future to be of great concern to the District. I am not sure what measures can be taken to alleviate these concerns. Perhaps, providing the District with information on what type of hazardous materials each industry produces or may release along with counter measures that can be taken to ensure the safety of the students and staff. In addition, it would be helpful if we had posters providing direction and procedures that need to be taken in case of a hazardous materialrelease. Fliers would be a good way of informing parents, students and staff on what type of hazardous materials are manufactured and by whom. Included could be safety measures that are in place to prevent any hazardous materials releases. This __ would assure the parents that although our schools may be near such industries, measures are being taken to ensure the safety of the public. Please accept our concerns and suggestions on this matter and thank you for _. allowing us to be part of the solution. Sirjcerel 7vr . Zamora, Director Maintenance, Operations, Transportation & Facilities cc: Dr. Robert L. Newell, Superintendent Gloria Gamblin, Asst. Supt. of Business Services M � intpr» nrp Ar rc; in ) 47-4-4224 n 47.'3-4249 r - VOL.36,NO. 15 DIOCESE OF OAKLAND AUGUST 17,1993 :'A. Catherine School no longer leads list Group admits errors on Dist of toxic-endangered schools By Sharon Abercrombie . Staff writer In the face of protests over inaccuracies in their report, Martinez School . an environmental watchdog group has withdrawn charges :hat St.Catherine of Siena School in Martinez leads the (Coaaj from page f) joint press release and ist of local schools threatened with toxic air. Issuedd a jinH After a review of its data,the Environmental Working press conference In Sacramento urging the ;roup,a non-profit group which does research on pesti- EPA to'promptly correct false,misleading cities and toxics issues,apologized to the Martinez school and conflicting data In its Toxics Release and retracted its statewide ranking of schools at risk,say- Inventory." ing it had been given faulty data by the Environmental EWG field director Bill Walker noted.1f Protection Agency. the government can't even get the tomb" On June 15,principal Mark DeMarco contacted EWG of facilities right, how can we trust what officials in San Francisco and Washington,D.C.after newsthey're telling us about the amount.and and about the group appeared in local papers detail- "kinds of pollution" ing its findings about school haze In California. According to Walker,the study's bottom DeMarco told The Voice he was concerned because the line was correct:more than 2.7_mEGon chic report had incorrectly placed St.Catherine School within ,f dren In more than 4,000 Callfom€a dx xAst one mile of Tosco Refinery.The school is four miles upwind =z attend class near reported sources of air from the refinery, he said. The report ranked another f pollution and Contra Costa-and Los Catholic school,St.Patrick's in Rodeo,seventh on the list. t Angeles counties have the most serious EWG claimed that half of California's children attend i problems in the state. school "near polluting industries and cited 15 local But errors in the TRI make It impossl- schools,including St.Catherine and St.Patrick,as beingble to determine from that dafabase exact- within one mile of a major pollution source. St.Cad un inn s principal,Mark DeMarco,protected the lY how many schools were mistakenly list- DeMarco expressed his objections in a tetter and phone �g�' �� ed and not listed, but it appears that the calf to Kenneth Cook,EWG president,at his Washington, California.Cook said two conflicting sets are automatically numbers are roughly equal,"said Walker. a. ice. provided in response to public requests,but they are with- Henry Clark, director for the West On Jur*26,-Cloof wrote a letter of apology to DeMaroo, out documentation or warning.The EWG used information County Toxics Coalition,defended the Intent outlining what had happened. from those files. of the EWG report.'The general premise The EWG findings were based on'government Infor- To make matters more confusing,a third set of coor- is accurate and valid,even though the d is- mation we now know to be unreliable,"Cook said. dinates developed by the EPA to correct locational errors tances may not be,"he said. "We want to clarify that,based on what we now believe in the file that the public routinely receives Is also unroll- Clark said it Is time for people to support to be accurate and corrected information on the location of able.However,the EPA does not make this clear to the legislative efforts requiring better monitor- the Tosco refinery,St.Catherine School does not rank at public,Cook said. ing."Thank Cod someone is raising these the top of all California schools that are within the one mile Cook told DeMarco that he would like to Immediately issues,"he said,pointing oiut that"we do proximity to sources of particulate air pollution,"he wrote. provide a revised and corrected analysis and school rank. know in north Richmond there is a high rate "While the calculations we performed were mathemat- ing for particulate pollution, but cannot do so until the of respiratory problems,which no one has ically correct,the analysis relied on Information on facility Federal government owects the mistakes and publishes been able to explain." locations from the Toxics Release Inventory(TRI)that was the correct locations. Meanwhile, Assemblywoman Martha provided direct! to us the EPA.'Cook called the EPA At this stage, Escutia(D-Huntington Park has sponsorS0 y by ge,to rerank schools based on outer EPA data � ) information"not reliable,even though It is made public and could cause problems for other schools'simllar to the prob- legislation.which would fund a pilot program represented as correct,without caveat,by the Agency." lems we caused!St.Catherine,"Cook saw. to monitor and measure air poUutjon neat Cook said It is now highly unlikely that St.Catherine After DeMarco conttacted the EWG,a corrected story' the states sclm401s.The bill Is scheduled 10i ranks within the top 100 schools statewide. appeared on its website. Then 'on duly 29, the a vote in late August. It would maks The official explained to DeMarco that the EPA keeps Environmental Working Croup and Communities for a California the first state in the nation to ie- three separate,and often conflicting sets of locational coor- Better Environment,an activist group In San Francisco, pi mronmenta#standards based on levet: dinates for a large number of TRI facilities In the state of (Continued on page t 3)1 adequate to protect children. a f� p �n 1 Acknowledgments Thanks to Molly Evans who designed and produced this report. Thanks also to Chris Campbell, Ed Hopkins and Richard Wiles of EWG; and Patty Clary, Bonnie Holmes-Gen, Geoff Land, Denny Larson, Pete Price, Teresa Schilling and Andy Weisser for their insight and assistance. Cover.In a park adjacent to St. Peter the Martyr School in Pittsburg, CA, children play in the shadow of a PG&E plant. Photo illustration by Bill Goidell/Photovault, San Francisco. School Haze was made possible by grants from,the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, The Gap Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and Working Assets Funding Service. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these supporters. Environmental Working Group is responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation contained in this report. Copyright Q June 1998 by the Environmental Working Group/'The Tides Center. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on recycled paper. Environmental Working Group The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco.The Environmental Working Group is a project of the Tides Center, a California Public Benefit Corporation based in San Francisco that provides administrative and program support services to nonprofit programs and projects. Kenneth A. Cook,President Richard Wiles, Vice President for Research Edward Hopkins,Vice President for Programs Bill Walker, California Director To order a copy Copies of this report may be ordered from the Washington office for $20.00 each (plus 6% sales tax or$.60 for D.C. residents) and $3.00 for postage and handling. Checks payable to Environmental Working Group must accompany all orders. Environmental Working Group EWG California 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW,Suite 600 P.O. Box 29201,The Presidio Washington,DC 20009 San Francisco,CA 94129 Tel. (202)667-6982 1 Fax (202)232-2592 Tel. (415)561-6698 / Fax (415) 561-6696 infoOewg.org bwalkerGewg.org www.ewg.org This report and many other EWG publications are available on the World Wide Web at www.ewg.org. __ Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1. CURRENT REGULATIONS PROVIDE NO SPECIFIC SAFEGUARDS FOR CHILDREN ................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING AIR POLLUTION MONITORS MISS MOST AT-RlsK KIDS ..................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS ....................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 19 CHAPTER S. METHODOLOGY............................................................... 21 REFERENCES ..........................................................I........................... 22 School Haze Executive Summary More than 245 million pounds ported air emissions is available Half of the state's of industrial air pollution were on the Internet at www.ewg.org/ schoolchildren emitted near California schools Grisk.) attended class within a in 1995, according to the most anile of reported air recent available state and federal The EWG study reports for the emissions chemicals data analyzed by Environmental first time all industrial toxic air mown to ccaause Working Group (EWG). Fully emissions within a mile of Cali- cancer, reproductive damage, develop- half of the state's schoolchildren, fornia schools. It used computer in public and private schools, software to plot the proximity of mental disabilities or attended class within a mile of schools to stationary sources of respiratory illness. reported air emissions of chemi- air pollution (factories, dumps cals known to cause cancer, re- and other facilities). It does not productive damage, develop- include exposure to automobile mental disabilities or respiratory exhaust or airborne pesticides. illness. EWG's analysis found: Official attendance figures and air pollution databases indi- Schools are located near cate that more than 2.8 million the biggest air polluters in California children were enrolled California. In four of the six in 4,293 schools located within categories of pollutant, the one mile of an industrial emitter single largest emitter in the of airborne carcinogens, repro- state was within a mile of ductive toxins, heavy metals, one or more schools. (Table nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur 3.) Eighteen different dioxide (SO2) or particulate mat- schools, with a combined ter (PM). (Tables 1 and 2.) These enrollment of more than children represented just over 50 10,004 children, were percent of the total enrollment in within one mile of the the approximately 9,700 public state's leading industrial and private schools in California. emitters of carcinogens, re- Yet very few children ----about productive toxins, heavy one in 25 — attended schools metals or nitrogen oxides. covered by the existing network of air pollution monitors. (The California fails to ad- complete list of California equately monitor air pollu- schools within one mile of re- tion near schools. The exist- ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 1 Table 1. Combined amounts of carcinogens, reproductive toxins and heavy metals emitted in air within 1 mile of the 50 most exposed California schools in 1995. � : Poumis armNlnrd : � founds tmified Total Percent within t mile tartsw Source by larttst arwrct Rank Stltaol I City Enrollment j Nors-AnRb 119931 (1945) `_ (1995) 1 St.John The Baptist Catholic Milpitas 1 326 WA 644,134 Qutbecof Printing San lose Inc. $]$.045 2 7jnktr(Plant)Elementary Milpitas 435 71% 842,704 Quebecor Printing San Jose tic 838.045 Diane orange Christian Dian125 WA 657,754 Lasco$athwart Ow CK Tornktns Ind.. 1 447,700 I 4 Rio Vista Elementary Anaheim 1,335 60% 471,264 fano Bathware Div.a Yomkms Ind 447,70() � S Kindetcam Anaheim 10 WA 473,284 Lasco$athware Div,of Tomkins and 447,700 6 Sunkiu Elementary Anaheim 1,051 $1% 471,264 Lasco Bathware Div.Of Turnkirms Ind. 447,700 7 ' SL Leonard Helm Fremont 300 ' WA i 361,425 New United Motor Mfg.Inc. 380.425 6 Calvaeysaptist Fremont 31 i WA 181,425 New United Motor Mig;tnC. 380.425 9 I Hopkins William)krnior High Fremont 1,076 48% 361,425 I New United Motif Mfg,attic. 380,425 t0 Homer(john M.)Junior High fnemont 940 41% 361,425 New tamed Motor Mig.Inc. 360.425 I t Hirsch(0.N.)filamentary Fremont i 422 40% I 381,425 New Umled Motor Mfg.Inc. 380,425 12 Million valley f4•nentary Fremont 578 45% l 3$1,425 New Urtittd Motor Mfg:Inc. 3$0,425 13 Dudam 0.Haley)Elementary Fremont $67 S3% 381,425 New United Motor Mfg.Inc. 360,425 14 Green lHaivey)Elementary Fremont 475 40% j 161,425 New United Motor nig.IhC. i 380,425 1S ( Irvington High Fremont 1,533 37% 381,425 New United motor Mig>Inc 380,425 t6 Mmramontt Elementary los Angeles 13 100% 374,506 Wesksck Nall.Inc I 211,900 17 Oersas Mime Torrance 562 42% 359,060 Reynolds.Metals Co Can Div. � 233,491 16 t Mdrona Middle Torrance 676 47% 358,560 Reynolds Metals Co Can Div. 233.491 19 J Arun Elementary Torrance 576 1 33% 357,931 Rtyrsoitls Meats Co Can Div, 233.491 20 t South Bay junior Academy Torrance i 165 WA 357,411 Reynolds Metals Co.Can Div. 233.491 21 St.tames Elem. Torrance 30S WA 357,431 Reynolds Meats Co.Can Div, 233.495 22 1 $ishop Montgomery High Torranct 1,494 WA 357,431 Reynoids Meals Co.Can Div. 233,491 23 1 Victor Elementary Torrance955 54% 357,431 Reynolds Meals Co.Can Div. 233,491 24 ' Lynn Men M.)Middle 1 Torrance 660 53% 357,431 Reynolds Metals Co Can Div. 233.491 25 i West High Torrance 1,918 SS% 357,431 Reynolds Meals Co.Can Dlv. 233.491 26 Anaheim High Anaheim 2,054 93% 355,258 Xtemes Cotp. 165,350 65,350 27 I Grace Lutheran Parish flem. j Anaheim 56 WA 355,258 Xei tes Corp. 1 165.350 28 { Zion Lutheran flem. Anaheim 359 WA 355.258 Xerxes Corp. 29 SL Catherine's Military } Anaheim 169 WA 355,258 Kesntes Corp. 165,350 30 SL$oniface Anaheim 291 WA 355.258 Xerxes Corp. 165.350 31 motrsonfitmenary Anaheim 903 95% 355,256 i Xerxes Corp 165,350 32 Franklin Ekmenury Ashwin 9% 93% 355,258 Xerxes Corp. 165,350 33 i Mckiniey Avenue Elementary tot Angeles 851 100% 321.920 Weslock Nati.Inc. 211.900 34 + St.Malachy Carhot,c Etem. Los Angeles 258 WA 321,870 We l,06 Nail Inc. : 21 1.900 35 Miracle Baptist Christian Los Angeles 274 WA 321,870 Wtsbck Nall.Inc, 21;,900 36 Parmelee Avenue Elermnary Los Angeles 1,342 100% 121,870 Weslock Nall.Inc 211,900 37 Edison(t onus A.)lunior High Los Angeles 2,702 1001/6 120,917 Weslock Nall.Inc 211,900 38 Graham Elementary Los Angties 1,119 100% 265,479 I Weslock Nail.Inc. 211,900 39 Optimal Christian Academy Middle Compton 20 WA 261,811 American Racing Equipment Inc.Plant! 223.165 40 Christian Foundation Elm.,Inc. Compton 82 WA 261,811 Amtrxan Racing Equipment Inc.Plant n 223.165 41 First Christian Day Of Compton i Campton 125 WA 261,811 American Racing Equipment Int.Plana 1 223.165 42 optimal Christian Academy Compton 288 WA 261,811 American Racing Equipment Int.Plant; 223.165 43 Roiteveh Middle Compton $57 100% 261,811 American Ruing Equipment Inc Plant 1 223.165 44 Emerson Elementary Compton 667 99% : 261,611 1 American Rating Equipment enc.Plant 1 223,165 45 t McNair Christian Academy Compton 54 WA 261341 American Racirig Equipment list.Plant I 223.165 46 Revival Time Chnsuan Academy ! Compton 56 WA 262,541 Arirrncan Racing Equipment Inc.Plant 1 223,165 47 Roosevelt Elementary Compton 1.119 100% 261.S41 American Rating Equipment enc.Plant I 1 223.165 48 Kelly ftementary Compton 1.063 100% 261,541 American Rating Equipment Inc.Plant 1 I23.165 49 DorKinguez High Compton 1,760 100% 260,109 j American Racing Equipment Inc.Plant 1 223.165 SO Drew(Chariest Junior High Los Angeles 2,087 100% 224,713 Wesksck Nall enc. :11.900 i Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S, EPA Toxics Release inventory and the California Department of Education. ing network of 189 state within one mile of re- monitors - electronic in- ported emissions of air pol- struments that measure am- lution, but not within a bient air quality -- misses mile of a monitor. the great majority of schools where proximity to known • Some schools are in areas pollution sources puts stu- where large amounts of dents at increased risk of multiple types of toxins are exposure to air pollution. In emitted.This is certainly 1995, more than 2.7 million no fault of the school dis- California children attended tricts, but underscores the schools that were located range of pollutants to 2 SCHOOL HAZE: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 199'5 ............. ................... Table 2. Combined amounts of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and other particulates emitted in air Within 1 mile of the 50 most exposed California schools in 1995. Pounds emitted 1 Pounds emitted Total Percent i within I mile I Lartest Source by tarsew source School i City EnrdMrent j Noo­An& 0"s) ISt�CAthetaw Of Siena flem huninet 270 WA 17,157,600 Tosco Corp Avon Refit" 16,356,000 2 24% 16360.200 Tosco Corp Avon Refinery 16,356,000 A0141111M Senior High wn nez 1,064 Martinez Christian School,Inc MA"inU 26 N/A 14,671,800 Will iviartrriiez Refining 14,806,600 4 List tunas Ewylentary Martirxz 374 32% 14,871.800 Shell ku"Iftez Rering 14.808.600 5 Morello Park Ew"emly, i Mattsiset Soo 17% 14,812,400 sheli Martinez Ref'n'N 6 i Turner flientwurf Antioch 695 f 474E 14,049,800 Pacific Gas&flecinc Co 14,042,200 7 1 511.PiltriCk'S Siem. Rodeo 291 1 NIA 9,293,400 Unocal Corp 4,667,600 52% 9,283,400 Unocal Corp 4,667,600 Hilictest fiensentary Rodeo 9W 8,455,400 Texaco Re4 Marketing Inc 4146,200 9 Holy Family Eleni. vitkninvoin 226 N/A Marketing Inc. 4:146100 to Banning(Phirs"s)senior High wi"On 1,267 97% Texaco Re( 1i1 Gulf Avenue fienientilly Wilmington 1.256 97% 0,356,800 Texaco Ref Marketing W 4,146,200 t2 first Baptist Christian wilieurvon P N/A 9,3SS.800 Texaco Re(,d Wrket4fta Inc 4,146100 13 Fries Avera Elementary t Wilmington 1,277 98% 8,3551100 Texaco Rel marketing Inc. 4.146.200 7647800 14 Carnegie(Andrew)Junior Hilh Carson 1,315 941% 8,203,000 Arco Products Co 7:847:80D IS "nag street fletmientary 1 Carson 63S 91% j 8,203,000 Arco Products Co. 1 7,847.800 6 Carson Senior High I CMM 94% 8,201,200 Arco Products CO C&MA-411 $24 94% clqswo Arco Produce Co 7,847,800 117 Dolores Street Elementary 7.1sil 7.800 626 92% 8391,200 Arco Products CO I Cswn strer flernercary Canon Torrance 179 7% 1 $,110,000 Mobil 00 Corporation 6,053,400 'I Shery(Kum T3 High(con? 44% 0A COWWOn 8,051,400 19 i 1 514 20 Farr,fk"*I%Ary Torrance 21 Nativity E*n Torrance 294 N/A 8,076.200 Mobil O,1 Corporation 6,053,400 I 9,076,200 Mobil Oil Corporation 0.053.400 22 Torrance HIR)" Torrance 1,831 53% 61% 6100,6 053,400 23 Torrance f lememary Torrance 567 700 WOW 00 Corporation Arco PtOdUU CO '7'84 7.800 24 St.Philomena flern Catson 310 N/A 6,033,600 t 7,133,400 Chevron USA Inc 7,109,200 25 St.Anthony Eler" El Segundo 275 N/A 26 i center street t4miermary V Segundo 1.079 25% 7,133,400 Chevron USA Inc 7,109.200 22 Arms High(Cont.) I El Segundo I 44 32% j 7,133,00 Chevron USA Inc 7,1019,200 26 El Segundo Meddle ft Segundo 577 25% 7,113,600 Chevron USA Inc 7J04.200 ff Segundo 771 30% i 7,11300 Chevron USA W 7,109.200 29 El Segundo High I 6.633.000 31 30 Coastal Christian Arroyo GlInde 60 N/A c%o.zoo Unocal Carbon Plant Grande N/A 6,960.200 1 Unocal Carbon Plane 6,633,000 31 Valley View Adventist Academy Arroyo 32 St.Patrick's Parochial Flern Arroyo Grande G 294 N/A 4.960,200 Vn0cat Carbon Plam 6,633,000 33 Paulding(Ruth)0,0116cfle Arroyo Grande 539 22% 6,9601200 Unocal Carbon Plant 6,633,000 190 at% 6.9W200 Unoca;Carbon Plant 6.633.000 34 Lopez CCM,nulrt'Qf�High Arroyo Grande i 6.418,400 LAX A,wn 6,332,600 35 Visitation Eleni los Angeles 293 i NIA I 36 1 Loma flerytienta'y South ft W.Onie 321 99% 5'984r600 So Cal Edison Co 5,948,200 93% 5.975,000 So.Cat Ed stir,Co 5,948,20D 37 Potrero Htrghu fk4`rie,%4ty South San Gabriel 494 38 Temple(Roger W.)fraermedwe Rosemead 495 98% 5.964,004 So Cal Ed,son Co 5.948.200 39 Sanchez JGeo,%e 1,)Flemeniary Rosemead 559 97% 1 5,964.000 So Cal idiso,n Co 5,948,200 40 Rice(ftdndge)flerritritary Rosemead 726 96% 5,963,200 So,Cal fd'so,t Co 5,948,200 I I TL At Hawaiian Avenue Elementary Wilmington 1,235 99% i 5.515.600 Texaco Re( b fowk'"'ng Inc 4,146,200 Pactfic Harbor Christian 184 N/A 5,512,600 Texaco Ref ivukem,ng Inc, 4,146.200 42 5.511.200 Southern Cilf'40MIJ Gas CO 2,7:11,400 43 Needles middle Needles 289 34% t 2,7 �400 Needles 336 40% 5,5 200 Southern California GAS CO 2,761,400 44 Vista Colorado Elementary Needles 5.511.200 Southern CA1110mia Gas Co 45 Needles Senor High Needles 165 35% 46 De mar Elementary Morro Bit 278 21% 1 5,45,40(3,80 PC&F-Monosay i 5,400.800 molave 233 42% 5217,200 Cal,Portland Cement Co 5,217,200 47 "hua Middlt 4:531,000 Ka,w Cement COWAR'00 43.49$.200 193 1""0 49 Stevens Creek Elementary Cupertino 582 31% 3',' 0 200 S80,W0 Guardian Indusaws Corp 962. KtAgsbutt; 46 63% 3 '.. 'o 49 0sin Conimuat�on High "% 3:560,600 Guardian Indtig".Corp. 3.496,200 50 Kmgsborg High Ktrigsburg 952 i Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. EPA AIRS database and California Department of Education, which children may be ex- emitted nearby. Similarly, posed, For example, five two schools in Martinez schools in Carson were were at the top of the list near the top of the list of for exposure to NOx, S02 schools where total indus- and PM; the same schools trial emissions of N0X* SO2 were among those in prox- and PM were highest imity to the highest within one mile; these amounts of carcinogens, same five schools had reproductive toxins and among the highest levels of heavy metals. These pat- carcinogens, reproductive terns are of particular con- toxins and heavy metals cern because most existing ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 3 Table 3. largest emitters in California of air pollutants'by category, 1995. Pounds emitted ta"t Source by Iarnest source Schools School Category {1995) i city (1995) within 1 mile enrollment Heavy Metals i American Racing Equipment Inc.Plant I Rancho Dominguez 223,165 11 6,091 Carcinogens i Lasco Bathware Div.of Tomkins Ind. Anaheim 447,700 4 2,531 Reproductive Toxins Quebecor Printing San lose Inc. San lose 838,045 i 2 761 Particulate Matter US Almy fon Irwin 56,259,800 I so, Exxon Corporation i Benicia 12,172,400 NO, Pacific Gas&Electric Co. � Pittsburg 12,601,600 j 1 ! 695 I Total I 18 10,078 Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. EPA Toxics Release inventory and AIRS databases, and California Department of Education. Non-Anglo children state and federal environ- pollutant, Catholic schools, are more likely to mental health standards are Protestant Christian acad attend school in areas based on supposedly safe emies and other private with dirty air. levels of exposure to indi- schools were among the vidual chemicals, but not to top one percent of Cam- a combination of toxins. puses in terms of proximity to the largest amounts of • Potential exposure to air emissions. Considering this pollution at school falls dis- finding along with the geo- proportionat+ely on children graphic mach and diversity of color. Demographic data of air pollution, it is clear for the 50 public schools that potential exposure to near the highest amounts of pollutants at school should carcinogens, reproductive be of concern to all Cali- toxins and heavy metals fornians — not just those show that 76 percent of stu- whose children attend dents were non-Anglo in school in areas where pol- 1995. Enrollment at the 50 lution problems are well- public schools near the known. largest sources of NOX, S02 and PM was 71 percent Air pollution near schools non-Anglo. Currently, 61.2 reaches almost everywhere percent of students in in California. flew parts of California's public schools the state are so isolated are non-Anglo. (The state that some children did not does not collect ethnicity attend school within one data for private schools.) mile of a',reported emitter of air pollution. Among the • Sending children to private small or semi-rural towns schools doesn't guarantee where schools were protection from air pollu- ranked in the top five per- tion. In every category of cent for proximity to vari- q SCHOOL Haze: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 nus categories of pollutants of heavy metals. Eleven of Even schools in small, were Needles and Mojave the top 15 schools near the isolated towns are in the Southern California largest emissions of repro- near large sources of desert; Anderson and ductive toxins were in the air pollution. Oroville among the forests Alameda County cities of of Northern California; Ar- Milpitas or Fremont. For royo Grande on the Central proximity to the largest NOx Coast; and Kingsburg and and SO2 emissions, schools Lebec in the agricultural in the industrial areas of Central Valley. Contra Costa and Los Ange- les counties predominated. • Air pollution problems near But a group of schools in schools vary widely by re- San Luis Obispo County •gion, and within metropoli- were also among the high- tan areas. Nine schools in est for proximity to the larg- Orange County were at the est emissions of SO2. A San top of the list of schools for Diego high school ranked proximity to the largest highest for proximity to emissions of carcinogens; emissions of particulate pol- nearby, in adjacent Los An- lution, and six schools.in geles County, 11 schools in the city of Santa Clara also Compton ranked highest were high on that list. for proximity to emissions ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 5 6 SCHOOL HAZE: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 Current Regulations Provide No Specific Safeguards for Children Both California and federal air their behavior --- such as California has no pollution standards are currently crawling on the ground or guidelines to measure based on exposure limits neces- the floor — exposes them or regulate pollution's sary to protect the average adult to different environmental effect on children. in the population. But a growing hazards." (EPA 1996.) body of evidence shows that these standards can be inad- One month after that EPA re- equate to protect children. In port, an advisory committee of September 1996, the U.S. Envi- the California Environmental Pro- ronmental Protection Agency tection Agency (Cal-EPA) re- (EPA) reported, "Children are ported that although the state is particularly at risk from environ- "ahead of U.S. EPA in consider- mental hazards in three ways: ing environmental threats to sen- sitive populations," including in- • Because children's systems fants and children, "Cal-EPA does are still developing -- in- not have guidelines or any estab- cluding rapid changes in lished written procedures to as- growth and development, sess effects on sensitive popula- immature body organs and tions. . . . Current test methods tissues, and weaker im- are inadequate to identify sensi- mune systems in infancy tive populations." (Cal-EPA 1996.) ,— they are more suscep- tible to environmental The exposure of California threats. children to pollution and whether the state's environmental Stan- • Because children eat pro- dards are adequate to protect portionately more food, them is currently under investiga- drink more fluids and tion by the Legislature. A special breathe more air per Assembly-Senate conference pound of body weight, and committee is considering AB 278, because they play outside the Children's Environmental more, they are more ex- Health Protection Act, a bill pro- posed to environmental posed by Assemblymember . threats. Martha Escutia of Huntington Park. The bill requires that all • Because children are least new public health standards for able to protect themselves, ambient air quality, toxic air con- ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 7 ......... _ .... ......... ......... _ ........................... _.......................... . _ ........... taminants and drinking water, the California Manufacturers As- and existing standards as they sociation and the Western States come up for re-evaluation, must Petroleum Association, who be set at levels adequate to pro- mounted a campaign attacking tect infants and children. It would the bill as a "job-killer," (Benson also provide funding for addi- 1997.) It failed to gain final ap- tional air pollution monitors near proval when several Assembly schools. (Escutia 1998.) U.S. Sen. members who had originally Barbara Boxer of California has supported the bill switched their proposed similar legislation at the votes after lobbying by federal level, agribusiness and pesticide inter- ests — despite the fact that AB During the 1997 legislative 278 exempts agricultural pollu- session, AB 278 initially passed tion from its provisions. (Smith both the Assembly and the State 1997.) The bill was held over to Senate with bipartisan support -- the 1998 session, and the confer- over the opposition of the Cali- ence committee began holding fornia Chamber of Commerce, hearings in February, 8 SCHOOL HAZE: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 Chapter 2 Existing Air Pollution Monitors Miss Most At-Risk Kids In,dune 1997, EWG released and far between, so many schools Current air monitors an analysis that listed the Califor- near a significant source of pollu- cover only a handful nia schools in areas of heaviest tion were not counted. Also, of schools near particulate air pollution. those data measured pollution at sources of pollution. (100,000 California Kids the site of the monitors, which Breathe Unhealthy Air at includes emissions from automo- School.) Particulate matter (PM) biles as well as site-specific indus- is airborne pollution comprised trial emissions. of microscopic particles of toxic substances, so tiny they can pen- Most schools that ranked high- etrate deep into the lungs. This est when measured by proximity previous analysis found that ap- to PM monitors do not appear on proximately 109,000 children the current list of schools near attended one of the 147 schools industrial air emissions. This in no within one mile of air pollution way suggests that schools near monitors where PM levels ex- big polluters somehow escape ceeded new standards proposed, exposure to dirty air. Rather, it is and since adopted, by the U.S. an indication of the inadequacies EPA. (EWG 1997.) According to of the current monitoring net- the EPA, the new.PM standards work, and of the fact that air pol- will prevent an estimated 35,000 lution data are not available from premature deaths in the U.S. one comprehensive source. In each year -- 2,500 of them in the case of Calexico, measure- California. (EPA 1997.) ments by air monitors can include pollutants drifting across the bor- In the earlier analysis, mea- der from Mexico, but direct dis- sured by proximity to the high- charges from Mexican facilities est PM levels, schools in are not included in U.S. or Cali- Calexico, Riverside, Bakersfield, fornia industrial emissions data- Burbank and Fresno were po- bases. The other schools ranked tentially most exposed. The highly on the earlier list were in study was limited, however, by the Los Angeles metropolitan area using data only from PM moni- or the Central Valley -- regions tors. There are 189 PM monitors where automobile exhaust gro- in California. Given the size of duces elevated levels of air pollu- the state and the reach of air t:1 n that do not show up in in- pollution, this is relatively few dustrial emissions databases. ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GRoup 9 ............................. ............................ .......................... ......................................... ................................ ............. This new analysis shifts the Another limitation of measur- focus from the streets to the ing potentially at-risk children by smokestacks, and finds that the using only PM monitoring data is number of California children this method's failure to consider attending school within one mile the full range of pollutants that of reported sources of air pollu- foul California's air. These in- tion is more than 25 times higher elude not only PM but NOX and than the number suggested by SO2, which are "precursor" data from the monitors alone. In chemicals that lead to the forma- other words, the current system tion of particulates, and on their of monitors accounts for only own can cause or exacerbate- - four percent of the number of respiratory illness; plus carcino- California children at increased gens, reproductive toxins and risk of breathing unhealthy air at heavy metals. School. 10 SCHOOL HAZE: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 ............. 6___ ................................ -............ Findings EWG's analysis determined all largest polluters in Califor- California schools near reported nia for each category of releases of six different types of pollutant in 1995, and the air pollution: carcinogens, heavy number of schools within metals, reproductive toxins, par- one mile. Even though ticulate matter (PM), nitrogen Quebecor reported emitting _ oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide no carcinogens or heavy (S02). These pollutants may be metals, it emitted enough conveniently combined into two reproductive toxins to also broader categories: rank as the largest emitter of the three TRI categories • Toxics Release Inventory combined.) (Table 1): The U.S. EPA's Toxics Release Inventory Particulates and particulate {TRI) reports emissions of precursors (Table 2): Cal- carcinogens, heavy metals EPA's Emissions Inventory and reproductive toxins. database reports emissions Table 1 shows the 50 Cali- of particulate matter, nitro- fornia schools within 1 gen oxides and sulfur diox- mile of the combined larg- ides, which can be grouped est sources of these pollut- together as particulates and ants. Two schools in particulate precursors (P/ Milpitas — St. John the PP). Table 2 shows the 50 Baptist Catholic and California schools within 1 Zanker Elementary -- mile of the combined larg- ranked highest, with more est sources of PM, NOX and than 840,000 pounds of S02. The school most at risk carcinogens, reproductive was St. Catherine of Siena toxins or heavymetals Elementary in Martinez, emitted within one mile of with more than 17 million each school. Nearly all of pounds of P/PP emissions the pollution was emitted within 1 mile. Almost all of by Quebecor Printing of the pollutants were from San Jose, which was the Tosco Oil Corp.'s Avon Re- largest emitter of reproduc- finery. The next four tive toxins in California in schools were also in 1995. (Table 3 lists the Martinez, all affected by a ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP � � Table 4. Carcinogens emitted in air within 1 mile of the 50 most exposed California schools in 1995. I Paunds,emitted Pounds erm"ed Total Pe"a"t within I toile wires Source by tartest soar" N&nl School City I Enrollment Non-Anstlo (I"s) (7995) 0"s) I Orange Chnsvan orange 125 W. 626,634 j Law. Dn, Of T.km Ind, 447,70() 2 It-ovisteflementary Anaheim 1,335 SIM 470'774 two thlrecivoflorrikeeiind 447,700 3 grodertrt Anaheim 20 N/A 1 4M774 two:4.hare Dw.Of Iomk-ns kid i 447,700 no 1 051 a) Illathwart Cf.�O(Tomkins Ind, 447,700 Sunkist 9% 1 470.774 Lase 165,350 4 Elementary Anshe! 1 5 Anahe4m High Anaheim Z.OS4 3% 113,751 Xeres Corp N 5Ximces Corp 165,350 6 ra Gice taherint Parish flem, AnahS6 NIA 3I eim i 3 1 3 75,1 Iceft's Cory. 165,350 7 Zion Lutheran Elm. Anaheim 159 N/A St Catherine's Military Atisheun 169 NIA 313,751 a Ximues COT 165,350 st,ficsofface Arithenm 1 291 1 NIA 1 1 3,7$1Xe..Corp, 165,350 1 10 finflemor,flernensar­y Anaheim 1 903 95% 313.751 Xtreft Corp_ 165,350 it f(onklan Elementary Anaheim 906 93% 313,751 Xse211,650rtes Corp, 165,350 12 meamointe,Elementary Lot"Vats t,926 100% 13 sirickinsey,Avenue Elementary Los Angeles $51 00% 1 2$3,072 We0ocis NMI,Inc. 211,00 14 St,Atatachy Catholic fkm. Los Angeles 256 WA 251,070 w4eslocl,Neff.for, 211.650 ISI m,racle Baptist Christian Los Angeles 274 WA 253,070 I Weslock Nall.Inc 211.650 1, IOD% IIA50 6 Parmelee Aviffiert 0trole"Aly Los Angeles 342 2S3.070 wtslock Not lnc� 2 1 2 211,650 17 Woof,(Thome,A1 I.n.,High Los Angeles 702 100% 253.06a waslock Nall W 1 211 A50 III Drew(Cha'Jesi Worm H'gh Los Angeles 2:067 IOD% 223,020 wirstock Nall,kv ;9 Russell Elementary Los Angeles 1,210 IW% 1 223,020 Wtellock Nail,Inc 211,650 211�650 0 Graham I lerhentay i Los Angeles I'l t9 1 100% 211.670 Wenlock Nail,if'<, 21 St Michael's fiem Los Angeles 279 1 NIA 211.660 t weslock Nall.Inc 211.650 21 5wh Park tfeowma'y I Lot Angeles I I'DW 100% 211,652 waslock Nall Iric 211.650 23 f rtmom(Johr+CJ Son-of High Los Angeles 4,178 100% i 211,652 Wo4ocic Nail Inc 211.650 24 Mom fierne"ary Anaheim $47 92% 167.059 Xerses Corp. 1tr5350 25 Lincoln F$emiensa,y Anaheim i 1,002 96% 1$6.906 X"ves Corp 165,350 26 Arroyo Seco lum'01 H0gh I 1�221 9, 62,656 Polyca&oh Inc, 162,656 27 Santa Clarda Elinniomary us 586 1 23% 162.656 Potycarlow Inc 162M6 28 Ccnerusm Christian Orange 300 WA i 155.860 Aercichem Inc j 155.350 29 inckiveodehice Chilmw Cninge 205 N/A 155.860 Attochero Inc 155.350 N) SI Paul's tuttwim Orange 373 WA 155,660 Artachem I- i I5$'350 31 Swhrm Cai,fom,*Ch(,uwtn Schools Offitoge 201 NIA MAW Aenwhino w 155.350 32 ku#wan nigh Of Orange County 1 orange S95 ?VA I 1 WOW Aefrichem,for 155.150 33 Children's House Chr,suao Orange 24 N/A I55,860 Aeriochem,Inc 155,350 34 TO Elementary Oftinge $96 1 43% 155.860 Awochem for, I55.350 35 1 k4cht,f isionema'N I Orange 714 38% '$SrgW AefoChOM 1AC 155,350 36 Noiwalk chrtv'&n Norwalk 140 WA 141,536 telittl Mfg.Co 102.194 102,144 37 St Prus X flim. Santa ft*mg 34b NIA 141,516 Liff-ell Mfg Co 38 Lakeview Eltmtililq Santa Fe$13rusgs 551 7s% 141,536 Lefwti OrIfli,CO 102,194 39 take Center tietntreary Sana Fe Swrop 535 94% 141.516 titheit N" Co 102.194 40 Lakeland Elementary Norwalk 494 190% 136.429 Lefiell Mfg CO 102.194 41 01trv'fle High 1,001 30% 134.109 Louou1n&­PAC1f,c COIP 134,104 42 St Thomas Caftl�c It t WA 34 04 Lc um"-Paclf-C Carp 134.109 A) Wyandotte Avenue Elementary 0,0­14 729 S8% 114.1014 tcw%uina-pacnhc Corp 134,109 44 Stanford Avenue Eirmemay orm die 566 20% 134.709 Louisiana-Pacific C'YP 134,109 15 Cens,af m4dit onto jn, 757 29% 114,109 Louisiana-Pacific Corp 4 t, Ildd 54,eei 111,1*111, I CiroWle 276 20% 134.$09 Louisiana-Pacific Corp 134.1009 47 A4e"o,t/C3W,1u-" Orae fie 306 5% 134.709 tou.5'aru-Pacific Corp 134,109 48 Ross Elementary Anatwo, 715 83% 126,643 KwAssit Corp. 126,841 Torrance 49 feifterwo M'ddir, 562 42% 125.042 Do-Chem,col Co 123.940 j So mjc1,(xu m-ddie Torrance 3 616 47% 12442 Dow Chemical Co 123.440 Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. EPA Toxics Release inventory and California Depariment of Education, single source, the Shell Carcinogens (Table 4): Or- Martinez Refinery. The Tosco ange Christian School refinery was the third-largest ranked highest for proxim- combined emitter of P/PP ity to sources of cancer- pollution in the state; the causing chemicals, with Shell refinery was the fourth- more than 70 percent com- largest. ing from the Lasco Bathware Division of On their own, each of the pol- Tomkins Industries in the lutants included in these combined city of Orange. Lasco, a measurements is also an indicator maker of bathtubs and of increased health risks. shower stalls, was the lead- 12 SCHOOL HAZE: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 Table 5. Reproductive toxins emitted in air within t''mHe of the 50 most exposed California schools in 1995. 3 roma.emtnea I rowrd4 rmr)frea Total Percent i ,so I mac t Littler!Source by tim"waree Rank shoed i CRY i bwaltn+rni i teors.AnRb 09951 i IMP 41995)._- 1 StIDIOM The 33aptiNCSWiC Milpfus W326 WA 644,t29 I QuirtecorPrimingSan lose Inc. i 838,045 2 Zaran(re tl)£iemantary Milpitas 413 71% 642.304 j quebecorPnnturgunlow Inc, I 838.045 3 Orange Christian Orange i 175 WA � 499,365 i LUCID$athwam CN,,Of Tomloas Ind. 447,700 4 � Rio Vipa Elemremary Anaheim1,335 8076 470.765 scn ta8athware bey.Of Tomkins Ind. 447,70(1 5 Kindertare Anaheim k 20 WA 470,755 LUCCEaMwartt Dw f lomiluns trio 447,700 6 SurrkiN Elementary Anaheim i{ t,45t ` 81% 470.765 LUCID eahwant Civ.CH Tomkins Ind. 447,700 7 Su Leonard Perm Fnnsore 300 1 WA 379,925 New United Motor Mfg,Inc. 379,925 8 C&WW Baptist Fsematq 31 ( WA 379,925 Me.United mow Mfg.Inc 379.925 9 HopfunsWtIlram)junior ragh Fiversm 1,076 40% 379,923 New united Motor Mfg,Inc.. 379,925 10 Horner UoMsMd fursior HO Fremont � 940 � 41% 379,423 New United 379.925 d mow Mfg.Inc. I I 1 firtKh fo.NJ Vementaty Firman 42T 40% 379,923 New United-01101 Mfg.Inc 3M925 j 12 Miat)pl Valley Eftitlet,tary fIIt imerforst 578 i 45% 379,925 New United Motor Mfg:-int. S 379,925 13 ' Durham 0 t-Wityl£femetsfary i Fremont 567 33% 379,923 New urow Motor Mfg.Inc. 379.925 14 Ctreen(Hamkm y)feritary i Fremont 475 40% 379,928 NOW United MOW Mfg.RK 1 379.925 1 5 IrAnglonHigh Fremont 1.533 37% 379,823 a kwUmWedMotorMlg.tnt. 1 379,925 i t6 a Optimal Clina an Academy Middle 4 Cotrglton 20 WA 260:983 American Racmg Equipment first. ! 223.165 t 7 Mcntair L71rfN1an:Ac)fdemy Compton 44 WA 260,963 A0106can Raang tXWiPmeme Inc. i 223.165 18 Revrvaf Time Christian:Academy j Compton 56 IVA 1 260.983 Am"Can Rating Equiptnimx Inc. $ 223.165 19 ChnNrm foundation Elem,,Inc. Complm 82 Wsertt A I 260,983 American Kiang EquipnInc. 223,t65 TO Fust Christian Day Of CamptonS Compton - 125 WA 260,983 Ansarican Rump EgiiiNmsern Inc. i 223.165 21 CpttmalChnNmanAtademny ' Campion 286 WA 260,983 AmeriCAA Kiang EgwprrientIrft. 223.165 22 j Roosevelt M;ddle 1 Compton 8S7 100% 260.983 Amenun Rating Ectnpnear Inc. 223.165 S 23 Roocevett Elementary ? Compton 4.119 10076 260.%3 American Kiang Equipment Inc. 223.165 I 24 Kelly flernentary i Compton 1.063 101y% ( 260,983 i American Rattng Equipment Inc 223.165 S 25 Emerson flementary Compton 667 - 99% 1 260,963 American Racing Equipment Inc. i 223,165 26 Dominguez High Compton 1.760 100% j. 2591609 I Amencan Racing Equipmieni Inc. 27 Madrona Middle ' Torgnce 676 47% 2411.918 Reynolds Meeh Co.CM 0- 233.491 28 IiNenom Middle I Torrance $62 42% 241,918 ! ary"olds Metals Co.Can 0+v. 233,491 29 SourhUy-kosiotAcademy Torramce 165 WA i 241,391 I ReynotdsMetals Cc Can 0-. 1 233.4411 I 3D 1 Sc)amen Elem. 'romance 305 WA 241,391 i Reynolds Metak Cc Can Gin 233.491 31 RMhop Montgomery High Torrance 1,494 WA i 241,391 Reynd&Meats Co.Can— 233.491 ( 32 Victor flernentary j Torrance 955 54% ' 241,391 Reynolds A9etah Co.Can D,i. 233,491 33 Lynn then M.)Middle i Torrance 660 53% I 241,3911 I Reynolds Mttah Go:Can Div: I 233.491 34 Axa Elemenlary romance 576 33% I 241,391 I Reynolds Mesats Co.Can Div: 231.491 35 west High romance 1.918 35% 24t.391 Reynolds.Metals Co Can 0,v. 233.491 36 1 Anaheim High Anaheim 2.054 � 93% 206.341 1 Xerxe1 Corp 165,350 ff 37 r CraLuthtran garish ftem. Anaheim 56 WA 206,342 I Xeres Corp. 165.350 ft 38 - Z-an Lutheran Elem. Ariahesrn 354 WA 206.343 i Xerxel.Corp 1165.350 i ` 39 St.Cstherdws Misery Anaheim 169 WA 206.342 Xerxes COML 165.350 40 St.Sornfate Anent— 291 WA j 206,342 Xerxes Corp. 165,350 41 fe feison Elementary Anaheim 903 95% 206.342 Xerxes Corp 165.350 42 Fnniclm Elementary Anaheim 906 93% 206,342 j Xerxes Corp. 165.150 ' 43 Mann Elementary Anaheim g47 92% 200,133 Xerxes Corp : 165.350 44 Lincoln Elementary Anaheim 1,002 96% 200.728 %emirs Corp : 165.350 45 04andoEtemersury fonana 842 83% I 145.019 1 Gold Wild fibeeglassInc 105.900 46 M,ramonit Elementary Los Angeles 1.926 1n^ 131,327 Myra Cotfumer Chip 52,62b 47 ! flOrente Avenue:Ekn1[nury Lot Angeies 1,024 100% k 131,327 j Mlei Conder Corp. 52,626 48 McFadden hrernediate Sema Ana 1,796 94% 129,706 1 Add Inc.Adies,ves 6 films Drv. 65,305 49 j Can(Genid P.)Intmr eedime ; Santa Ana 1,403 99% ! 129,708 Arlon oft.Adhesives&f ltm,Div. 65.305 50 Ci a_nsond Elemsesftafy Same Ana 827 10016 i 129,706 Arson int.Adeuves b f,)ms Din. 65,30S v Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory and California Department of Education. ing emitter of carcinogens Reproductive toxins (Table in California. The next 10 5): St. John the Baptist schools were in neighbor- Catholic School and Zanker ing Anaheim, with the larg- Elementary of Milpitas were est share of emissions com- again highest for proximity ing either from the Lasco to the largest emissions of facility or the Xerxes Corp., reproductive toxins, with a manufacturer of fiberglass more than 840,000 pounds storage tanks and the within one mile. Again, the state's fourth-largest emitter largest single source was of carcinogens. Quebecor Printing of San Jose, Nine of the 15 next ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 13 Table 6. Heavy metals emitted in air within 1 mite of the So most exposed California schools in 1995. i Pounds ar(itte► Total # Percent wishin E mil trteas Sourer by Jan= Rank School j City ! Intdlment i NW.A+gtb 11995E (£995) JIM) I Clpirnai Christian AarSertny a4ir3die Campton 20 � WA 259.4E 7 a AnnMLan Rating fgmptrirnt InL � 223.165 2 wNarr Christian Academy Ctxmpon t 54 11 WA 259.417 Amman Racing€quipmeni/nL. 223,165 3 ' Re—al Time Christian Academy Campton 56 WA 259,4£7 { American Racing Equipment Inc 223,165 s ` Ctiinaran FarM+datlal Elm,mc. Compton I 82 j WA 259,417 1I Amer,Gn Racing Eptipment Inc 223.165 S First Chnstian pay Of Canpon Compton 125 NIA 259,917 American Racing Equ+pineM Inc. 223,169 6 Optimal Christian Academy Ca*nPtan 288 WA 259.417 American Racing EgiriPment tnc. 223.165 7 Roosevelt a4iddk Coon 857 100% ' 259,417 American Racing Equipment Inc. 223,165 8 Roosevettflerrsentary Campton f 1,119 1 10096 259,417 i American Raw*toopmeminc, 223.165 t 9 Kelly Elementary Campton £,063 100% 254,917 Amarian Racing Equipy+errt+AC. 1 223,165 t 10 fine on€lemerxay Compton ? 667 3 99% 259,917 j American 11041E69 Egwptnenl Inc, 223,165 11 Dom,nguez High Compton 1,760 1 100% 259,859 Anerian Racing Equipment Inc. ` 223,165 , 12 temple IRaymond)Elementary Hueco Part 462 51% 17,484 Hayes WFneets Intl. j 47,489 13 uv6lkr IGexge 8.)flementary La Patina 475 57% 47,489 Hayes Wheels Mti_ 47,489 14 Buena Tera Elementary {i Buena Park i SE 5 4(196 � 47,489 Hayes Wheats Int£. 47,189 t5 Corry EAnhur f.)Elementary I Bo ma Park 1 593 59% 47,489 Hayti wheels in 47.489 16 j Walker tuna High t1 La Palma £.001 57% 47.489 Hayes Wheels Intl, 47,489 17 Kennedy llohn F.t High LA Pat I 1,841 S6% 47,489 � Hay4s Wheels 1W 47,489 Is Leal(Frank C.1 Elementary Cettitos i 675 85% 45.630 ? Fredrick Ramond NK. 45.630 t9 h are2 Menna)f4 memory Cerritos 589 87% 4$,630 Fredrick Ramond Inc. i 45,630 20 Ross if ayes tumor High Artesia # 584 76% 45,630 Fredrick Ramond Inc. 45.630 21 - £elicit rWi Liam F.)Eiemeritay Artesia 435 S7% 45.630 frednck Ramond Inc, 45,630 22 Kennedy(Jahn F.)Elementary 1 Artesia 455 74% 45.630 feednt;k Ramond Inc. i 45,630 23 Carver lChanas 1.)Elementary f Cemtos 467 81% 45,630 ! Frednck Ramond Inc, 45.630 24 - Tracy wlhurt High ICON') � Cen"cis 319 .`- 77% 45,630 � FrednLk Ramond Inc. i 45.630 IS Cern+los H,ghCerritos 2.227 79% 45,630 i Frednck Itomond Inc I 45,630 26 Wesiern Avenue 8apt,V flem. Harbor City 86 NIA 24,950 1 Prime Wheel Corp 24.950 I7 P40,co Chnst+an Elem. Lomita 101 NIA 2a 450 Prime Wheel Corp. _ 24,9$0 26 Gateway Chn4tian Harbor Ciry 299 NEA 24.450 ( Prime Wheel Corp 24.956 , 29 Fleming(AJrr.amaerl Junta Hig Lrlmda I 1.572 61% 24,956 1 Prime W wei Carp 24,956 30 President Avenue Elementary ( Harbor City 555 69% 244950 ' Prime Wheel Cory- a 24,950 31Normoni fiernerntary I Harbor City 558 94% 24,950 jPrime Wheel Corp 24,950 32 Haft,City Elementary Harbor City 634 9E% 24,950 Pnme Whee4 Cap. # 24.950 33 Namic nne?Nathaniel)Senior High r Harbor City 2,694 83% 24,950 Prime Wneei Corp- 24,950 34 8asnard�Whi{4 Meddle Union City 1,360 75% 9,766 U.S.Pipe&Foundry Co. 9.766 35 Stades Etemeo y Union City 1 932 80% 9.766 i U.S.Pipe&Foundry Co 9,766 36 pecoto Eltnrntay Union City 639 82% 9,766 U.S'Pipe&Foundry Co. 9,766 37 lames Logan High Union City 4,110 79% 9,766 U.S.Pipe&Foundry Co. 9.766 38 Do—v(Edward M Elemental { San Patio 1.045 95% 9.510 Chevron USA i 91255 34 Peres flementary ', Richmond 483 99% 9.510 Chevron USA i 9.255 40 New Life Chnst,an Academy Richmond 28 NIA 9-155 Chevron USA 9.255 41 Gtr)balChnsnan Academy ' Richmond 10 N/A 4,255 Cheyron USA 9.255 42 Nysimm Elementary Richmond 464 99% 9.255 Chevron USA 9.255 43 LinCain€)ementary Richmond SE 3 100% 4,255 Chevron USA 9,255 4J Grans Frereniay i Richman! 746 92% 9.255 ! Che+n'on USA 9,255 45 S( Anlhonv flem EE Segundo I 275 WA p 7,161 ? chevron USA ?.163 46 fI Segundo Middle Et Segundo 577 25% 7.163 1 Chevron USA 7.163 47 Cenie+S(reei Elementary El Segundo 1.079 25% 7.163 i Chevron USA I 7.163 48 0 Segundo High EI Segundo 771 30% 7.163 Chevron USA 7,163 44 Arena High(Cox) i fl Segundo 44 32% 7,161 Chevron USA i7,163 5(t Si C2(hennr Ca Sena Elm. t hunine2 270 WA 5,711 Shell Manirx2 4e4riing Ca 3.462 Source: Environmental Working Group, Compiled from U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory and California Department of Education. potentially most exposed led this list, all with schools were in nearby Fre- 259,000 pounds of metals mont, and in each case all emitted within one mile. In of the pollution came from each case, more than 90 the same source, the New percent of the pollutants United Motor Manufacturing came from a single source, plant. The auto factory was American Racing Equip- the third-largest emitter of ment Inc. The ARE factory, reproductive toxins in the which manufactures cus- state, tom wheels and rims for automobiles, was the larg- • Heavy metals (Table 6): est single emitter of heavy Eleven schools in Compton metals in California. 14 SCHOOL HAzE: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 Table 7. Particulate matter emitted within 1 mile of.the 50 most exposed California schools in 1995 j, bunds emitted : Pounds.emitted Total Pviceni ; WWII 1 mite tartest Source by lartest source sank School city Tnnrdknent hiots•Antdo 1 09951 (19951 11995) 1 Foundation High San Diego I 62 NIA 1,433,000 San Diego West Miramar t ndiill 1.428.800 2 Camegie(Andrew)Junior High Carson 1,315 94% 979.000 Arco Products Co. 957,600 3 1 $oniuStn4tE10MO Ilry ( Consort 635 91% 979,000 Arco Products Co. 957,600 4 DoiOres%nowt Ekrnenury Carlson 824 94% 938,600 Arco Products Co. 957.600 5 Carson Street Elementary Carton $26 92% 978,400 f Arco Products Co 957,600 6 !!! Carson Senior High Carson 2.999 94% 976,400 Arco Products Co. 957,600 7 St.Philome4sa Very. Carson 310 i NIA 970,800 Arco ProduasCo. 957,60 I 8 St.Clare flem. Santa Clara I 296 NIA 942,660 f international Leadframe 887,200 9 Hanan lC.W3 EJarrientary Santa Clara 1 459 49% 942,600 intemahonat teadframe 887.200 10 New Valley Continuation High Sarva.Clara 12S 58% i 941,600 International WOW* $87,200 11 Mission Valley Continuation High Santa Clara ! 0 NIA 942,600 irtitinat,onat Leadframe 887.200 12 Kitiderwood Academy Santa Clara 25 NIA ' 941,800 ItNematiodat teadhame $87.200 13 euchw Middle Santa Clara 1,018 S4% 941,800 intemantxuJlaatMrsme $67,200 14 Martinez Christian School.Inc. Martinez 26 NIA 9181$00 Shell Martinez Refining 892.800 95 Las lursras Eiemeiaary Martinez 32% MAW Shell Martin"gaining 892.800 16 St,Anthony Elem. El Segundo 275 NIA 901.400 Chevron USA 900.100 17 Center Street Elementary El Segundo 1,039 25% 901,400 Chevron USA 900.200 °18 Aceta High(Cont.) El Segundo 44 32% 901,400 Chevron USA 900.200 19 ti Segundo Middle El Segundo 577 15% 900.400 Chevron USA 9001100 20 El Segundo High El Segundo I 771 30% I 900,400 Chevron USAD 900,200 21 Moreno Park fkmentary Manner i Soo 17% 895.800 "I Martinez Refining 892,$00 22 Cory{Benjamin)Elementary San lust 511 67% 8$71200 1 international Leadframe 887,200 23 Monroe Middle f San Jose 843 48% 1 867,200 1 international Leadframe 887.200 24 Boron Jurtior-Senear High Boron 3S6 16% j 686.$00 U.S.Bort- 686,800 25 I Schendel Elementary oeih, 994 65% I 683,200 Foster Poultry farms-feed M41 683,200 26 I Holy family flern. Wilmington 226 NiA 649,400 Union Ott Co.01 Col. 253,400 27 Banning(Phuteas)Senior High I Wilmington 3,267 97% 641,4130 1 Union Ort Co.Of Cal. 253,400 . 28 Cuff Avenue Elementary Wilmington 1,258 97% 641,000 Union O l Co Of Cal 253.40 j 29 F tis Baptist Christian 1 Wilmington 37 N/A 639.200 Union Oil Co.Of Cal 2$3,400 30 fnes•AvenueElementary Wilmington 1,277 98% 639,200 ` Union Ota Co Of Cal, 253,400 31 St.Elizabeth Eleni. Oakland Soo N/A 616,600 Owens-Brockway Glass 390,200 32 St.Elizabeth High Oakland 319 N/A 616;600 Owens Brockway Class 390,200 33 j Laxear£kmenury Oakland 520 97% 616,60 ov.*ns4rockway Class 390.200 34 Dewey/Baytrtart Senior H,gh Oakland 237 99% 616,600 O.ens-Brockway Glass 390,200 35 Pondota10 Alterative Center Carina 80 18% 543,200 Mith{af Lumber Co. 543.200 36 Caminofiementary Camino 559 16% ! 513,200 Micn•Ca3lurwberCo. 541.200 1 37 Fremont Senior High !. Oakland 1,520 99% 531,400 Owens-Brockway Class 390,200 38 Emery Middle School Academyhmery High Emeryville 412 97% 531,400 Ower-Brockway Class 390,200 I 39 Melrose fternenury i Oakland 514 99% 531,200 Ower-BroCkvvay CWS 390.200 l 40 St.Patrick's Efem. Rodeo 283 N!A 521,400 union Chemical 416,200 41 Hillcrest Elementary Rodeo 990 52% 521,400 union Chemical 416,200 1 42 i Fern Elementary ; Torrance 514 44% 496,60 Mobil Ors Corporation 485,000 43 I Nativity Vern. Torrance 294 NIA 496.200 Mobil Oil Corporation 485,000 i 44 1 Torrance High Torrance 1.831 53% 496,200 Mobil Oil Coiporst,on 485,000 45 Shi ry(Kurt T.)High i Torrance 179 47% 492,60 Mob.l Oil Corporation 485.000 46 1 Mark Twain f lenentary j Corcoran 513 82% 492,310 1 C Boswelt Company 467,800 47 ( TorranceEkrnenury Torrance S67 61% 491,200 Mobil OrtCoyuration 485.00 48 1 Hawthorne year-Round Elementary Oakland 1,308 99% 475.80 Owens-Brockway Glass 390,200 49 t Lazearllingletown Charter Middle Oakland 163 99% 475,60 Owens-Brockway Glass 390.20 SO ft Tejon Elementary Lebec 587 14% 467.000 National al Cerivar t Co. 467,00 Source: Environmental Working Group, from U.S. EPA AIRS database and California Department of Education. • Particulate Matter (Table the 11 top schools for prox- 7): The school within one imity to PM were in Carson, mile of the largest emis- near an Arco oil refinery signs of PM was Founda- which was the sixth-largest tion High in San Diego, PM emitter in the state. Also with 1.4 million pounds among the highest-ranking emitted within one mile. were six schools in the city Almost all of the particu- of Santa Clara, near Interna- lates came from the City of tional Leadframe, a com- San Diego's West Miramar puter hardware maker that Landfill, the third-largest was the state's tenth-largest emitter of particulates in emitter of PM. California in 1995. Five of ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING CROUP 15 Table 8. Nitrogen oxides emitted within 1 mile of the 50 most exposed California schools in 1995. i Pow1t4 �� emitled P—di emitted j Tout j Pencil j widiin 1 tear 1 Iartew Source for tartest scarce ' Rano School atv Enrdiment Non-Ando 11995! 179951 tt9953 I ! Tumer Elarnentary Antioch 69S } 47% i 12,603,800 Pacific Gas 6 flectoc Co. ! --12.607.600 2 A4anirtez ChriAian School,Inca Martinez 26 WA 8,922,400 Shelf Maninez Reilining 8,893.0W 3 Las!ureas Elementary Martinez 374 32% I 8,922,400 Shell Martinez Refining 4 Morelia Park Elementary Martinez Soo i t7% 1 8,893,800 Shseli Man,nez Rs6ning 8,893.000 } 8.893,000 5 5l.Catherine Of Siena(tern. Martine: 270 WA 7,070,400 Tosco Corp.Avon Refinery 6321,400 6 Alhambra Senior High Martinez 1,064 ( 24% 6322,600 Tosco Corp.Avon R linen, b,327,400 7 Visitation Elam. Los Angeles 293 j WA 6,017,600 LAX Airport 5,942,400 8 Luna Etmtennry South EI Monte 321 j 99% 5,654,200 So.Cal.Edison Co. I 5.626.000 9 Potrero Heights Elementary South San Gabriel 494 i 93% 5,649,400 1 Sex.Cat.Edosoet Co. i 5.626,OW 10 Temple(Roger W,)Intermediate Rosemead 495 98% 5.639,600 So.Cat.Edison Co. 5,526.000 1 t Sanchez iGetxge 1.3 Elerneruary Rosemead 559 97% 5,639,8017 So.Cal,Edison Co. 5.626,000 12 Rite(Eldridge)Elementary Rosemead 726 96% SA391600 So.Cal.Edison Co, 5,626,000 13 ( Shery(Kan T.)High1 Ttmante 179 47% 5.511,400 Mobil OR Corporation ! 5,462 400 14 Weedles Middle i Needles 289 I 34% 5,491,200 Southern California Gas Co j 2,770,0W 1 6 5 Vista Colorado Elementary Needles i 336 40% 5,491,2Do Southem California Gas Cc ( 2.770.DW 7Needles Senior High Needles 365 1 35% j 3,491.200 Southern California Gas Ca 2,770,M) 17 FemflemMtary Torrance S14 1 44% 5.481,800 Mobil Oil Corporation 5.462,400 id Nativrry Eleni. Tt>rrance 294 ! WA i 5,474,000 Mobil Oil Corporation S,462.4W 19 Torrance High I Torrance 1,831 ! 53% 5,474,01X) Mobil Oil Corporation 5,462.400 j 20 Torrance Elementary Torrance S67 1 61% 5,473,400 I Mobil Oil Corporation ! 5,462.400 21 Fbky Family f tem. Wilmington 226 ! WA 4,676.200,623,400 Terata Rd.6 Marketing tic. 2.830.200 22 Banning fPnrneas)Senior High Wilmington 3.267 97% 4Texaco Ref.b MarketingInc, 2,830.200 23 First 8 ist Christian 1 aW Wilmington 37 WA 4593,0017 Texaco Ref.6 Marketing Inc. ' 2.830,200 24 Fries Avenue Elerrientaify Wilmington 1,277 98% 4,593,000 Texaco Ref.b Marketing lc. 2.830,200 25 Gulf Avenue Elemeritary 1Wilmington 1,258 ; 97%. 4,592,230 Texaco Ref.6 Marketing Inc. 2,830,200 26 Joshua Middle Mojave 233 42% 4,491,600 { cal.Fontana!Cement Co. i 4.491.800 j 27 St.Parr ck's Ekm Rodeo 283 WA 4,491,400 Unocal Corporation i 3,362,400 28 Hillcrest flemmtary Rodeo 990 j 52% 4,491,400 Unocal Corporation 3.362,400 29 1 St,Anthony Siem. i E1Segundo 275 WA 3,917,WO j Chevron USA 3:895.600 30 Center Street Elementary El Segundo 1,079 2S% 3.917,)100 Chevron USA31 Arena High 3.895,600 32 E Segundo Middle ( EI Segundo 577 undo 44 32% 3.977,800 Chevron USA 3,895,1iW 33 EI Segundo High EI undo 771 1 25X° 3,900,000 Chevron USA 1.895.60() 34 (let Mar Elements � 30% 3,900.000 � Chevron USA 3.895.600 Elementary Marra Bay 278 23% 1 3,885,800 PG6f-Mona Bay ? 3.885.800 f 35 Carnegie(nndrew)Junior Hgin , Carson 1.315 94% 3,728,400 Arco Products Co. 3.423.400 j 36 Bonila Street Elementary Carson 635 91% 3.726,400 Arco Products Cc 3.423,400 ± 37 Carson Senior High Carson 24999 94% 38 Qofores Street Elementary ' Canon 3,72 ,200 Arco Products Cc 3.423.40() 814 94% 3,7211,400 Arca Products Co 3.423.400 39 Carson Street Elementary i Carson 826 92% 3.777,200 i Arco FroduC.s Co 3,423,400 40 St.Ph4omersa Elem Canon 310 WA 3,585,200 Arlo Products Co. 3:123.400 i 41 Stevens Creekflementary j Cupertino 582 31% 3,387,000 I � j Karver Cement Corporation 3,387.000 42 Hawaiian Avenue ftementary ' Wilungton 1.235 99% 3.308.200 Texaco Ret.6 Marketing Inc. 2.630.200 43 Pacific Harbor Christian Wilin on 184 WA 3,307,200 TexacU Ref.6 Marketing W. 2.830,200 44 Chula viiimt Vista Ch ;an Chula Vista 124 WA ' 3,301,200 SI?GdE•South Bay ! 3.212,000 45 HarbonideElementary Chula Vista 719 I 90% 1 3,301,200 SDG&E-South gay 3,212,000 46 El Teton Elementary ! Lebec S87 14% ' 3.0481000 National Cement Cc 3.048,00047 Lytle Creek Elementary I San Bemardmo 756 - 92% 2,511,400 ' Alpine Auto Body 2.508.000 48 M7-Vernon Elementary San Bernardino 736 82% 2,508,200 i Alpine Auto Body 2308,0(30 49 Ramona-Aiessamndro Elementary i San Bernardino 799 83% 2,506,21x3 Mpine Auto Bodv 2.506.0w i ! 50 51arr,King fle4ntary San Francisco 382 ! 95% 2,SO4'Wo PacdK Gas d Electric Cc 2,46C3,200 Source: Environmental Working Group, from U.S. EPA AIRS database and California Department of Education. • NOx (Table 8): Turner EI- Martinez, near the Shell ementary in Antioch ranked Martinez or Tosco Avon highest in terms of proxim- refineries. ity to emissions of NOV with more than 12.6 million SO2(Table 9): St. pounds emitted within one Catherine of Siena in mile. Almost all of it came Martinez also ranked high- from a PG&E plant in est for proximity to the neighboring Pittsburg, the largest emissions of 5021 largest emitter of NOX in with more than 9.7 million California. The next five pounds emitted within 1 schools were all in mile. Again, almost all of 16 SCHOOL HAZE: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 Table 9. Sulfur dioxide emitted within 1 mile of the 50 most exposed California schools in 1995. rowed."mined ` rounds"rallied i Twat rtectnt within 1 mite tartest Source by tariten sotucir 4 Rank ; School City Ewollment F4or-Am110 i (T99S) (1995) t199S} 1 54.Catherine Of Siena Elem. ` Martinez 270 WA 9,763,000 Tosco Corp Avon Refinery i 9,743.800 2 Alhambra Senior High Martinez 1,064 24% 9.743.800 Tosco Corp.Avon Refinery 917#3,800 3 ! Coastal Christian Arroyo Grande 60 WA 6,349,800 Unocal Carbon Plant 6,254,600 4 Valley view Adventist Academy Arroyo Grande 101 WA 6,349.800 Unocal Catton Plant 6,254,600 5 St.Patrick l'arochiat Elem. Arroyo Grande 294 WA 6,349,800 Unocal Carbon Plant ! 6,254,600 6 Paulding(Ruth)Middle Arroyo Grande S39 22% 6,349,800 Unocal Carbon Plant 6,254,600 7 Lopez Continuation High Arroyo Grande I 190 41% 6,349,800 k Urwcat Carbon plant ! 6„254,600 8 Martinez Christian School,Inc. Martinez 26 WA 5.030.600 51+111 Martinet Refining 5,024800 9 Las funtas Elementary Martinez 1 374 32% 51030,600 Shelf Martinez Refining S,022,800 10 Moretto Park£tementary Martinez Soo 17% 5,022,800 Sheli Martinez Refining 5.022,800 I t St.Patrick's Elem. Rodeo 283 WA 4,270,600 Union Chemical i 3,070,600 12 Hillcrest Elementary Rodeo 990 S2% 4,270,600 Union Chemucat- 3,070,600 13 Carnegie Andrew)tuns+High Carton 1,315 94% 3,495.600 ! Arco Products Co 3,466,800 14 Worts Street Elementary Carson 824 94% 3.495,600 Arco Products Co 3,466,801} 15 Canon Street Elementary Carson 826 1 92% 3,495,600 Arco Products Ca, I 3,466.800 16 Bonita Street Elementary Carson 535 1 91% 3,495,600 Arco Products Co 3,466,800 17 i Carson Senior High Carson 2,999 94% 3.495,600 Arco Products Co. 3,466,800 IB §r.Ptsi2omena Elem. Carrot 310 WA 3,477,600 Arco Products Co. { 3,466,800 19 1 Holy Family Elem. Wilmington 226 WA 3,129,800 Union Oil Co.Cif Cal 11303,800 20 Banning(Pmneat}Servo High Wilmington 3,267 47% 3,225.800 Union Oil Co Of Cat 5,303.800 21 First Baptist Christian Wilmington 37 WA } 3,123.600 Union a(Co.04 Cal 1,303.800 22 Gulf Avenue Elementary Wilmington 1,258 97% 3,123,600 Union oil Co.Of Cal 1,303.800 23 Fries Avenue Elementary Wdinirgllon 2,277 98% 3,523.600 union Oil Co.Of Cat 1,303,800 24 St Anthony f:lem. £t Segundo 275 WA 2,314,200 Chevron USA 2.313,400 25 Center Street Elementary EI Segundci 1,079 25% 1,314,200 Chevron USA 2.32 3.400 26 AreMl H gh Ei Segundo 44 32% 2,324,200 Chevron USA 2,313.400 27 EJ Segundo Middtt EI Seguntfa 577 25% 2,313.40 Chevron USA 2,313,400 28 El Segundo High EI$tgursdp 771 30% 2,313.400 Chevron USA 2,31 3,400 29 Nativity Ettm Torrance 294 WA 2,106,000 Mobil Oil Corporation 2.106.000 ! 30 Torrance Elementary Torrance S67 j 61% i 2,106,000 Mob,!Oat Corporation i 2,106,000 31 Fem Ettinentary, Torrance 514 ! 44% 2,106,00 Mobd Oil Cotprsrat,oe, 2,106.000 32 Torrance High Torrance 1,831 53% 2306,000 Mobil Oil Cotwanon 2,t06,000 33 51xry(icun T.}High Torrance 179 1 47% 2,106,000 Mobil Cid Corporation 2.2 06,00 34 Pacific Harbor Christian wifmingion 184 WA 1,819,800 Texaco Ref &Marketing Inc 1,121,800 35 Hawaiian Avenue Elementary W+fmington 1.235 99% 1,819,800 Texaco Ret &Marketing Inc 1,121,800 35 Del Mar Eitmenwry Moro Bay 276 23% 1,334,800 PG&E-Moro Bay 1,334,800 37 WdmingtonPark Elementary wdrn,ngton 1,139 99% 1.310,000 Un,onO,tCo CN Ca! 1,303,80 { 38 Oas+s Continuation High xirrgsburg 46 63% 1,144,400 Guardian induvtf es Corp 1,144,40 39 Kingsburg High K,ngtkrurg 952 44% 1,144,400 Guard,an industries Corp 1,144,400 40 Washington Elementary K,ngtturg 427 i 50% 1,144,40 Gordian Industries Corp 1,144,400 41 Roosevelt Elementary K,ngsburg 407 47% 1,144.400 Guartfran mdustrces Carp 2,144,40 42 Lincoln Elementary Ktngsburg 617 52% 1,144.400 Guardian induttr es Corp 1,144,400 43 Turner Elementary Antioch 695 47% r 1,025.000 Pacific Cas&Electric Co i 1,024,000 44 Stevens Creek Elementary Cupertino 582 j 32% 928.600 Ka,ser Cement Corporation 928,600 45 Casa Lama Elementary Bakersfield 618 9t% 928,200 Kem Chl&Reimmg Co 928,200 46 New Lite Christian Academy Lompoc 63 WA 885,800 Cela”Corpwatizin 885,800 47 La Punsima Concepcion Elem Lompoc 277 WA 685,800 Cefitt Corporation 885,800 48 Lompoc Middle Lompoc 1.342 57% 885,800 Celite Comwatton 885,80 49 Ls Canada Elementary Lompoc 675 54% 8851800 Cehle Corporation 885,80 50 Ruth{Clarence}Elementary Lompoc 686 67% 8851800 Cefat Corporation 885180 Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. EPA AIRS database and California Department of Education, the emissions came from the Tosco Avon refinery. Pour other schools in Martinez were also among , ` the 10 campuses near the largest sources of SO2. The remaining five were all in Arroyo Grande, near the Unocal Carbon Plant, the state's third-largest emitter of SO2. ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GR6up 17 .......... ................................. .............................. 18 SCHOOL HAZE: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 ........................... Conclusions and Recommendations Industrial air pollution near the average adult. Finally, it does Parents have the right California schools is a significant not consider two significant to expect that when problem, potentially affecting sources of air pollution: auto ex- their children go to more than 2.8 million children haust and pesticides. school, they will be in every school day. The majority a safe and healthy of the state's largest industrial This analysis does provide par- environment. emitters of air pollutants are lo- ents with basic information about cated within one mile of one or the amount and kind of air pol- more schools. Air pollution near lutants their children may be ex- schools falls disproportionately posed to at school, and how their on children of color, but is kids' schools compare to others found in all parts of the state. around the state. Parents have Even though emissions near the right to expect that when schools include a number of their children go to school, they contaminants known to cause will be in a safe and healthy en- serious adverse health effects, vironment. Without adequate there is very little monitoring of monitoring data, state pollution the air these children breathe ' and public health authorities can- every day; nor is there an assess- not provide parents with this ba- ment of the increased health sic assurance. _ risks they face simply by attend- ing school. The air near schools is essen- tially no cleaner or dirtier than in This analysis does not attempt the surrounding neighborhood, to measure or evaluate that risk. and sources of pollution near Although it identifies all Califor- schools affect all residents and nia schools within one mile of workers in the neighborhood. reported emissions, it does not But in light of the growing evi- measure how close individual dence of children's increased vuI- schools are to individual sources nerability to environmental pol- of pollution. Mor does it show lutants, continuing to send chil- whether the amount of pollut- dren to schools that are some- ants emitted near the schools is times literally in the shadow cif in violation of existing health major sources of pollution is un- standards — standards currently wise public policy. set at levels adequate to protect ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 19 EWG recommends that the be added near the schools California Legislature and U.S. that are potentially most Congress make the protection of exposed. children's health the first priority of new and existing environmen- Require industrial facilities tal regulations. Specifically, we near schools to prepare recommend that Cal-EPA and and implement meaning- U.S. EPA: ful, enforceable pollution- reduction plans. • Review all existing and pro- posed environmental health • Implement tougher regu- standards to ensure that lations for permitting the they adequately protect construction of new in- children. dustrial facilities, or re- newal of the permits of • Increase the number of air existing facilities, near pollution monitors near schools. schools, and add schools to the list of institutions that Provide relocation assis- must be notified on days of tance for schools in the excessive pollution. At areas of greatest potential minimum, monitors should exposure. 20 SCHOOL HAZE: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 Methodology Cal-EPA's Emissions inventory the TRI, but the overlap is mini- Database provides estimates, as mal. reported by the polluting facili- ties, of emissions of NOXI SO2 By matching the emissions and the category of particulate databases with school location matter known as PM10. PM10 and enrollment data from the refers to particles that are 10 mi- California Department of Educa- crons — one-millionth of a tion, EWG calculated releases of meter in diameter. Where each of the six categories of pol- PM10 data is lacking, the data- lutants within one mile of a base reports emissions of total school. (The data sources may in particulates, or PT. For this re- rare instances list a corporate ad- port, particulate matter is re- dress that is not the site of the ferred to.as PM. Combined emis- reported emissions.) sions of PM, NOX and SO2 are referred to as particulates and The schools were then ranked particulate precursors, or P/PP. by proximity to the sources of the highest amounts of each cat- U.S. EPA's Toxics Release In= egory of pollutant, and by prox- ventory (TRI) lists emissions, imity to the combined amount of also reported by the regulated the three categories of particulate facilities, of carcinogens, repro- pollutants (NOX + SO2 + PM ductive toxins and heavy metals. particulates and particulate pre- For this analysis, carcinogens cursors, or PIPP) and the com- counted were those in Cal-EPA's bined amount of the three cat- Proposition 65 registry. Some egories of TRI chemicals (car- chemicals included in particulate cinogens + reproductive toxins + releases may also be listed under heavy metals = total TRI). Y ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 21 School Haze References Benson, Mitchell, 1997. "The `Job-Killer' Scare: Can 1t Work Once More?" The Wall Street journal (California edition),July 2, 1997. Cal-EPA 1996. A Review of the California Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Assessment Practices, Policies, and Guidelines: Report of the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee. October 1996. EPA 1996. Environmental Health Threats to Children. EPA 175-F-96- 001. September 1996. EPA 1997. Statement by Mary Nichols, EPA Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. April 2, 1997. Escutia, Martha, 1998. Background paper: Conference Committee on Assembly Bill No. 278, Children's EnvironmentalHealth Protection Act. February 24, 1998. EWG 1997. 100,000 California Kids Breathe Unhealthy Air at School. EWG California Policy Memorandum. June 4, 1997. Smith, Kathie, 1997. "Cardoza, Machado blasted for pollution stance. " The Modesto Bee, September 22, 1997. 22 SCHOOL HAzt: AIR POLLUTION NEAR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS, 1995 E N V IR 0 N M E N T H L W O R K i N C, G R o U P - California Office Washington,D.C.Office P.O.Box 29201 *The P widio 1718 Connecticut Xray WAL Sinus 6 San Francis",CA 84129 W*slsingUu4 DC 20009 415-5611-6698 202-667-"02 W►O8-i ll"vmw- ,orb iafo@erg•WWVAAWg 019