Submitted by Sharon Lee Carter

We arrived in Fort Valley, Georgia, on December 6, 1997. What struck me most was the stark differences between one side of the tracks and the other side. The town was literally divided in two. There as a clear demarcation between the white community and the African-American community. We were picked up at the airport by John McCown of the Sierra Club.

We arrived at the Evans-Cantrell Bed & Breakfast that night and were met by Marvin Crafter, leader of the Woolfolk Community Response Group (WCRG). Marvin gave us great insight into the project thus far and the battles that have been raged against him because of his involvement with the group. What impressed me was Marvin's commitment to his community and the group. He has been threatened and ridiculed and still he has not wavered in his position or integrity.

The second day, we attended church at Shiloh Baptist Church. This is an experience I will never forget. The voices joined in praise was motivational. After church we went sight-seeing around the Macon area.

On Monday, the day of seminars began. The morning was started with an opening ceremony by Shirley Christmas. The first seminar of the day was held by Kyle Bryant. Mr. Bryant was a former student of Fort Valley University. He studied the site as part of his senior year thesis. He outlined the efforts of the WCRG in the cleanup of the Reichhold site.

The Woolfolk site is 31 acres and was the site for the production of organic and inorganic pesticides. In 1986, without federal or state approval, the company who owned the operation capped the site. In 1990, the site was put on the National Priorities List by the EPA. When the EPA conducted initial testing, there were flaws in the sampling sites selected. The EPA gave no data indicating as to why they sampled where they did.

Greater than 300 residents of Fort Valley have been diagnosed with a rare skin condition (hyperpigmentation) that is characteristic of arsenic exposure. Another disease, Peripheral Neuropathy, is present in 15% of the population, but is usually only present in 2% of the black population.

Later in the afternoon, we were able to talk to residents who have been personally affected by the site. This part of the trip is one I will never forget. The pain that these people have gone through, and the strength with which they go on is inspiring.

The first person to talk to us was a man named Earl. Earl has been diagnosed with Lupus. Lupus is an auto-immune disease which causes degenerative joint pain. The disease is usually treated with Cortisone. Earl spoke of his trying to deal with this disease and of his battle to get treatment. Earl was not able to get funding to pay for the medications he needs. Earl's story struck a chord with me because Cortisone is a relatively common drug in Canada and is prescribed on a regular basis, and yet, Earl was not able to gain access to this drug.

We also visited residents who lived near the Woolfolk site. One woman had lost her son because he had developed a hypersensitivity to his surroundings. The residents told stories of being awakened at night and being told to run in the opposite direction of the wind because the plant had a leak of toxic fumes. They spoke of the company literally pushing them off their land by building their warehouses next to properties and blowing them up.

Reverend Hillsman told the story of how he lost two sons, his youngest and oldest -- And how his son begged him not to let the doctors hurt him anymore. How his son asked him what was wrong, and the Reverend said "You're sick, son." And the Reverend's anguish at not being able to give him an answer. ­ Reverend Hillsman's story affected me deeply because of the faith in God this man must have. I had to leave because I could not bear to hear anymore. I still regret this because I hope the Reverend doesn't feel that I was being rude. But I felt his story was more important than me crying and being disruptive.

The whole day, Monday, was very trying, but was also very important because it illustrated the importance of looking beyond scientific studies to the people who are affected when people do their jobs in trying to protect the health of the people and the environment.



FOLLOWING IS A PAPER WRITTEN FOR A COURSE AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF CAPE BRETON

by Sharon Lee Carter

INTRODUCTION:

On December 6, 1997, I had the opportunity to travel to Fort Valley, Georgia. Fort Valley is the location of a superfund site on the community.

Fort Valley is located in central Georgia, 100 miles south of Atlanta. It is located in Peach County which is the biggest producer of cotton, pecans and peaches in Georgia. The town has a population of 8,200, 80% of whom are African-American. The site is situated in the middle of a low-income, primarily black neighborhood. Approximately half of all African-Americans living in the United States live near a toxic waste dump.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

In February of 1994, US President Clinton said, "All communities and persons across this nation should live in a safe and healthful environment." With this statement, Clinton made Environmental Justice a national priority. It focuses federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority populations and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities . (Crafter, 1996)

Many people of color, low-income and Native Americans have raised concerns that they suffer a disproportionate burden or health consequences due to the siting of industrial plants and waste dumps, and from exposure to pesticides or other chemicals at home and on the job, and that the current environmental programs do not adequately address these exposures. (Crafter, 1996)

SUPERFUND

WHAT IS SUPERFUND?

Years ago, people did not understand how certain wastes might affect people's health and the environment. Many wastes were dumped on the ground, in rivers, or left out in the open. As a result, thousands of uncontrolled abandoned hazardous waste sites were created. (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/sfguide/index.htm)

Citizens' concern over the extent of this problem led the US Congress to establish the Superfund program in 1980 to eliminate the health and environmental threats posed by hazardous waste sites.

The Superfund program responds to threats posed by uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances into the environment. The process by which EPA determines and implements the appropriate response to releases that require a remedial response action consists of two phases: (1) Site Assessment: screening level evaluation of all sites to determine those for which response action may be required, culminating in the listing of sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) where appropriate, and (2) Remedial Response Action: comprehensive evaluation of NPL sites to determine the nature and extent of contamination, and to select and implement any necessary site cleanups. (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/whatissf/process.htm)

THE SUPERFUND PROCESS

All material in the following section is from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/whatissf/sfproces.htm.

Site Discovery

The site assessment phase begins with site discovery or notification to EPA of possible releases of hazardous substances. Sites are discovered by various parties, including EPA regional offices, state agencies and citizens who petition EPA to perform a preliminary assessment. EPA then evaluates the potential for release of hazardous substances from the site during two investigative steps.

Preliminary Assessment

The Preliminary Assessment (PA) is performed at every site. The preliminary assessment is designed to distinguish, basede on relatively limited data, between sites that pose little or no threat to human health or the environment and sites that may pose a threat and thus require further investigation. The PA also identifies sites requiring assessment for possible emergency actions.

Site Inspections

Site Inspections (SI) performed in the preliminary assessment result in a recommendation for further investigation. The objectives of SI are to identify which sites have a high probability of qualifying for the NPL and to collect the data needed for the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). SI investigations typically collect environmental and waste samples to determine what hazardous substances are present at a site, whether they are being released to the environment, and whether they have reached nearby targets.

Hazardous Ranking System (HRS)

The HRS is the principal mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the National Priorities List. It is a numerically-based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health in the environment.

National Priorities List

The purpose of the NPL primarily is to serve as an information and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is intended to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation, identifying what CERCLA-financed remedial actions may be appropriate, notifying the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation, and serving notice to potentially responsible parties that the EPA may initiate action.

Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not in itself reflect a judgement of the activities of its owner or operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign any liability.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

A remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is performed at the site, after it is listed on the National Priorities List. The remedial investigation is an indepth study designed to gather the data necessary to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a site, establish the criteria for cleaning up the site, idenfity the preliminary alternative for cleanup actions, and to support the technical and cost analyses of the alternatives.

Record of Decision

Information generated during the RI/FS along with consideration of public comments and community concerns is used to create the record of decision (ROD) for the site. The ROD is a public document that explains which cleanup alternative or alternatives that will be used to clean up a site that has been listed on the NPL.

Remedial Design/Remedial Action

The remedial action/remedial design scope of work is based on specifications for cleanup remedies and technologies. Remedial action involves the actual construction of the implementation phase of a Superfund site cleanup following the remedial design phase.

Construction Phase Activities

EPA has developed a NPL construction completion list (ccl) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities. Sites qualify when any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved, or EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction, or the sites qualify for deletion from the NPL.





Operation and Maintenance

Operation and maintenance are performed to protect the integrity of selected remedy for a site. Operation and Maintenance measures are initiated by the state. After remedy has achieved the remedial action objectives and remediation goals as outlined in the ROD.

NPL Site Deletions

EPA may delete a final NPL site if it determines that no further response is required to protect human health or environment.

FORT VALLEY SUPERFUND SITE

The Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc., site covers 19 acres near the center of Fort Valley, Georgia. The company began operation in 1910 as a limesulfur plant and evolved into a plant making pesticides in liquid, dust, and granular forms for the agricultural, lawn and garden markets. During a routine inspection in 1979. EPA discovered that the facility was discharging wastewater from the production of pesticides into Bay Creek without a permit. Records indicate that the majority of wastewater was charged into a storm sewer on the site. The waste would flow into an open ditch located south of the plant and then into Big Indian Creek. (Crafter, 1996)

Contaminants in the groundwater and soil are heavy metals, including lead and arsenic, and pesticides including Chlordane, Lindane, DDT and Toxaphene from former process wastes. The surface water on site was contaminated with arsenic, lindane and toxaphene in the past. (Crafter, 1996)

In 1986-87, a former owner capped an area of contamination, removed 3700 yards of contaminated soils and destroyed and removed major contaminated structures to an off-site disposal site. (Crafter, 1996)

EPA proposed a groundwater cleanup remedy for public comment in early 1994 and selected a remedy for pumping and treating contaminated groundwater. The contamination does not currently threaten the municipal drinking water because it has not reached the deeper aquifer. Contamination has been found in an aquifer 900 ft down (Chlordane, Lindane). If it travels to the deeper aquifer, it may contaminate the water supply for thousands because it is the largest aquifer in Georgia.

HEALTH EFFECT OF ARSENIC

Arsenic basically exists in two forms: organic and inorganic. Both are naturally occurring in the environment or may be the product of industrial processes. (Industrial Compliance, 1993)

Symptoms which can result from short-term exposure at high levels of inorganic arsenic include: irritant of allergic contact dermatitis from direct contact; mucomembraneous irritation from exposure to airborne arsenic; and headache and dizziness, gastrointestinal disturbances; or peripheral neuropathies which are primarily associated with arsenic ingestion.

Long term effects of exposure to inorganic arsenic include characteristic skin changes. These changes include "raindrop-" appearing areas of hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation around the eyelids, neck nipples, axillae, or groin which may extend over the chest, back and the abdomen in severe cases and the appearance of hyperkeratosis on the palms and soles. Nonspecific symptoms such as peripheral neuropathies or gastrointestinal disturbances may also occur.

RESULTS OF FORT VALLEY ASSESSMENT

In 1993, a health assessment of the town was done by Industrial Compliance of Atlanta to study the effects, if any, in Fort Valley. The following section show the results of that study.

Thirteen of 115 adults reported changes in skin color. Descriptions included: white or dark spots on lower legs, moles on bacs, or blotches on the face or chest. Skin thickness changes were reported by 8/115 individuals. Descriptions included warts on th hands, feet or pelvic area, thick or cracked heels, skin peeling or calluses on hands.

27/115 individuals reported persistent numbness or tingling on their extremities. Descriptions included feet asleep, tingling in feet or hands, numbness in legs and feet. Unexplained weakness in the extremities was reported by 18 individuals.

Several individuals expressed having numbness, tingling or weakness in their extremities. Arsenic ingestion has been associated with symmetrical peripheral neuropathies. The neuropathy usually begins as numbness in the hands and feet, but later may develop into painful "pins and needles" sensations.

The most sensitive indicators of chronic arsenic exposure are skin changes. Although several individuals expressed having skin color changes or skin thickness changes, the descriptions often were not consistent with arsenic-related skin changes.

REFERENCES

Crafter, M. (1996). Chemical contamination: A resource guide. Woolfolk Citizens Response Group.

Industrial Compliance. (1993). Evaluation of arsenic exposure in residents of Fort Valley, Georgia.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/whatissf/sfproces.htm "The Superfund Process."

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/sfguide/index.htm "This is Superfund."


Return to TOXIC EXCHANGE 1