[CPEO-IRF] South Weymouth Naval Air Station (MA)

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Message to EPA officials from David Wilmot <DCatbird37@aol.com>, January 
11, 2007:

Hello,

  I'm afraid I won't be physically able to attend tonight's RAB.

  Mike Bromberg (swabeeone) let me know you'd be reviewing orange floc 
test results, which had me reviewing the preliminary test results I 
received from you in April this year along with a concern that continues 
to stick in my craw.

  Please forgive what may seem redundant, but I've yet to receive what 
I believe to be valid explanation of my concern regarding the lack of 
tier one health control the EPA fails to enforce on neurotoxic levels of 
the metal Manganese.

  I'm quite sure without even seeing your final report, given previous 
findings, that Manganese (Mn) will be a substantial ingredient in the 
floc you've been studying.

  Background levels of Mn on the base in subsurface soil have proven to 
be up to 2 1/2 times the concentration of statewide urban 90% background 
(cited ROD AOC 3,13,15,100 jan06).

  Given the amount of discovery regarding high levels of Mn 
constituting great neurotoxicity, how is it possible that the federal 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can continue to ignore this grave 
threat to the public health?

   Having asked this question to you a number of times over the past 
few years, while more and more evidence is uncovered in scientific study 
regarding Mn toxicity, and while my own physical capabilities and 
stamina continue to waste away with a neurological disease, is extremely 
frustrating to me.

   Maybe you'd have to feel the powerlessness of being unable to lift 
your feet up off the floor, balance yourself, or type long emails with 
the only finger left to you that hasn't retreated into an uncontrollable 
claw.

    Please. I am not trying to get anyone's sympathy for my personal 
burdens, I am just trying to get a straight answer to an often asked 
question. Given my years of RAB attendance and dedication to the 
responsible cleanup of the former airbase, I believe I deserve a 
straight answer to such a gnawing question...

    Why is it the EPA hasn't the power to protect the public health?

    This BRAC process is a failure.

    The background levels of Mn being used in your comparative 
remediation is non-protective of public health. The levels of Mn in base 
perimeter test wells is at seriously unhealthy levels. The preliminary 
provisional USGS floc reports from April show Mn levels at up to 120,000 
ug/L. How that relates to PRG tap water cited as comparison, I don't 
know but to state the floc tests up to 136X the PRG level.

    Although always correct in stating that Mn is a naturally occurring 
element, important to human health maintenance, I have a hard time 
believing the levels found on the base could be classified as being 
protective of public health, yet the EPA continues to cling to their 
completely outdated view that Mn is nothing more than a nuisance laundry 
stain producer unworthy of any health protective monitoring and control.

     How is it so evident to me of the neurological dangers of this 
substance, when the results of scores of studies evidently aren't 
available to steer the federal EPA towards making sound decisions in 
protecting the public health.


     Mn being highly concentrated in toxic fly-ash would be one reason 
the Mn levels on the base are so substantial.

     Upon being questioned regarding the disposal of the former Navy 
coal-fired power plants coal ash, fly ash, the Navy was never able to 
produce records of disposal practices, and this apparently was O.K. to 
the EPA and state regulators, but it never sat well with me.

     I assume some of it must have been dumped in the Rubble Disposal 
Area(RDA) Superfund site given the extreme levels of Mn now capped over 
there.
     I assume due to our ignorance of toxic metals that the decades of 
flyash residue was dumped all over the place on the base, and the 
Mn,,As(Arsenic) and Cr-6(Hexavalent Chromium...hello Erin Brockovich) 
filled ash or flyash residue was just dumped to blow anywhere the wind 
blows.

      Living in an adjacent neighborhood that appears to have more than 
it's share of health issues, this troubles me greatly that the engaged 
environmental regulators don't appear to regard the decades of 
blanketing the area with toxins as any type of health concern that 
should be addressed.

      A difficult problem? By all means.

      But something that should be ignored due to short-sighted 
politics in place?

      Not if we are still to call ourselves a morally based society.

      It has recently been proven that "even low to moderate exposures 
to increased levels of Mn in vitro significantly disrupts cellular iron 
metabolism which may be an important contributory mechanism toward 
promoting manganese toxicity."

      How is the EPA allowed to ignore our unborn children by 
disregarding growing scientific evidence?

      Brian and Mary, I know the answer to this question is not yours 
to give.

      I would implore you to kick this upstairs where someone in your 
organization must know exactly why the "Strategic Metal" Manganese is 
allowed to neurotoxically proliferate in our environment in plain view 
of our politically appointed protectors, the EPA.

            thank you for your attention, David Wilmot, Abington, Ma.

--


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org


_______________________________________________
Installation_Reuse_Forum mailing list
Installation_Reuse_Forum@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/installation_reuse_forum