[Image from the Collaborative on Health & the Environment, CHE]
~~~
City of Madison planners are working with developers from California (Lincoln Avenue Capital) to build 550+ units of affordable and senior housing on contaminated land next to the abandoned Oscar Mayer factory. While leasing the land from Hartmeyer Estates, giant multinational food corporation Kraft Heinz stored coal on the property and its fuel tanks and lines spilled thousands of gallons of fuel oil there. Oscar Mayer & Company also used this land for decades and contributed to the pollution. In late 2020, Kraft Heinz purchased the land from Hartmeyer Estates after Hartmeyer sued the corporation over the contamination. Lincoln Avenue Capital is in the process of purchasing the property.
This housing project will go before the Plan Commission on December 12, at 5:30pm.
Community concerned about contamination, environmental injustices
As described in previous posts (see here and here), the North Side community is very concerned that the toxic contamination on this land will not be fully investigated or remediated before constructing housing over it, so vulnerable low income people and seniors living there (as well as construction and utility workers) will be exposed to it over the short and long term, causing negative health effects.
One of the toxic contaminants (of many) left behind at the site–at levels well above all relevant standards– is arsenic. Consultants hired by the developers and Kraft Heinz, with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approval, are assuring people that seniors and families living at this housing in the future will be protected because the arsenic contaminated soil will be “capped” by buildings, roads and/or a layer of “clean” soils.
There is NO arsenic (or other metals) data from the shallow groundwater under the site, and the DNR has stated that it won’t ask for any–and repeated on the slide above, presented to the community by SCS consultants at October city Zoom meeting.
Does the arsenic remaining there really pose no risks to people who will live there? Is capping the soils enough to protect people–especially vulnerable people such as infants, children, and elderly? Can we assess these risks without shallow groundwater data?
What about all the other contaminants in addition to arsenic? People living at this site could be exposed to several contaminants together in addition to arsenic: several other toxic metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and a plethora of other petroleum compounds documented there–as well as possibly pesticides, PCBs and/or PFAS (all unmeasured to date). These combinations of poisons pose complex health risks due to their cumulative and synergistic effects.
Moreover, people living at this low income and senior housing will also experience many physical and non-chemical, psycho-social stressors (noise, socio-economic stress, age-related challenges, classism, racism, etc.), which will only further increase their risks for negative health outcomes from exposures to toxic chemicals.
All of these factors should be considered in assessing health risks to low income people and seniors living on this heavily contaminated site.
But the section below is focused only on arsenic risks…
Wisconsin Department of Health Services assessment of arsenic risks at Hartmeyer
The Wisconsin Department of Health Services release an assessment of health risks at Oscar Mayer and Hartmeyer on November 29, 2022. The report was done at the request of the Sherman Neighborhood Association. Unfortunately, the agency relied on previous consultant reports that used industrial (not residential) standards and, as far as we can tell, in the Hartmeyer section only assessed risks for two of the many contaminants there (arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene).
Even with these huge limitations, which would lead to greatly underestimating actual risks, the DHS concluded the following about the arsenic levels remaining at Hartmeyer–in soils only:
“The potential risk of cancer-related health effects due to exposure to arsenic was 2.0 x10-5, or 2 cases of cancer per 100,000 persons, for individuals exposed from birth to age 21, which is above the acceptable excess cancer risk of 1×10-6 outlined in NR 720.12(1)(a).” (highlights added). The DHS also ascertained that the levels of benzo(a)pyrene in soils there posed elevated cancer risks.
Given these elevated cancer risks, the report advised that following the below recommendations “should eliminate the cancer risks”:
“With this risk being above the acceptable margin, it is important to follow safe recreation guidance, outlined below, to minimize direct contact with the soil—this will reduce exposure and decrease cancer risk. The current vegetative cap should effectively prevent any incidental exposures to contaminated soil, and visitors to the land should not be digging in the soil for any reason. Individuals should thoroughly wash their hands with soap and clean water if they come in direct contact with the soil. Any workers that may come into contact with the soil should also wear gloves and avoid contact with soil.”
These risk levels are certainly underestimated for people who will live at these apartments, because the DHS considered “recreational” exposure use scenarios, not exposures to people actually living there 24-7. The assessment also only considered potential soil exposures, when there could be several other routes of exposures (a bit more on that below).
In fact, indirectly admitting this, DHS added a critical and telling caveat to the above: “Any future development on the land that opens potential exposure pathways to soil or groundwater would be required to be reviewed by DNR and DHS prior to approval to ensure that any potential exposures during or after action are appropriately mitigated.”
So will the DNR and/or DHS actually assess and prevent future exposures once the development has already gone forward? We have never seen that done at other contaminated sites we’ve been involved with–and don’t expect that it will be for this huge development either. (As it is, DHS advised that “visitors to the land should not be digging in the soil for any reason” and yet no agency has even bothered to put up signs or fences there, as the DHS report notes).
In sum, this very narrow risk assessment by the DHS, based on assumptions of “recreational use,” raises many red flags about the health and safety of placing housing for low income people and seniors on this land. But it greatly understated the potential risks.
Digging just a bit further into arsenic exposures and risks raises even more questions and red flags.
Arsenic health risks-a brief general overview
Thakur et al (2021) wrote that “arsenic is recognized as a primary environmental pollutant that has substantial health impacts on human and other species,” noting that it was “ranked first in the priority list of Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry” until 2020.
The International Agency for Research on Caner (IARC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and US EPA have all classified arsenic as a cause of cancer. According to the Center for Disease Control, chronic arsenic exposure is significantly associated with skin, lung, and bladder cancer, while weaker associations have been found with liver, kidney and other cancers.
Arsenic is also associated with many health effects in addition to cancer. Heavy chronic exposures can cause skin hyperpigmentation and skin lesions. Wikipedia lists other health problems connected to arsenic exposures, including heart disease, stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, diabetes and others, and cites studies for these associations.
This presentation by EPA toxicologist Dr. Charles Abernathy outlined health risks in addition to cancer, including the following acute effects in humans: peripheral neuropathy, anemia, renal and liver dysfunction, skin pigmentation, EKG abnormalities, severe GI effects. Under chronic toxicity, Abernathy listed the following: nervous system, peripheral neuropathy (legs and arms), cranial nerves, loss of hearing. [See footnote 1 for lethal dose estimates]
A review by Thakur et al (2021), focused on neurological effects of arsenic, concluded that “[e]xposure to inorganic arsenic is known to cause major neurological effects such as cytotoxicity, chromosomal aberration, damage to cellular DNA and genotoxicity. On the other hand, long-term exposure to arsenic may cause neurobehavioral effects in the juvenile stage, which may have detrimental effects in the later stages of life.” (highlighting added)
Relatedly, the CDC Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs” sheet answers this question, “How can arsenic affect children?” as follows:
“There is some evidence that long-term exposure to arsenic in children may result in lower IQ scores. There is also some evidence that exposure to arsenic in the womb and early childhood may increase mortality in young adults. There is some evidence that inhaled or ingested arsenic can injure pregnant women or their unborn babies, although the studies are not definitive. Studies in animals show that large doses of arsenic that cause illness in pregnant females, can also cause low birth weight, fetal malformations, and even fetal death. Arsenic can cross the placenta and has been found in fetal tissues. Arsenic is found at low levels in breast milk.”
The Environmental Working Group also highlights risks to children and fetuses. “Arsenic is a notorious, deadly poison. Exposure to even tiny concentrations of arsenic in drinking water is proven to increase the risk of bladder, lung and skin cancer, and possibly liver, kidney and prostate cancer as well. The risk of cancer is even higher when exposed during early childhood and pregnancy. Prenatal exposure has also been shown to harm the immune system, cause behavioral problems and impair intelligence.” (highlights added)
Drinking water is not the only source of exposure to children
Many arsenic risk assessments focus on a main exposure to the metal–drinking water. But there are other potential exposure routes, for children in particular.
According to the Collaborative on Health & the Environment: “Children have higher levels of exposure…because of their smaller size and greater consumption of water relative to their size. Children also play in soil, put their hands in their mouths and intentionally eat soil more often than adults do on average. Exposures in childhood also afford many more years for long-latency diseases and disorders (such as cancer) to develop than adult exposures.” (highlights added)
Will moving around the arsenic-contaminated soils and/or “capping” them really prevent exposures to children living at the proposed housing at Hartmeyer? What about arsenic in the very shallow groundwater (unmeasured to date)? Couldn’t the soils be recontaminated with arsenic (and other toxic compounds) when contaminated groundwater rises up, as it will periodically, given that this area is a floodplain and a wetland? (See more below)
Are existing arsenic standards protective?
Some environmental advocates and experts argue that the existing standards for arsenic are not adequately protective, especially for vulnerable people. As more scientific research has been done on arsenic, standards have been lowered (made more protective). The U.S. EPA’s 2001 Revised Arsenic Rule lowered the drinking water standard for arsenic from 50 μg/L to 10 μg/L, but according to EWG, “[w]hen the EPA’s legal limit was set in 2001, the agency published an analysis showing that 10 ppb is not safe, potentially causing up to 600 cancer cases for every 1 million people exposed for a lifetime. A 2010 draft report from the EPA suggests that arsenic could be up to 17 times more toxic than previously estimated, but political pressures blocked publication of the draft.”
Further, EWG wrote: “The Environmental Protection Agency’s legal limit for arsenic in tap water is 10 parts per billion, or ppb, a level exceeded in 2015 in the water supplies for more than half a million people in 32 states. But the EPA’s legal limit is 2,500 times higher than the public health goal set by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, endorsed as a health-protective EWG Standard. The public health goal, 0.004 ppb, is the level expected to cause no more than a one-in-a-million risk of cancer over a lifetime.”
While the above questions are focused on arsenic standards in drinking water, they apply to other arsenic standards as well.
Where is the arsenic at Hartmeyer from?
Arsenic (As), classified as a metal, is a common element of the earth’s crust and is found in soils and rocks and therefore many groundwater sources have some level of arsenic in them.
However, arsenic is also used widely in industry and this arsenic adds significantly to environmental contamination. According to Wikipedia, one main use of arsenic is in alloys of lead (for example, car batteries and ammunition) and in producing semi-conductor devices. Various forms of arsenic are used in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, wood products, herbicides and insecticides. It is also found in municipal waste (landfills) and landfill leachates [2]. Below, a slide from a 2015 EPA presentation.
Most relevant to the Hartmeyer housing site, arsenic is also a contaminant in coal, coal ash, and hydrocarbon-based fuels such as oil and natural gas. According to Schreiber and Cozzarelli, liquid hydrocarbons are formed from ancient buried marine organisms that took up arsenic when they were alive, which is then incorporated into these fuels.
Not unexpectedly, arsenic is released into the environment during the production, storage, transportation and use of coal and other hydrocarbons.
Kraft Heinz, DNR repeatedly stress that arsenic (and PAHs) are all from “fill” brought to the site
Many officials and agencies downplay arsenic by assuring us that it is from natural sources and the levels found everywhere are “normal.” Moreover, industries involved in manufacturing materials (petroleum products, wood preservatives, pesticides, etc) and activities (agriculture, coal and other mining, fossil-fuel burning) that involve or release arsenic have pressured regulatory agencies not to regulate it and to deem levels of arsenic in the environment as “background.”
Even though arsenic is naturally found in soils and rocks, its release into our environment has been exacerbated by many agricultural and industrial processes (as outlined above), and as more of it has ended up in our soils, surface water, groundwater and air, “background’ levels in these media have increased over time and have slowly been “normalized.” [3]
But arsenic levels deemed “background” aren’t always “normal” and, as already outlined above, can pose health risks at levels well below existing standards.
Typical background soil arsenic levels in Wisconsin are said to be around 8 mg/kg (ppm) (hmmm, how much of this is from coal burning that falls onto soils?). The arsenic levels at Hartmeyer were up to 137 mg/kg in the area where coal was stored and fuel oil spilled. Clearly these levels are well above those deemed “background” for the state.
Where did this arsenic come from? When I queried DNR, the site manager Cynthia Koepke told me that “Based on the information available to date, the metals and PAHs are not related to the former ASTs but are associated with the fill soil.” Several of Kraft Heinz’ consultant reports make the same claim.
This seems to be an effort not only to “normalize” the arsenic levels there, but to blame the contamination on unknown (and long gone) entities other than Kraft Heinz and/or Oscar Mayer. Though there could be several arsenic sources at Hartmeyer (including any fill brought there, which commonly contains coal ash), the coal, fuel oil, and other hydrocarbons stored, used, and spilled on the site are likely the major sources. Coal was stored there for years with no liner beneath it, and thousands of gallons of fuel oil were spilled there. (Pesticides were also manufactured at Oscar Mayer and could have been used and/or released at Hartmeyer). [3]
Even more dubiously, the developers’ consultants and DNR have assured people that these arsenic (and benzo(a)pyrene) levels are similar to those found in other parts of the isthmus where fill was used in wetlands before development. If this is true, then shouldn’t people all over the isthmus be warned not to dig in soils there to prevent cancer risks? Have they been warned of this?
People could be exposed to arsenic even if the contaminated soils are “capped”
Again, the Hartmeyer area is a wetland and in a flood plain. The water is typically only a few feet down, and when it rains a lot, it comes to the surface and ponds form. Any building there will require “dewatering” during construction–sucking up water and discharging it to the surface (storm or sanitary sewers). Lower levels of these apartment complexes will very likely require ongoing sump pumping to remove excess water (as do homes in this area).
In other words, contaminants in the shallow groundwater will be drawn up to the surface and released there. People living there, including children, could be exposed to it. Children love to play in puddles and ponds. The shallow groundwater, when it rises to the surface, could recontaminate surface soils.
Potentially exacerbating the problem, degradation of the hydrocarbon (petroleum) contaminants at the site could result in more arsenic in the groundwater there. As Schreiber and Cozzarelli explain, hydrocarbons can “induce mobilization of arsenic to groundwater through biogeochemical reactions triggered by hydrocarbon biodegradation.” More specifically, “in the presence of a source of biodegradable organic carbon such as hydrocarbons,” their paper states, “bacteria can couple the oxidation of the organic carbon with the reduction of the arsenic…which can result in the As release to groundwater.” The study describes sites where this occurred.
In other words, in places with heavy hydrocarbon contamination, arsenic can not only be released from the hydrocarbons, but their degradation can also cause further release of arsenic into groundwater from the soils and rocks.
Though some soils were excavated at Hartmeyer (in a relatively small area), for the remaining contamination, DNR has apparently approved “natural attenuation” (biodegradation—basically, doing nothing) as the remedial approach. Unfortunately, Schreiber and Cozzarelli’s research indicates that this “natural attenuation” approach may also be facilitating the release of more arsenic into the groundwater.
Arsenic release from soils is also affected by soil chemistry and hydrogeology. This study found that irrigation can affect arsenic “migration and transformation” in soils, and its release is influenced by soil chemistry (oxygen, phosphate and carbonate levels, etc). It also concluded that irrigation mobilized arsenic in soils. The study was focused on irrigation of farmlands, but given that the Hartmeyer area is a wetland, with groundwater rising and falling depending on amounts of rainfall (with higher water, soils are saturated), it seems important that these factors be considered to understand what might happen to the arsenic in soils and groundwater over time.
These considerations are further reasons that DNR and DHS should ask Kraft Heinz to test the groundwater at Hartmeyer for arsenic (and other contaminants).
Another exposure route? Some forms of arsenic may volatilize into air
According to this article, “It has been known for over a century that micro-organisms can volatilize inorganic As salts to arsines…” Arsine is one of the simplest forms of arsenic and is very toxic. Inhalation is the main exposure route.
The study found that significant levels of arsine were emitted from soils with 11.3 (± 0.9) mg/kg arsenic. The soils at Hartmeyer have levels in this range and as high 137 mg/kg. The study showed that how much arsine was emitted depended on soil chemistry—e.g. how much organic matter was in the soils, reducing/oxidizing conditions, microbes, etc. Relatedly, studies have found that inorganic forms of arsenic can be released from landfills by microbial action and converted to volatile forms such as arsine (see here and here).
If arsenic can be volatilized from soils, shouldn’t DNR and DHS be further assessing the soil chemistry and considering this potential exposure route to people living at the proposed apartments?
As I wrote in the beginning of this piece, arsenic is just one of several contaminant risks at this site that should be assessed. Madison has more highly educated scientists and experts than most other cities in the country. If this city really cares about racial equity and social justice, it will assure that the risks to people living at this proposed housing are fully assessed before housing is approved there.
~~~
[1] Abernathy cited an acute toxicity LD50 or “median lethal dose” of arsenic for humans of approximately 1-4 mg/kg (ppm). The Center for Health & the Environment (CHE) says: “The lethal dose of arsenic in humans is 2-20 mg/kg, or 140 to 1400 mg for an average-sized adult. A 140-mg potentially lethal dose is the same as 0.145 grams. Less than 1/8 teaspoon can be fatal to a healthy adult, while even less could kill a child, an adult with impaired health, or an elderly person.“
[2] Arsenic is also found in groundwater at levels exceeding standards at sites adjacent to Oscar Mayer—the old Truax Landfill and Burke sewage plant; this arsenic is probably from the wastes deposited there by industries (including Oscar Mayer). Oscar Mayer also sent a huge amount of sewage sludge to this area over decades, which also certainly had a lot of arsenic in it
[3] This recent paper, The Global Biogeochemical Cycle of Arsenic, argues that “Anthropogenic emissions to the atmosphere…are double the natural background sources…with potential consequences to human health, natural ecosystems and agriculture.”
