Young students often most vulnerable to toxic air

From USA Today.

Young students often most vulnerable to toxic air

By Blake Morrison, Brad Heath and Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
BATON ROUGE — From the front door of the aged brick school, the 4-year-olds at Wyandotte Early Childhood Center can spot the cottony plumes from a refinery just over the trees.

The ExxonMobil plant, the nation's second-largest refinery, processes about a half-million barrels of crude oil each day. Its sprawling complex sits a few blocks from the school — and from the swing set on the playground and about 120 pairs of developing lungs.

Chris Trahan, a spokesman for the East Baton Rouge Parish School System, says he's certain ExxonMobil would let the school district know if there were an accident at the plant that could hurt children. As for air quality, "It just doesn't come up in conversation," Trahan says. "It's just part of daily life out here."

The circumstances at Wyandotte mirror those at thousands of other schools across the nation, including many schools that house the youngest — and most vulnerable — kids. USA TODAY spent eight months examining the impact of industrial pollution on schoolchildren and found that 20,000 schools — about one in every six — are within a half-mile of a major industrial plant.

To help identify schools where children might be at greatest risk from toxic chemicals, USA TODAY used the government's most up-to-date computer simulation for tracking industrial pollution. Then USA TODAY mapped the locations of 127,800 public, private and parochial schools. It is a task the Environmental Protection Agency has never undertaken.

Based on the levels and potential health hazards of the chemicals likely to be outside, the model ranked Wyandotte among the worst 1% of schools in the nation — and the worst in Louisiana. It also indicated that the ExxonMobil refinery — which emits sulfuric acid, naphthalene, ammonia and benzene, among two dozen chemicals — was primarily responsible for its ranking. The model's most recent version is based on reports by more than 20,000 industrial sites in 2005.

The Baton Rouge refinery opened in 1909. Wyandotte, built in 1925, was an elementary school for much of its life. In 2000, it became an early-childhood center, a place where 4-year-olds prepare for kindergarten. The rationale for sending the youngest kids there: "It was the most available resource that we had," says Bobbie Robertson, preschool director for the district.

Proximity to industries — and the exposures to toxic chemicals that often go with it — can portend unique dangers for young children. Their bodies still are developing, and they breathe more air per pound than adults.

That means they get "a heavier dose of the chemical" with each breath, says Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who leads a unit at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York on children and the environment.

By his account, their biological fragility and the amount of air they breathe make kids at least 10 times more susceptible than adults to most toxic chemicals.

"In early childhood and the nine months before birth, there occur 'windows of vulnerability,' " Landrigan says. "We're beginning to learn that a lot of diseases appear to be triggered by early exposures, but it takes years, even decades, for those to progress to diseases like cancer, like Parkinson's disease, like Alzheimer's."

Not every child who is exposed faces those outcomes, but Landrigan and others say it is impossible to know which children might be affected and which might not. Too little is understood about the impact of thousands of chemicals on children. In part, that's because most government assessments of the dangers assume those exposed are adults.

"The science doesn't know — it can't establish — what a safe level is" for children, says Stephen Lester, the science director of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, an advocacy group that focuses on children and schools. "There's no tool, scientifically, for evaluating cumulative risk."

Landrigan says the lack of detailed knowledge on safe levels of exposure, coupled with today's rates of childhood cancer, asthma and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, begs "the obvious question: Is there a cause-and-effect relationship?"

Health concerns persist

School district spokesman Trahan says "there are no reported illnesses or health issues" at Wyandotte. He says the district knows of only one student at the school whose parents told the district that their child has asthma. Districtwide, parents of about 3,000 students — 6% of total enrollment — notified the school that their child was asthmatic, Trahan says. "There's probably more," he says, "but we're just not aware of them."

Residents and at least one area physician worry the problems at Wyandotte may be greater than the statistics suggest.

Charmaine Venters, a physician and director of the Louisiana State University Mid-City Clinic a few miles from the school, says she treats students from Wyandotte and other area schools who battle asthma or other respiratory ailments.

The number of children here suffering from respiratory problems is greater than anywhere else she's seen in her almost 30-year career, she says.

The differing perspectives underscore the challenge of spotting asthma in children so young, says Patrick Breysse, director of the Center for Childhood Asthma in the Urban Environment at Johns Hopkins University.

"With young kids, a lot of pediatricians say it's impossible to diagnose asthma because they might just be at a wheezy stage," Breysse says. "A 4-year-old would be kind of borderline."

ExxonMobil says it has taken many steps to make the air cleaner. Spokesman Prem Nair says the company is "continually improving the air quality near our Baton Rouge complex through emissions controls, technology enhancements and process changes."

Last week, ExxonMobil agreed to pay about $6.1 million in penalties for violating terms of a previous agreement aimed at curbing emissions at its refineries, including the plant here.

Nair says only $3,000 of that penalty related to violations in Baton Rouge. The penalties were based on the company's failure to monitor and control sulfur, a chemical burned in refinery furnaces that can cause respiratory illnesses, the EPA determined.

Derek Reese, the environmental supervisor for the Baton Rouge facility, says he appreciates what is at stake.

"My wife is a teacher in the Baton Rouge school system. My son goes to Baton Rouge High," he says. "You don't have to worry about me not understanding. I don't feel any disconnect between working at Exxon and kids and families."

'I want to know'

The computer simulation used by USA TODAY to identify schools that might be in toxic hot spots was developed by the EPA. Called Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators, its purpose is to trace the potential path of chemicals and compare one location to another. Bob Lee, an EPA official who oversees the model, called USA TODAY's use of it "highly appropriate" and "the kind of thing that makes a lot of sense."

With the help of researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA TODAY plotted the locations of schools to rank them based on chemicals likely to be in the air outside. Some of the schools and the companies responsible for the chemicals have closed or moved since the government collected the data. Others may have opened. That means the data are not definitive but a snapshot in time.

The rankings showed 435 schools with air more toxic than the air outside Meredith Hitchens Elementary, a suburban Cincinnati school that closed in 2005 after air samples outside the building showed high levels of carcinogens coming from the plastics plant across the street.

Among the schools that ranked worse, about half were elementary or pre-K schools — places where children were likely to spend the most time outside, usually during recess. Those schools included Wyandotte; Stony Brook Elementary in York, Pa.; Edison Elementary in Council Bluffs, Iowa; and the Early Childhood Center in Kennett, Mo.

Without monitoring for toxic chemicals, often for months, no one is certain what's in the air at those locations. USA TODAY's findings, however, have prompted action in several states:

• Pennsylvania environmental authorities have pledged to monitor outside the York school and at least six others.

In some cases, they may find air quality better than the model indicates — or substantially worse. That's because USA TODAY focused on industrial pollution, which accounts for about 15%-20% of toxic chemicals in the air. In a news release, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection noted the newspaper's analysis doesn't include pollution sources such as cars, which "can greatly elevate health risks."

• Iowa regulators launched their own analysis. "We will be coming up with a plan to take a look at the schools that are ranked high," says Wayne Gieselman, the state's head of environmental protection. "If we have to place some monitors out at these sites, we'll do that."

• In Kennett, Mo., where USA TODAY identified two schools that appeared to have air worse than at Hitchens, the school district is pushing for answers. Superintendent Jerry Noble says state regulators have pledged to take months' worth of air samples at district schools.

"It's very important. If we've got a problem, I want to know," Noble says. "I believe a lot of good's going to come out of this."

Much remains unknown

The current head of EPA's Office for Children's Health Protection and Environmental Education, Ruth McCully, says protecting children also is a high priority for the agency. They are "being considered in the agency's activities, from standards to regulations to research to outreach."

In October, for instance, the EPA strengthened its standards for airborne lead, making them 10 times more stringent. It was the first time in decades the standards were strengthened.

Critics contend the changes took too long, weren't tough enough and will be difficult to enforce, in part because the agency has only about 130 monitors nationwide that can measure lead in the air. John Balbus, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, supported the change but says the EPA's own research justified an even more rigid standard.

Much is known about the impact of lead on a child. Far less is clear about other chemicals.

In a chapter of an upcoming edition of a book on pediatrics and the environment, Landrigan writes that more than 80,000 chemicals are "registered for commercial use" with the EPA.

"Children are most at risk of exposure to the 3,000 synthetic chemicals produced in quantities of more than 1 million pounds per year," he writes. But "information on potential toxicity is publicly available for only about half of the 3,000" and "information on developmental toxicity or capacity to harm infants and children is available for fewer than 20%" of these chemicals.

That leaves scientists and regulators largely guessing about the impact of specific chemicals. Those guesses often are based on their experiences, such as the determination that lead — even at low levels — stunts a child's intellectual development.

"The more we study most toxicants, the more effects we find at lower and lower doses," says Herbert Needleman, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the nation's foremost experts on lead.

"The developing brain," Needleman says, "is much more sensitive than the developed brain."

Despite the lack of scientific certainty, research has indicated the impact of chemicals, especially on elementary schoolchildren, can be life-long.

A recent study by the University of Texas correlated increased cases of leukemia and lymphoma among children to levels of butadiene in the Houston air. The carcinogen is often released by petrochemical plants and rubber and plastics manufacturers.

The 18-month study indicated that children living within 2 miles of the Houston Ship Channel had a 56% higher risk for childhood leukemia than did those living more than 10 miles away.

"You're talking about facilities that are in neighborhoods where there are schools, parks, playgrounds," says Elena Marks, director of health and environmental policy for the city of Houston, which requested the study.

At thousands of locations, the model used by USA TODAY indicated that the air outside schools appeared far more toxic than the air in the neighborhoods where the kids lived.

At 16,500 schools, the air outside appeared at least twice as toxic as the air at a typical location in the school district.

At Wyandotte, the model indicated the air was 71.3 times more toxic than the average air in the district. That means kids who lived more than a kilometer away were likely leaving homes where the air outside was better than the air outside the school.

Rodney Mallett, a spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, says the closest monitoring station to Wyandotte that could measure toxic chemicals is about 2 miles away. Despite the vulnerability of children, "we don't have them placed outside of any schools," Mallett says of state monitors. The reason? "If you put them just where the schools are," he says, "you're going to get just what's outside the school."

Company-school partnership

ExxonMobil has developed a special relationship with area schools. Schools spokesman Trahan says company officials try "to get students to get into science. They offer free tutoring" to some students and professional development for teachers.

The company, which also operates a chemical plant here and employs about 2,250 people at those facilities, has worked with citizen groups. Two representatives of the company sit on the board of North Baton Rouge Neighborhoods United, says Bea Gransberry, a board member. ExxonMobil officials have assured the board they are doing everything possible to reduce emissions, she says.

"We felt that if they were over there working, they're closer than we are to it, and they weren't going to do anything to harm themselves," she says.

Activist Lois Gibbs, director of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, says parents are too often willing to accept a local industry's assurances that all is well — and that, if pollution were dangerous, the government would know. "It's easy to believe that," she says. "It's our economy. It's our jobs. And then there's the guilt — 'I have to admit I'm willingly, knowingly allowing my child to be poisoned.' "

"The answer," Gibbs says, "is to move that guilt and frustration into action."

That's why monitoring is so important, says Ruth Breech, program director for Global Community Monitor, a non-profit that works with communities interested in testing air quality. "Ultimately," Breech says, "it's about putting pressure on your city government, your EPA and the polluter themselves."

Physician Landrigan faults government agencies for making assumptions about the safety of toxic chemicals. One assumption: "Chemicals are safe until they are proven dangerous." Landrigan says history — and the best science — show how dangerous that assumption can be. "We've learned from long and bitter experience (that toxic chemicals) in fact turned out to be dangerous, and especially so to children."

That leaves one option, scientists say. "The only authentic response is prevention. Stop exposure before it happens," says Needleman, an expert on lead. "The payoffs would be enormous. I don't think we know how smart our kids could be."