Text of Proposed Oakland Dioxin Resolution

[Mike Ewall <catalyst@envirolink.org>]

>From: dbaltz@igc.apc.org (Davis Baltz)

Draft RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF Oakland:  DIOXIN, PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT

Whereas, the term dioxin represents a group of chemicals which includes
furan and biphenyl compounds1  with the most well-known dioxin,
2,3,7,8-TCDD, believed to be the single most carcinogenic chemical known to
science2;

Whereas, dioxin is a toxic waste byproduct that occurs when chlorinated
waste is burned and when other organic chemicals that contain chlorine are
manufactured and which in itself has no commercial or industrial use1;

Whereas, dioxin is dangerous to human health, is ubiquitous in the worldwide
environment1 and is a known human carcinogen3,;

Whereas, the U.S.  EPA estimates that the lifetime risk of getting cancer from
dioxin exposure is above generally accepted safe levels4, and the U.S. EPA's
Dioxin Reassessment has found dioxin 300,000 times more potent as a
carcinogen than DDT (the use of which was restricted in the U.S. in 1972)5;

Whereas, dioxin is an endocrine disrupting chemical affecting thyroid and
steroid hormones and almost every hormone system examined has been shown to be
altered by dioxin in some cell-type, tissue or developmental stages6,

Whereas,  dioxin has been linked to endometriosis7,  immune system impairment,
diabetes, neurotoxicity, birth defects (including fetal death), decreased
fertility, testicular atrophy and reproductive dysfunction in both women and
men6,8;

Whereas, dioxin exposure is significant and universal; over 90% of human
exposure to dioxin occurs through diet9,10 and every person in the world now
carries a "body burden" of dioxin5,8;

Whereas, Americans ingest a daily amount of dioxin that is already 300-600
times
higher than the EPA's so-called "safe" dose5,8 and the U.S. EPA estimates that
eating just a quarter pound of Bay fish daily causes cancer risks to
increase to
a level of nearly one in 1,00011;

Whereas, Oakland residents who consume fish from the Bay are at additional
risk12; dioxin contamination in fish reaches health advisory levels throughout
the San Francisco Bay13; and, San Francisco Bay fish consumers are
predominantly
low income and people of color12;

Whereas, dioxin is found in the breast milk of women worldwide with the
highest
concentrations found in women from industrialized countries14 , and nursing
infants take in 50-100 times more dioxin than adults due to drinking
contaminated breast milk15;

Whereas, respected expert associations and agencies including the California
Medical Association16, the American Public Health Association17, the Chicago
Medical Society18 and the International Joint Commission19, comprised of the
governments of Canada and the U.S., have agreed upon the need to reduce or
eliminate dioxin in the environment;

Whereas, dioxin has been detected in at least 27 measurements of treated waste
water discharged from pollution sources in the Bay Area20 and the San
Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has resolved that dioxin is a high
priority for immediate action to restore water quality and protect public
health21;

Whereas, sources of dioxin pollution include medical and hazardous waste
incineration, the production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics, biomass
combustion, diesel exhaust, pesticide manufacturing, paper production, oil
refineries22 (see attached table), and urban street runoff23;

Whereas, the healthcare industry is one of the largest producers of dioxin in
the United States24, the only operating commercial medical waste
incinerator in
the state of California is located in the City of Oakland25, Bay Area and
out-of-state public health care institutions generate significant amounts
of medical waste designated for Oakland's incinerator26,  and  the Oakland
incinerator threatens or harms public health, fishing and aquatic life
throughout San Francisco Bay23,27;

Whereas the Oakland incinerator is located near other dioxin sources
including diesel emissions and other industrial emitters;

Whereas no regulatory authority considers the additive effect of all the
dioxin sources on the surrounding community,

Whereas, a strategy which eliminates the production of dioxin is the only
viable
course in protecting public health since once dioxin is produced, it is very
difficult to destroy or degrade19,27;

Whereas, adverse health effects from dioxin exposure can be reduced through
purchasing decisions that reduce or eliminate products that produce dioxin
(such
as PVC-free plastic or chlorine-free paper); and alternative, less toxic
options
exist for many products that create dioixin2,

Whereas, pollution prevention is recognized as the most effective waste
management strategy28;

Whereas, careful waste segregation has been proven to reduce dramatically the
medical waste requiring incinceration29 and cost-effective technologies which
are alternatives to incineration exist for almost all the waste that does need
special handling30;

Whereas, dioxin is a clear threat to public health and the environment, zero
exposure is the only strategy that truly protects public health31, local
dioxin
contamination has a disproportionate impact on low-income and minority
communities32,33; and dioxin exposure affects all residents of Oakland and
the Bay Area34;

Therefore, be it:
Resolved, that the City of Oakland intends by this resolution to eliminate
dioxin emissions wherever possible; and be it

Further Resolved, that the City of Oakland designates dioxin pollution as a
high priority for immediate action to restore water quality and protect
public health; and be it

Further Resolved,  that the City of Oakland will establish a task force
which would identify the sources of local dioxin pollution, including
sources known to and/or emitted any and all City departments; this task
force would also develop dioxin pollution prevention strategies along with
any associated cost implications, and make any further recommendations to
implement the intent of this resolution (the elimination of dioxin); and be
it

Further Resolved, that the City of Oakland requires dioxin pollution
prevention practices to be a part of all waste management and recycling
programs by City departments, hospitals, and businesses which operate in
the City; and be it

Further Resolved, that the City of Oakland ensures that less-toxic,
non-chlorinated, sustainable alternative products and processes, such as
chlorine-free paper and PVC-free plastics, are actively supported and used
by the City;  and be it

Further Resolved, that the City of Oakland joins in urging Oakland health
care institutions to reduce PVC use and eventually become PVC-free;  and be
it

Further Resolved, that the City of Oakland will send a letter to
Oakland-based health care institutions, to encourage them to phase out the
use of PVC products;  and be it

Further Resolved,  that the City of Oakland send a letter to the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) supporting zero dioxin emission
and zero dioxin exposure and urging the BAAQMD to eliminate dioxin
pollution into the air; and be it

Further Resolved,  that the City of Oakland send a letter encouraging the
Regional Water Quality Board to exercise its full power and jurisdiction,
as intended by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the federal Clean
Water Act, to protect the quality of water from degradation and to
implement a plan to phase out dioxin at its sources; and be it

Further Resolved,  that the City of Oakland send a letter to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency supporting its proposal to require
community right to know reporting of dioxin releases and supporting the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee's advice to make dioxin
pollution of San Francisco Bay a high priority under Clean Water Act
section 303(d).

Dioxin Resolution Citations

1.  Courture, L. et al., 1990.  A Critical Review of the Developmental
Toxicity
and Teratogenicity of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin:  Recent Advances
Toward Understanding the Mechanism.  Teratology 4l:619-627, 1990.
2.  Healing the Harm:  Eliminating the Pollution from Health Care Practices,
Health Care Without Harm Campaign Report, 1997; and Huff, 1994.
3.  International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health
Organizations, United Nations, 1997. National Toxicology Program Board of
Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, 1997
4.  Mariani, Jay.  Dioxin Fact Sheet, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic,
Golden Gate University, San Francisco, 1998.
5.  US EPA.  Risk Characterization of  Dioxin and Related CompoundsÛDraft
Scientific Reassessment of Dioxin.  Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National
Affairs.  May 3, 1994..
6.  Birnbaum, Linda et al.  Developmental Effects of Dioxins and Related
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.  Experimental Toxicology Division, US EPA.
Toxicology Letters, p. 743-750, 1995.
7.  Rier, S.E. et al. Endometrosis in Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca Mulatta)
Following
Chronic Exposure to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.  Fundamental and
Applied Toxicology, Vol. 21, pp.433-441, 1983.
8.  DeVito, Michael et al.  Comparisons of Estimated Human Body Burdens of
Dioxin-like Chemicals and TCDD Body Burdens in Experimentally Exposed Animals,
pp. 820-831, 1995. Economic Analysis of the Proposed California Water Quality
Toxics Rule, US EPA, 1997.
9.  Schecter, A., 1991.  Levels of Dioxins, Dibenzofurans, PCB and DDE
Congeners
in Pool Food Samples Collected in 1995 at Supermarkets Across the United
States.
 Chemosphere, Vol. 34, Nos 5-7, pp. 1437-1447, 1994; and Congener-Specific
Levels of Dioxin and Dibenofurans in U.S. Food and Estimated Daily Dioxin
Toxic
Equivalent Intake, Environmental Health Perspectives, 1994.
10. Testimony of Dr. William Farland in the dioxin science workshop heard
by the
RWQCB May 7, 1998.
11. U.S. EPA.  Economic Analysis of the Proposed California Water Quality
Toxics
Rule, pp. 8-11, 1997.
12. RWQCB et al.  Contaminant Levels in Fish Tissue from San Francisco Bay,
1995.
13. OEHHA. "Health Hazard: Catching Fish and Easting Sport Fish in
California",
Interim Sport Fish Advisory for San Francisco Bay.  California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California, EPA. December, 1994.
14. Schechter, A.  Dioxins in Humans and the Environment.  Biological Basis
for
Risk Assessment of Dioxins and Related Compounds, Banbry Report 35: 169-214.
1991.
15. Linstrom, Gunilla, et al.  Workshop on Perinatal Exposure to Dioxin-like
Compounds I. Summary, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 103,
Supplement
2, March 1995.
16. California Medical Association, Resolution, 1998.
17. American Public Health Association, Resolution 9607, 1996.
18. Chicago Medical Society, Resolution, 1998.
19. Sixth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, Washington, D.C. and
Ottawa, Ontario: International Joint Commission, 1992.
20. Self-monitoring Reports Submitted to to the RWQCB by the Tosco, Unocal,
and
Pacific Refining Oil Refineries and the San Francisco Southeast, San
Jose/Santa
Clara, Sunnyvale, Union Sanitary District, and West County Agency Sewage
Treatment Plants.
21. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Policy Statement on Dioxin, February
18, 1998.
22. Thomas, V. et al.  An Estimation of Dioxin Emissions in the United States.
Department of Chemistry and Center for Energy and Environmental Studies,
Princeton University.  Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, Vol. 50, pp.
1-37.  1995.
23. Maher, D. et al., 1997.  PCDD/PCDFS Levels in the Environment: In Storm
Water Outfalls Adjacent to Urban Areas  and Petroleum Refineries in San
Francisco Bay, CA, USA.   Organohalogen Compounds, Vol. 32.
24. California Technical Support Document for Medical Waste Incinerators,
California Air Resources Board, 1990.  Dioxin Sources, US EPA, 1996.
25. California Air Resources Board Medical Waste Inventory, 1997.
26. Bay Area Hospital Medwaste Survey, Jennifer Altman Foundation, March,
1998.
27. California Zero Dioxin Exposure Alliance Letter to Loretta Barsamian,
Executive Director, Regional Water Quality Board, San Francisco Bay Region,
February 6, 1998.
28. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, U.S. Congress.
29. American Hospital Association.  "An Ounce of Prevention:  Waste Reduction
Strategies for Health Care Facilities".  1993.
30. California Technical Support Document for Medical Waste Incinerators,
California Air Resources Board, 1990.
31. Seventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, International Joint
Commission, 1994.
32. Moffat,S. "Minorities Are More Likely To Live Near Toxic Sites".  Los
Angeles Times, p. B1.  August, 1995.
33. National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to the U.S. EPA, June 3,
1998.
34. Schecter, A.,  Dioxins in U.S. Food and Estimated Daily Intake.
Chemosphere, Vol. 29, Nos. 9-11, pp.2261-2265, 1994.