SAN GABRIEL VALLEY / COVER STORY : No Breathing Room : An AQMD effort to target toxic hot spots has bogged down. Thus, few residents who live near potential air polluters have been notified of the hazards.

El Monte homemaker Estelle Ruiz, 53, was hospitalized twice this year with water in her lungs. Her husband, Felipe, 55, nurses a nagging sore throat and stuffy nose. Next door, two children suffer nasal polyps that have turned their sinuses into solid blocks, and a doctor across the street resigned his hospital job with a crippling lung disease.

People are worried in a blue-collar El Monte neighborhood adjoining the San Bernardino Freeway; they lack statistics but it seems to them that breathing has become a struggle for too many people.

Some say it’s the smog or car pollution that muddies the air. But lately, residents are raising questions about emissions from a nearby chrome-plating plant, Sargent-Fletcher.

A 1991 report the company submitted to regional air quality officials found that the air pollution caused by the company’s emissions posed the biggest health risk of any factory in the San Gabriel Valley. Residents, however, only found out about the report’s findings when a reporter came to call. And they’re not happy that no one told them before.

“We’re citizens here, and we’ve got our rights,” said Felipe Ruiz, an evangelist. “How many people have gotten sick without even knowing about it?”

Under South Coast Air Quality Management District rules, neighborhoods such as this one are supposed to be notified about air polluters in their midst. But both businesses and environmentalists complain that the new rules set up an unwieldy procedure so mired in bureaucracy that they doubt the program will ever get in gear.

In 1989, the five-county South Coast Air Quality Management District began an ambitious program to target toxic hot spots throughout Los Angeles and surrounding counties. Companies had to report the amount of toxins they release into the air and calculate the likelihood that those pollutants would cause health problems, ranging from cancer to lead poisoning, among their neighbors.

After the agency performs a series of reviews on each report, the program’s regulations require a business to inform neighbors if its emissions could cause more than 10 cancer cases per million people.

If emissions increase the cancer rate by 100 cases per million, the company is required to take steps to reduce the toxic chemicals that it releases.

AQMD officials say they have been working as fast as they can, but the exhaustive study has been under way for five years now and officials say it may be years more before it is completed.

Preliminary documents on file at the AQMD show that of 45 San Gabriel Valley companies that were required to submit reports to the agency, 12 might have to notify neighbors. Only Sargent-Fletcher, with a cancer risk estimated in 1991 at 120 per million, showed levels high enough to require reductions.

The company disputes the risk, saying the environmental consultant who prepared the report made technical errors that resulted in mistakenly high numbers. In fact, government analysts have tentatively lowered the company’s health risk levels, but to a still-high 85 per million. The company also contends, however, that it has reduced emissions since the writing of the 1991 report, which is still awaiting final AQMD review.

The companies targeted by the study make everything from aerospace parts to glass bottles to mothballs. They’re mostly found in lower-income areas such as El Monte or industrial towns such as Irwindale and Industry. But one is across the street from a sparkling new senior citizens complex in Claremont. And virtually none of their neighbors know of the health risks.

As stacks of reports awaiting approval pile up at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, both businesses and environmentalists are holding their breath.

*

The AQMD’s Toxics Hot Spots program was intended as “the first sweeping approach to air toxics,” said Ben Shaw, the program’s senior enforcement manager. “This was the first one where we said, let’s look at everything.”

So they looked at everything. More than 5,000 facilities in the district’s five-county area filed reports on their emissions. Of those, 343 facilities that appeared to be polluting the most were required to perform a more detailed study called a health risk assessment.

In the assessment, a company estimates how much toxic chemical it emits, using mathematical models of its manufacturing processes and air-flow patterns. Then it combines that with toxicology studies of people and animals to put a number value on the risks to humans.

One part of the report calculates how many extra cancer cases per million people the plant’s pollution is likely to cause. Another index measures other health risks, such as lung problems, nerve damage or kidney disease.

The numbers in the reports are largely educated guesses rather than facts. It’s almost impossible to measure the hazards of long-term exposure to low levels of a chemical, so environmental consultants fill in gaps in data with best-guess assumptions.

As a result, neither industry representatives nor environmentalists are happy. Industry decries the Toxics Hot Spots program as burdensome bureaucracy that exaggerates health risks and drives businesses from the state. Air quality activists say the program ignores some hazards and creates “human sacrifice zones” in the interest of economic gain.

“It’s really a jobs-or-an-environment type of issue,” said Randle Solganik, a board member of the Metal-Finishing Assn. of Southern California, a trade association of the metals industry, which relies on some highly toxic compounds in its manufacturing processes. “It really comes down to that. The question really is, how protective do you want to be.”

Businesses point out that although the program measures the risk per million people, the number of residents exposed to the emissions is generally much less than that--maybe a few hundred at most. So the actual number of extra cancer cases that would occur is usually less than one.

In addition, the model calculates the amount of chemicals a resident would be exposed to over the course of a lifetime, literally 24 hours a day, for 70 years. Few, if any, people would remain in one place for that long, industry experts assert, and therefore the regulations overestimate the level of exposure, and thus the risk, to neighbors.

Furthermore, they say, the hazards from industrial chemicals pale in comparison to other carcinogens, such as cigarette smoke or smog.

Fred Cooper, a Bay Area environmental consultant to industry, calculated the health risks of air measured at various sites throughout California. He concluded that the average cancer risk was 600 in a million--six times the level permitted for industrial emissions. And the biggest contributors to that risk were auto emissions.

And Gene Huber, an environmental consultant who performed the health risk assessment for an Azusa firm, Rubber Urethanes, said matching a cancer case with a particular chemical is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

“Statistically, it’s very impossible to even prove,” he said. “We’re looking at one cancer death per million people in 70 years.”

The general cancer rate suggests there will be 350,000 cases of cancer in 70 years in any group of 1 million people, he said. “How do we pick out the one (caused by toxins)?”

Environmentalists see those arguments as evasions. Air quality activists lobbied the AQMD board to require facilities with risks higher than one cancer case per million to reduce emissions. AQMD staff recommended setting the standard at 10 in a million, the same level at which companies are required to notify neighbors. The board finally adopted the 100-in-a-million standard proposed by industry.

Environmentalists say that leaves neighbors in limbo because many companies will have to tell neighbors about the risk but won’t have to do anything to reduce it.

“The rule the board adopted is woefully weak and will provide scant protection for members of the community,” said Denny Zane of the Coalition for Clean Air. “It gave a false expectation of protection when no protection was being offered.”

Dr. Melanie Marty of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which reviews the health risk assessments for AQMD, said the method of calculating the risks is designed to balance uncertainties on both sides of the equation.

However, there are a number of glitches the method cannot account for, Marty said.

Risk assessments don’t measure the mixed effects of different chemicals--toxic substances may cancel each other out or multiply each other’s effects, but the reports don’t include those reactions, Marty said. Nor do they count the combined hazards of different facilities in the same area.

That’s a real concern in parts of the San Gabriel Valley. Of the 12 companies that might have to notify neighbors based on their preliminary reports, three are located in the City of Industry and three are in the El Monte-South El Monte area.

The risk assessments also ignore chemicals that are transformed into carcinogens, or more potent carcinogens, after they are released, Marty said.

And although 729 chemicals must be listed in emissions reports, there is only data on the health effects of about 200 of them.

Furthermore, danger is measured in terms of healthy adults. But toxics may be more dangerous to children, the elderly or those with a genetic predisposition to cancer or other diseases.

“I don’t think the health risk assessments are overly (cautious),” Marty said. “They are designed to be health protective, but they are not overly (cautious) like industry likes to say.”

Solganik, though, complains that the limits set by California laws exceed those of other states, which could send businesses fleeing toward looser regulations--or could close them down completely.

“They’re trying to be overly protective,” Solganik said. “There’s a price that you have to pay for that, and the price is economic well-being.”

*

Seven employees of Specialty Organics in Irwindale paid that price five years ago, said the company’s president, Joe Seruto. In 1989, the company compiled the health risk assessment required by the AQMD. The report estimated a cancer risk of 27 cancer cases per million for neighbors and 80 cases per million for workers, based on the chemical para-dichlorobenzene, used to make mothballs.

Unsure about what changes AQMD would require of the company as a result of those risks, and facing other regulations over emissions, Seruto simply stopped making the chemical, he said. That meant laying off seven of nine employees, some of whom had been with the company up to 15 years.

Specialty Organics had been manufacturing para-dichlorobenzene since Seruto’s father opened the plant in 1962.

“It’s basically just mothballs,” Seruto said. “The problem with these rules is, they go overboard.”

Ted Garner, president of Garner Glass in Claremont, said his company has danced a toxic two-step trying to keep up with the regulations but still can’t match the pace. Garner Glass is among the 12 area companies that might have to notify neighbors of the potential health hazards of their emissions. Its health report showed a cancer risk of 74.9 per million as a result of the chemical trichloroethylene, which its factory emits in the process of manufacturing glass tubing.

“I have a lot of problems with this program,” Garner said.

Most other glass manufacturers switched from trichloroethylene, which causes smog, to a related chemical that creates less air pollution, he explained. But that chemical, it turns out, tainted the water supply, raising an outcry from water quality officials. So now the EPA is urging manufacturers to go back to the original chemical, Garner said.

Meanwhile, Judy Snow, manager of Claremont Villas Senior Apartments across the street, knew nothing of the risk when the seniors complex, with its gleaming commons room and cozy apartments, opened in January.

*

“They really should have notified us when we opened,” she said, “because we have 154 seniors living here, and some of them have lung problems.”

Residents of the El Monte neighborhood near Sargent-Fletcher didn’t even know the rules existed, much less that emissions from a facility near them might be so high. Now they think the rules don’t go far enough. Or fast enough.

*

“I didn’t know about this company,” Felipe Ruiz said. “If I knew about (it) . . . I would have organized the neighbors. I want to know what they’re releasing and how long this has been going on. I think people should get together and start complaining.”

Sargent-Fletcher says it has cut production of the aerospace parts that it makes, reducing the amount of chromium it emits.

And Ed Hilbert, the company’s environmental consultant, said the first consultant, who wrote the report, made mistakes that exaggerated the risks.

A state environmental official said that when her agency reviewed the report, it found that the risks were indeed lower than the original estimate--but not by much. Judy Rosenbaum, a research scientist with the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, said the company’s health risk level now is set at 85 in a million--below the original 120 per million but well above the 10 in a million level that would require the company to notify neighbors.

In fact, the fear of angry neighbors is what makes these rules work, said Pat Leyden, AQMD’s deputy head of stationary-source compliance. Proposition 65, an earlier right-to-know law, prodded facilities to reduce emissions on their own, simply to avoid bad publicity.

“What we’ve seen is that right-to-know legislation is very powerful, that companies do take aggressive steps to reduce emissions that they release. And they do that to maintain good relations with the community,” she said. “We’ve seen many companies reduce emissions simply to avoid notifying the community. So it’s a powerful tool.”

But only if the community knows about it.

“People affected have to be notified so that they can organize and work with the emitter to clean it up,” said Doug Doepke, an environmental activist from Azusa. “I don’t know how the public can take action unless they’re notified.”

Ironically, frustration over delays in the review process is probably the only point agreed on by both industry and environmentalists.

“This whole process has been typical bureaucracy at its worst,” said Gene Huber, the Bay Area environmental consultant who measured the risks of background air. “They went out and did this and no one did it before. So they did it en masse and they did it very badly. . . . They haven’t completed the process in five years. They’re supposed to repeat it every two years.”

To date, AQMD has finalized two of 343 health risk assessments received. Shaw said 20 more will be done before the end of the year, and the first batch of notifications will go out in January.

Air quality officials say they would have liked reviews to go more quickly, but they bristle at criticism that they’ve dropped the ball.

When the program began, many companies submitted late reports, incomplete reports or didn’t submit them at all, Shaw said. The ones that did come in often had to be sent back for corrections.

But Marty said by far the biggest problem was volume.

“At the beginning of the program, nobody had any idea how many facilities would need risk assessments,” she said. “We thought (there would be) 60 or 70. The final number (statewide) was 725. Nobody foresaw that, so the resources needed to keep up with the workload aren’t there.”

Shaw said that, among those 725, between 100 and 200 companies in the South Coast district will probably have to notify neighbors about their facility, the toxic air pollutants they emit and the health risks they might cause. The facilities will then hold public meetings to answer their neighbors’ questions and concerns.

Even without notification and meetings, Shaw said, the program already has had an effect.

“Companies reduced because they didn’t want to notify. . . . Let’s face it, the public has an effect on policy.”

Excessive Emissions

Under a regional air-pollution program, 12 San Gabriel Valley companies reported that their emissions of toxins would cause 10 or more cases of cancer among 1 million people, meaning they might need to notify their neighbors about potential health risks:

A. Ball Glass Container (formerly Ball-In Con Glass), 4000 N. Arden Drive, El Monte

Operations: Manufactures glass containers

Cancer risk: 16 per million people (residents,) 15 per million people (workers.)

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Arsenic, hexavalent chromium

Response from company spokesman Harold Sohn: Expects that new equipment the plant is installing this December will reduce chromium emissions to below notification levels.

B. Century Marble, 1275 E. Franklin Street, Pomona

Operations: Manufactures marble fixtures such as sinks and countertops

Cancer risk: 14 per million (workers)

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Styrene

Response, from Barbara Cordova, human resources and safety specialist: Says company will do everything possible to lower emissions to meet regulatory standards.

C. Colombia Pacific Aluminum, 181111 E. Railroad Street, City of Industry

Operations: Manufactures aluminum products for the construction industry

Cancer risk: 32 per million

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, nickel, selenium, hexavalent chromium, benzene, formaldehyde, PAH’s, acetaldehyde

Response: Company could not be reached for comment.

D. Garner Glass, 177 S. Indian Hill Boulevard, Claremont

Operations: Manufactures glass tubing products

Cancer risk: 74.9 (workers and residents)

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Trichloroethylene

Response, from Ted Garner, president: Says company is building new equipment to replace use of trichloroethylene. Expects to eliminate, or greatly reduce use of the chemical in three to six months.

E. Optical Radiation, 1300 Optical Drive, Azusa

Operations: Cleans, plates and coats optical components.

Cancer risk: 49 per million (workers)

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Methylene chloride

Response: Company declined to comment.

F. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, 1331 E. Philadelphia Street, Pomona

Operations: Manufactures glass containers

Cancer risk: 42.9 per million

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Crystalline silica.

Response, from Bob Neal, environmental administrator: Says error in report exaggerated health risk. Does not expect the company will have to notify neighbors.

G. Quemetco, 720 S. 7th Avenue, City of Industry

Operations: Battery recycling

Cancer risk: 16 per million

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Arsenic, cadmium, nickel

Response: Company declined to comment while report is still under review.

H. Rubber Urethanes, 968 W. Foothill Blvd, Box 280, Azusa

Operations: Manufactures small computer parts

Cancer risk: 81.67 per million (residents,) 27.80 per million (workers)

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Methylene chloride, perchloroethylene

Response, from Gene Huber, Environmental Consultant: Says company has eliminated perchloroethylene, reduced use of methylene chloride. Expects 1994 emissions levels would not require notification.

I. Sargent-Fletcher Company, 9400 E. Flair Drive, El Monte

Operations: Manufactures aerospace components

Cancer risk: 120 per million (residents,) 14 per million (workers.)

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Chromium, benzene, ipichlorohydrin, formaldehyde, gasoline vapors and isocyanates

Response, from Ed Hilbert, Environmental Consultant: Says emissions levels are lower because of reduced production volume since report was submitted, and errors in report exaggerated risk levels.

J. Specialty Organics, 5263 N. Fourth St., Irwindale

Operations: Manufactures specialty chemicals

Cancer risk: 27 per million (residents,) 80 per million (workers)

Substances contributing to cancer risk: Para-dichlorobenzene

Response, from Joseph Seruto, President: Says company eliminated production of para-dichlorobenzene because technology to reduce emissions was too expensive.

K. Utility Trailer Company, 17300 E. Chestnut Street, City of Industry

Operations: Manufactures cargo trailers

Chronic hazard index: 7.7 (this measures the risk of diseases other than cancer, in this case, damage to the central nervous system. The accepted limit is 1.0.)

Substances contributing to health risk: Methyl chloroform, toluene, xylene, chlorofluorocarbons

Response, from Bob Griffith, environmental engineer: Says company has eliminated methyl chloroform to reduce ozone damage caused by the chemical. Says health risk assessments are valuable tools, but overly complicated.

L. Waymire Drum Company, 9641 El Poche, South El Monte

Operations: Manufactures steel drums

Cancer risk: 15.4 per million.

Substances contributing to risk: Hexavalent chromium, benzene, formaldehyde

Response, from Charlene Burroughs, Environmental Officer: Says company will notify neighbors, but is not required to reduce emissions. Says companies must balance business needs with environmental awareness.

Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles Times