Dear folks,

United Mountain Defense, the Tennessee Coal Ash Survivors Network, and the Global Community Monitor have teamed up since Jan 2009 to create a citizen's air monitoring program. There have been more than 26 Roane County Residents trained in how to use the Mini Vol air monitors produced by Air Metrics of Eugene Oregon. We use quality control / quality assurance methods and chain of custody forms for all of our air monitoring collection.

Here is more air quality data gathered from around the disaster site on Oct 19 and Oct 20, 2009.

(link...) 2nd round Raw data
(link...) 2nd round Air Data Page 1
(link...) 2nd round Air Data Spreadsheet
(link...) Expert interpretation of air data

The following are a few words from our air analyst about what these latest air samples mean.

Attached is my interpretation of metal levels in the two air samples collected near the TVA coal ash spill on October 19th and 20th. I added the interpretation to the spreadsheet containing the interpretation of metal levels in the two previously collected air samples (15 July 2009 and 1 October 2009). Rows 4 and 5 contain the new data.

Of note is a ‘hot’ sample (the one collected on 20 October 2009) with a cadmium level that exceeds the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Chronic Reference Level for cadmium. This sample also has an arsenic level that is above the World Health Organization’s guideline value of 0.66 nanograms per cubic meter to prevent a one per one million increased risk of cancer as a result of lifetime exposure.

If you average the concentrations in all four samples (assigning a ‘0’ value to non-detects), then the average cadmium level is below (60% of) the California OHEAA’s Chronic REL for cadmium, but the average arsenic level is above the WHO guideline value of 0.66 nanograms per cubic meter to prevent a one per one million increased risk of cancer as a result of lifetime exposure.

I urge caution in how you publicize these results for two reasons. 1) The cadmium levels in the air samples are less than 3 times their uncertainty levels; 2) the arsenic levels in the air samples are less then 2 times their uncertainty levels.

Here is the air quality data from two samples that I gathered in July and October 2009. There is also some interpretation of the data that follows. Expect more data as we have more samples being sent to the lab and we continue to gather air samples during these dry times. We also had our air expert look at TVA's 116,925 air samples and provide some feedback that follows. If you live next to the coal ash diaster and would like to have a temporary air monitor installed on your property or in your house or would like to get trained in how to use the air monitoring equipment please contact us at 865 689 2778. Thanks for your time, matt landon full time volunteer staff person for United Mountain Defense and dedicated Roane County volunteer

(link...) Raw Data

(link...) Air Data Page 1

(link...) Air Data Excel Spreadsheet, has the same data as Page 1 but may not work

(link...) Short description on how to read this data

This is an explanation about what the independently gathered air quality data means from July and Oct 2009.

The first air sample has a level of cadmium - 14.3 nanograms per cubic meter - that is above the World Health Organization’s guideline value of 5 nanograms per cubic meter to prevent any further increase of cadmium in agricultural soils likely to increase the dietary intake of future generations. See: (link...)

The level of cadmium in the first air sample is also 70% of the California OEHHA Chronic Reference Exposure Level for cadmium (20 nanograms per cubic meter).

See: (link...)

The second air sample has a level of arsenic - 3.6 nanograms per cubic meter - that is above the World Health Organization’s guideline value of 0.66 nanograms per cubic meter to prevent a one per one million increased risk of cancer as a result of lifetime exposure. See: (link...)

I urge caution in how you publicize these results for two reasons. 1) The cadmium level in the first air sample was only 2.2 times greater than its uncertainty level (0.00143 v. 0.00064 ng/m3) and the arsenic level in the second air sample was only 1.4 times greater than its uncertainty level (0.0036 v. 0.0025); and 2) the data reflects short-term (24-hour) ambient air quality whereas the health-based benchmarks I refer to above (WHO guideline values) are for long-term (annual average) ambient air quality.

Levels of other toxic metals (manganese, nickel, mercury, and lead) were below health-based benchmarks.

When we asked our air analyst to look at TVA’s 116,925 air quality measurements here are his initial comments.

There are two problems I see with how the Tennessee Valley Authority is interpreting air quality data near the Kingston Ash Slide.

First, with respect to PM-2.5 levels, TVA is comparing levels to the 24-hour standard (35 ug/m3) and concluding that each day air quality is safe because the PM-2.5 level is below the 24-hour standard.

See: (link...)

What TVA isn’t saying is that the U.S. EPA annual standard for PM-2.5 is only 15 ug/m3 and when you average the daily PM-2.5 measurements, then the average PM-2.5 seems close to the the U.S. EPA annual standard for PM-2.5 (and above the World Health Organization’s annual standard for PM-2.5).

See: (link...)

So, the same data that TVA uses to conclude that air quality is safe can be used to conclude that air quality near the Kingston Ash Slide is unsafe.

Second, with respect to arsenic, the TVA is concluding that “arsenic has not been shown to be present in harmful levels” because “The range of arsenic in air in the U.S. is 1 to 30 ng/m3*, while Kingston air samples ranged from nondetectable to 4.1 ng/m3.”

See: (link...)

This begs the question of whether the average levels of arsenic in air samples are safe. Keep in mind that according to the WHO: “Arsenic is a human carcinogen. Present risk estimates have been derived from studies in exposed human populations in the United States and Sweden. When assuming a linear dose–response relation, a safe level for inhalation exposure cannot be recommended. At an air concentration of 1 μg/m3 an estimate of lifetime risk is 1.5x10-3. This means that the excess lifetime risk level is 1:10000, 1:100 000 or 1:1 000 000 at an air concentration of about 66 ng/m3, 6.6 ng/m3 or 0.66 ng/m3, respectively.”

See: (link...)