abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

10 May 2017

Author:
Stephen Stock, Michael Bott and Jeremy Carroll, KNTV

USA: Dangerous levels of unregulated chemical linked to cancer found in drinking water, according to California’s State Water Board

As many as 1 million Californians, mostly in the farming communities of the Central Valley, have dangerous levels of an unregulated chemical linked to cancer in their drinking water, according to California’s State Water Board.

State water officials found potentially harmful levels of “1,2,3-TCP”, or Trichloropropane, in drinking water sources across the state all the way back in 2001 but are just now considering the implementation of a legal maximum contaminant level.

TCP was present in two widely used soil fumigants marketed for decades by Shell and Dow Chemical beginning in the 1950s. Those fumigants were taken off the market in the 1980s. But because of its widespread use as a pesticide in agricultural areas, the chemical seeped into groundwater in dozens of California counties. State and private water experts say it remains there and is now found in dangerous levels in the drinking water served by 94 different public water systems...

Environmental Working Group released a report in April blasting Shell and Dow for failing to pay for cleanup efforts in communities with TCP in their water...

Shell and Dow Chemical did not respond to requests from NBC Bay Area’s Investigative Unit for comment. The two chemical companies have argued in court they shouldn’t be responsible for damages or cleanup costs because the state doesn’t have a maximum legal limit set for TCP in drinking water...

*Sourced by RepRisk due diligence on ESG and business conduct risks, www.reprisk.com.