recent image
A Short History of Grand Coulee Dam and Lake...
Nancy Churchill
 March 18 2024 at 07:54 pm
more_horiz
post image
This is part two of a series of articles about the proposed creation of an EPA Superfund site on the upper Columbia River. Before we proceed in reviewing the EPA’s proposed listing, it’s important to undertake a very quick review of the history of Grand Coulee Dam and Lake Roosevelt. In our next article, we’ll explore the EPA’s proposal but if we don’t understand the massive size of Lake Roosevelt, it’s hard to understand the scope of the proposed listing. Grand Coulee Dam The information is this section is from the Lake Roosevelt Forum, and is used with permission. Be sure to visit this great website for additional information. Grand Coulee Dam is one of the largest concrete structures ever built! It contains about twelve million cubic yards of concrete, which is enough to build a standard 16 foot wide highway from Seattle to New York City to Houston to San Diego and then back to Seattle. The dam is just shy of a mile at 5,228 feet long and is 550 feet high. The dam construction was started in 1933. In 1941, Grand Coulee Dam was essentially complete. The Left Power Plant began to operate and power generation was used to support the energy intensive needs of World War II. When construction of the dam was completed in 1942, the waters behind the dam rose by 380 feet to an elevation of 1,290 feet above sea level. The reservoir (called Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lake Roosevelt for short) extends 150 miles north, and provides over 630 miles of shoreline. The Columbia River from the Canadian border to the dam was no longer free flowing. From Grand Coulee Dam to the Canadian Border, 150 River miles As authorized by Congress in 1935, Lake Roosevelt and Grand Coulee Dam were designed to primarily support irrigation, flood control and power generation needs. Over time, Lake Roosevelt’s operations also sought to meet the recreation needs of up to 1.5 million people annually, and the water needs of downstream fisheries. The Columbia Basin Project From 1942 to 1952, construction continued at Grand Coulee, with the development of additional power plants as well as the pumping plant and pipes needed to pump water from the Lake Roosevelt uphill to Banks Lake, a massive, 30 mile long reservoir, which serves as the initial storage reservoir for the Columbia Basin Project, which irrigates over 671, 000 acres in Eastern Washington. The total amount of the Columbia flow that is diverted into the CBP at Grand Coulee varies a little from year to year, and is currently about 3.0 million acre-feet. This is about 3.8 percent of the Columbia's average flow as measured at the Grand Coulee dam. (2) Lake Operations Lake operations refers to the ability of the Bureau of Reclamation, in concert with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and other agencies, to raise and lower lake levels to meet irrigation, flood control, power generation, fishery, recreational and other needs. From an operations perspective, the lake can fluctuate between minimum and maximum lake elevations. At its maximum, the lake’s elevation can rise to 1,290 feet above sea level and can hold over 9,000,000 acre-feet of water. That’s enough water to cover the states of Washington and Oregon with more than one inch of water. The minimum lake level for normal operations is 1,208 feet above sea level. So if you can imagine raising and lowering water within an eight story building that’s one half to one mile wide and over one hundred miles long, that’s the “box” within which Lake Roosevelt’s operations are managed. Part of the importance of Lake Roosevelt is also its ability to refill. The run-off from rivers and tributaries into the lake allows it to refill about seven times in an average water year. By comparison, one of the other large reservoirs in the region, Hungry Horse, could not refill in the same year if it were emptied. Considering the fact that Lake Roosevelt holds 9 million acre-feet of water, and that natural run-off allows it to refill seven times in an average year, we can start to understand the massive size of the Columbia River watershed and Lake Roosevelt. The Colville Tribes and the Spokane tribes were the most negatively impacted by this project, with the destruction of the salmon fisheries above the Dam, as well as important heritage sites, villages, and sacred places. Only recently have the Colville tribal members begun reintroducing salmon above the dam at Kettle Falls, and the local communities all have high hopes that these efforts will be successful. Coming Next Now we have a better understanding of the size of the Columbia River and the Grand Coulee Dam, and the benefits the dam provides of irrigation, green power generation, flood control, recreation and fishery management. In future articles, we will examine the sources of pollution, the types of pollution, and the history of the cleanup and testing that began in 2006 and continues to this day. After that we will review the arguments against the proposed listing, and provide more information on how to comment on this proposal. The 60 day comment period began on March 7, so we have time to educate ourselves on the proposal and the science supporting it. Comments will be more effective if specifically pointing to problems in the process and the science than ones that are merely encouraging or discouraging the proposal. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Sources: 1) Lake Roosevelt Forum, Grand Coulee Dam and Lake Roosevelt. https://lrf.org/lake-roosevelt/grand-coulee-dam 2) Columbia Basin Project, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Basin_Project
recent image
Upper Columbia River: the Scope of the Pollution
Nancy Churchill
 March 19 2024 at 07:59 pm
more_horiz
post image
This is part three of a series of articles about the proposed EPA Superfund site on the upper Columbia River. In this article, we will discover the sources and types of pollution in Lake Roosevelt. We’ll also review the 2006 agreement between the U.S. Government and Teck American that has been in place for the last 18 years. Part two is “A Short History of Grand Coulee Dam and Lake Roosevelt.” Sources of pollution There were two sources of pollution in the upper Columbia River. According to the EPA News Release, “The primary source of contamination at the site is the Teck Metals Ltd. smelting facility in Trail, British Columbia, approximately 10 river miles upstream of the international boundary. The former Le Roi smelter in Northport, Washington also contributed contamination.” Image: EPA Figure 3, p23, HRS Documentation Record for UCR.pdf The northeastern corner of Washington has a rich mining history, with significant deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc and other minerals. The EPA states “Historic discharges of wastes and emissions from smelter operations have contaminated portions of the upper Columbia River. Decades of smelter processes and facility operations have caused releases of hazardous substances, granulated slag, liquid effluents, emissions, and accidental spills in and around the river.” Unfortunately, the desirable ores are usually found in deposits that also include heavy metals and more dangerous minerals. “High levels of zinc, cadmium, and lead contamination have been found in upland soils,” and are a potential threat to the wildlife. These were from smokestack emissions and settled in an area on both sides of the river called the uplands. “Residential properties where soil is contaminated with lead and arsenic may pose a health risk to current and future residents, especially young children…” Fortunately, as part of the Settlement Agreement discussed below, Teck American and the EPA have accomplished significant remediation of the soil in and around the town of Northport. In addition to smokestack emissions, smelting and mining in Trail and Northport discharged slag directly into the river. “River sediments and a few riverbanks are contaminated with levels of slag and metals including lead, arsenic, zinc, cadmium, chromium, copper, and mercury that exceed Washington State Freshwater Sediment Management Standards.” Since it’s unknown how far downstream these heavy metals have spread, the EPA included the entire length of Lake Roosevelt from the border to Grand Coulee Dam in its initial studies. The 2006 Settlement Agreement According to the Lake Roosevelt Forum “In 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the Upper Columbia River Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). Funded under a settlement agreement with Teck, its purpose is to establish the nature, extent and possible human and ecological risks of metals and other contaminants released into the environment.” The Settlement Agreement was signed in 2006. “The Remedial Investigation establishes the nature and extent of contamination and includes findings from human health and ecological risk assessments. The Feasibility Study develops, screens, and evaluates cleanup actions to address risks identified in the river, lakes, or uplands.” From 2006 to today (eighteen years), Teck has been conducting the RI/FS and extensive remediation under the supervision of the EPA. According to the company, “Teck has invested over $170 million in EPA’s study of the upper Columbia River, which is well advanced, and has included sampling of water, fish, beaches, sediments, soils, and plants. Based on these and other relevant data and studies, in 2021, EPA finalized its human health risk assessment. A companion baseline ecological risk assessment is well underway.” In addition, Teck has made significant improvements in the Trail smelter, investing “over $1.7 billion to continuously advance the environmental and operational performance of the smelter. Today, the Trail smelter is a world-class facility supplying and recycling vital metals and critical minerals to Canada, the U.S. and world economies.” Key findings of the Human Health Assessment. The abundant game fish in Lake Roosevelt are safe to eat, subject to mild statewide and local-area advisories set by the Washington Department of Health. The lake is a robust recreational fishery, with over 1.5 million visitors every year. Surface water is safe for all manner of recreational activities. In fact, concentrations of metals are a fraction of allowed maximum contaminant levels for drinking water, though residents and visitors should not drink river water due to potential bacterial content. Only one beach has been closed, the remaining beaches are safe. Photo Credit: Foster Fanning; Young Bull Moose via the Teck.com website Additional studies have yet to be completed as part of the scope of work defined in the 2006 Agreement. “The baseline ecological risk assessment, a companion to EPA’s human health risk assessment, is underway and is expected to be completed in 2024. These and other reports will be followed by a feasibility study to evaluate potential remedial actions. The studies will conclude with EPA’s selection of final remedial actions following which EPA will issue a final record of decision (ROD). At this time, it is anticipated that EPA will complete the ROD in 2028.” Since the studies agreed to and funded by the 2006 RI/FS have not yet been completed, is it too early to pull the trigger on a superfund listing? What scientific basis is being used if the studies are not complete? Next Steps In the next article in this series, we’re going to take a look at the Superfund rules, the specific reasons for the proposed Superfund listing, and the role of Governor Inslee in this process. We’ll also look at the potential action timeline if the listing is approved and what a listing would accomplish for Lake Roosevelt and the nearby communities. In future articles, we also will review the reactions of the local county governments, community members and the health departments. After that, we’ll cover the rules for making a comment. We’re covering a large amount of background information with the purpose of helping you, the everyday citizen, have the knowledge and understanding you need to make a compelling comment on the proposal before the beginning of May. Well informed comments will be more impactful than simple oppose or approve comments. Armed with knowledge and information, you CAN influence the EPA. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Sources: 1) Lake Roosevelt Forum, EPA Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Update. https://bit.ly/48Xwr8W 2) EPA News Release 3/5/2024. https://bit.ly/4acaKmm 3) EPA Fact Sheet: https://bit.ly/3Pp3cF2 4) Human Health Risk Assessment: https://bit.ly/4cjXUnR 5) Teck, Upper Columbia River Project. https://bit.ly/4chdXmx 6) Teck America and USA Settlement Agreement, https://bit.ly/3Vnhrhk
recent image
Why an Upper Columbia River Superfund?
Nancy Churchill
 March 16 2024 at 09:52 pm
more_horiz
post image
In a surprise move, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed designating the upper Columbia River a superfund cleanup site on the National Priorities List or NPL. This proposed massive site would stretch from the Grand Coulee Dam all the way to the Canadian Border. This is a 150-mile river reach that includes Lake Roosevelt and about 77,000 acres of land south of the border in Stevens County called the “uplands.” The uplands include land on both sides of the river from Northport to the border. From Grand Coulee Dam to the Canadian Border; 150 miles On March 7, the EPA published a Federal Register notice which started a 60-day public comment period from March 7 to May 6, 2024. NPL listing is a two-step process. First, sites are proposed to the NPL. Then, after public comment is received and reviewed, a second Federal Register notice is required to formally place a site on the NPL. This article is the first of a series which will explore this very complex issue, and provide readers the information and understanding of the Upper Columbia River so that all stakeholders can effectively participate in the process, providing public comment on the proposal during the 60-day public comment period. A legacy of mining The northeast corner of Washington is a traditional mining district, and former mining and smelting operations polluted portions of the upper Columbia both from effluence discharged directly into the river and by smokestacks. Primary pollutants were lead, arsenic and some other heavy metals. According to an EPA Press Release “In 2006 the EPA and Teck Metals Ltd, entered into a settlement agreement along with Teck American Inc. and the US Department of Justice to complete studies that establish the nature and extent of contamination.” That was 18 years ago, and these studies are still in progress. Teck America has done a significant amount of remediation during that time. The EPA’s proposed Superfund designation was prompted by concerns about improper disposal of hazardous materials that, according to the EPA, tested at higher than acceptable levels. The current proposal is specifically based on assessments that suggest elevated levels of lead and arsenic levels are posing a risk to residents’ health. Is there a risk to health? The health risk assessment completed in 2021 shows “unacceptable risks to people’s health caused primarily by lead…” However, the EPA has only recently changed it’s residential soil lead guidance. Information provided to a local health advisory board indicated that this recent change in the lead standard invalidated older tests that had been done on residents in the uplands area of Stevens County. Those blood tests used the previous, less stringent testing level for exposure. At this time, it appears that there is not any actual test data that supports the EPA’s assessments of increased health risk. There are heavy metals in the river bed, mostly in the deepest parts of the river. Fortunately, this problem is solved naturally, as these metals get encapsulated by silt during spring runoff and are gradually being buried deep in the river bottom sediment. Disturbing the sediment in a misguided effort to “clean” the river bottom would only stir up and release these heavy metals into the main flow of the river. In addition, the water in Lake Roosevelt, according to the EPA, meets drinking water standards. The fish caught in Lake Roosevelt are safe to eat. Lake Roosevelt is a popular recreational lake managed by the National Park Service, with camping, fishing, swimming, and all types of recreational boating opportunities. If this lake was hazardous to human health, wouldn’t the public already be complaining about this? They’re not complaining, because there’s not a significant threat to human health. A lack of transparency and stakeholder participation Like the recent agreement between the U.S. government and the “Six Sovereigns” about the Lower Snake River Dams, the recent proposal from the EPA was only approved by Governor Inslee, and representatives from the Colville Tribes and the Spokane Tribes, whose reservations are bordered by Lake Roosevelt. However, all the other stakeholders in the region were left out of the negotiations with the EPA and the flow of information supporting the listing. Stakeholders and community members have raised concerns about the testing and investigation methods used by the EPA throughout this process. The lack of concrete evidence of contamination in certain areas, including Lincoln County and most of Stevens County, has created unnecessary fear and alarm that could cause a steep decline in the value of property and agricultural products in the region. Mark Matava, a spokesman for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, said "Our office is closely monitoring concerns regarding the EPA's proposal to designate the upper Columbia River Basin as a Superfund site. While the congresswoman recognizes the importance of addressing potential contamination, she has serious concerns about what this listing would mean for the region. She is actively engaging with the EPA and community members to ensure transparency in this process as next steps are determined to protect the environment as well as people’s health and safety.” A transfer of wealth and property rights Superfund rules allow the EPA a great deal of latitude both in defining the original area and in expanding that area. During the duration of the superfund designation, use of the area may be significantly curtailed and property rights severely limited. Property values will certainly be greatly lowered, which will hurt property owners and the local governments that depend on those properties for funding schools and local government. There will also be a massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. taxpayers into the pockets of the mitigation industry and environmental groups who are incentivized to keep the money flowing as long as possible. In future columns, we’ll look more closely at the EPA Superfund rules, how to make comments on the proposal, and at the very complex social, health and environmental issues at stake in the upper Columbia River area. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Sources: 1) Lake Roosevelt Forum, Mar 6, 2024, EPA Proposes Adding Upper Columbia River Site to Superfund List. https://bit.ly/3IBbmpK 2) Roosevelt Forum, Feb. 1, 2024, EPA Nears Decision on Proposal to Add the Upper Columbia River Study Area to the National Priorities List. https://bit.ly/3IwhPT1 3) EPA Press release, Mar. 5, 2024, https://bit.ly/49LUTem 4) Statement from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers, Mar. 9, 2024.
recent image
Stupid Scientists
Numapepi
 April 07 2024 at 02:29 pm
more_horiz
post image
Stupid Scientists Posted on April 7, 2024 by john Dear Friends, May God save us from stupid scientists, busily engaged in schemes to destroy the world, in an effort to save it from a phantasm. From cooling the planet by spreading chemicals in the atmosphere, to putting up bird choppers (windmills), they’re doing more harm than good. Some half wit directly injecting household garbage directly into the aquifer is doing less damage. The fundamental problem is, people with too much education, too much money and not a whit of wisdom… wielding too much power. No one asked me if I want the planet cooler. Did anyone ask you? I’m an old guy, I like it hot, Je deteste la froid. So much for my opinion… and yours. What if their experiments go awry? They could turn the Earth back into a snowball grinding away our civilization in another Great Unconformity. It’s one thing to push a swindle but quite another to believe your own lies. Then act on them. Showing a total lack of wisdom. The global warming swindle is effectively proven false. How? By dozens upon dozens of failed predictions. In science and under the scientific method, if a hypothesis is proven wrong by experiment over and over, that hypothesis is considered flawed. Not global warming. The more it’s proven false, despite data tampering to promote it, the more shrill the experts get. People who are the best liars, practice their lies, until the lie becomes the truth in their own minds. A seminal liar can take a polygraph and pass standing on her head. The trouble with this tactic is, the liar starts believing their own lies… often to their own detriment. Instead of damaging the intended victim. So we have experts, who have convinced themselves their scam is the truth, setting themselves to cooling the planet. To save it. The trouble is, none of their predictions (hypothesis) have been proven correct. Indeed they’ve been proven false many times. Yet the experts forge ahead with their plans to cool the planet. Despite their total lack of understanding how the climate actually works. One way to know their models are wrong is they discount the sun. If the sun were removed, but CO2 raised, they predict the planet would warm. A stunning prediction. Perhaps before screwing with the only habitable planet we have, it might be wise to do a few experiments on another planet, first? See what happens? Before stupid scientists make Earth uninhabitable. To meet EU climate goals the EU is shutting down farming. You may not have seen it on the mockingbird media, because the elite don’t want it common knowledge, but farmers across Europe are protesting the climate laws. Stupid scientists are convinced Europe doesn’t need farms. They stink, farmers are too independent, and farms harm the environment. Plus, most people get their food from the grocer anyway. So the experts are forcing farmers to sell their family farms, to wild the land again. EU bureaucrats are in negotiations with South American nations, to clear cut the rain forest, insuring elites stay fat. All done to save the planet from global warming. Without getting into it, wilding farms in Europe and clear cutting rain forest, is obviously environmentally counter productive. The global warming swindle has got out of hand. The stupid scientists are implementing possibly civilization ending strategies, to stop global warming… believing their own lies. Like jumping in a frozen lake to protect yourself from saint Elmo’s fire. The plasma’s harmless but the icy water will kill you in seconds. If it were just the experts killing themselves, oh well, they’re sovereign human beings, but they’re threatening us too. We just got over their last disaster, Covid, which killed millions, and the vaccine that wasn’t. Now they want to make a snowball Earth. The morons. Before it’s too late. It may be wise to contact your representative, and demand laws be passed, making it illegal to experiment with climate changing technologies. At least until we have an actual idea how planetary climate works. Sincerely, John Pepin
recent image
Upper Columbia River: The Human Health Assessment
Nancy Churchill
 March 26 2024 at 08:04 pm
more_horiz
post image
This is part four of a series of articles about the proposed EPA Superfund site on the upper Columbia River. The previous articles are available here on thinkspot. In this article, we will dive deeper into data provided in the March 2024 Human Health Assessment. As part of the work being done after the 2006 settlement agreement between Teck American and the EPA, several intensive scientific studies have been underway. The work on these studies is being done under the supervision of the EPA. In addition to the Human Health Risk Assessment which documents the impact of the pollution on humans, a baseline ecological risk assessment is underway. After that is published, there will be a feasibility study, which will outline the proposed future remediation actions to be taken. The studies will conclude with EPA’s selection of final remedial actions following which EPA will issue a final record of decision (ROD). At this time, it is anticipated that EPA will complete the ROD in 2028. Who and what was studied? The release of the Human Health Risk Assessment is significant, because it seems to have been used to justify the proposed listing of the Upper Columbia River on the National Priorities (Superfund) list. According to the executive summary, “Multiple rounds of data have been collected at the site over the past 15 years, including samples of UCR surface water, beach sediment, soil, air, and tissue (fish, macroinvertebrates, and plants).” Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) were found in surface water, public and residential beaches, soil in the “uplands” and in wild plants, birds, fish and wild game. COPCs included lead, arsenic, zinc, cadmium, copper, and mercury. Exposure was measured in several population groups: residents, outdoor workers, recreational visitors to Lake Roosevelt, Colville High Intensity Resource Users, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Results of the Human Health Risk Assessment According to the HHRA Executive Summary, “The following generalizations can be made based on the results of the HHRA for the residential, recreational, and worker populations: “Residential exposure to soil sampled from 588 residential areas and 142 larger randomly selected areas exceeded lead and non-lead risk benchmarks. Removal actions were taken between 2015 and 2018 at 18 properties that were heavily contaminated. Lead in soil poses the greatest risk, the soil is generally more contaminated in areas that are closer to the international border and closer to the river, and undeveloped lands are generally more contaminated than developed (residential) land. “None of the three metals (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) monitored in air from 2002 to 2009 near Northport or at the international border exceeded risk benchmarks. “Open public beaches and the UCR are safe for recreation. Bossburg Flat Beach is closed to the public due to high lead levels, and the State of Washington is remediating the Northport waterfront. Human health risks from recreating in river water and sediment are low in other areas of the river. “Fish, other than sucker, have low levels of lead...Fish consumers are encouraged to follow the Washington Department of Health Fish Advisories for the UCR and Lake Roosevelt. “Risk to outdoor workers is minimal. Upland soil does not present a risk to outdoor workers.” And finally, regarding exposure to airborne emissions from the Teck smelter over the years, “Exposure to airborne contaminants from the Teck smelter do not pose an unacceptable risk to site residents, recreators, or workers.” Protecting the children? Let’s consider the concern regarding children’s exposure to lead. Lead exposure risk, for both current and future children is estimated based on soil levels of lead. It’s a guess, not something based on testing actual children living in or visiting the area. We should also consider that Northport is a very small, remote town. We’re talking about a small population of children who might be impacted. Why would the entire upper 150-mile reach of the upper Columbia River be designated as a superfund fund because of this tiny population? However, we don’t want any children to be endangered! Why haven’t the children living in the exposure areas had ANY blood testing done? Parents would be worried about their children if the EPA notified them of the lead exposure risk. Unfortunately, despite supposed urgency of the problem of lead exposure, the EPA has made NO efforts to get the local children evaluated. Why? Don’t they care about the children? Or, are they simply using the children as an excuse to justify the superfund designation? More questions than answers The fish are safe to eat, the water is safe for recreation, the most contaminated problem areas have already been remediated, and children do NOT appear to be in any immediate danger. Reviewing the HHRA Executive Summary leaves me with many questions about the timing of the EPA’s proposal for a superfund site. Since the worst properties have already been remediated, how much more remains to be done in the uplands? This question will probably be answered by the baseline ecological risk assessment. Without knowing the actual scope of the remaining problems, we don’t know what future remediation actions are necessary or appropriate. These points will be answered by the future feasibility study. Given these two important reports are outstanding, why would the EPA move forward on a superfund decision RIGHT NOW? In our next few articles in this series, we’re going to look at the state, tribal, and local governments impacted by the Superfund proposal. Then we’ll take a look at the Superfund rules and discover how to make a comment on the proposal. We want to understand this topic well enough to make impactful comments to the EPA. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Thank you for supporting Dangerous Rhetoric! You can subscribe to the column here on thinkspot. If you'd like to hit the tip jar, it's always greatly appreciated. I'm grateful for your support! Sources: (1) Teck, Upper Columbia River Project. https://bit.ly/4chdXmx (2) HRS Documentation Record, https://bit.ly/3VsY06T 3) Executive Summary, Final site wide Human Health Risk Assessment, https://bit.ly/4asx8YV

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

[154026, 143287, 154022, 4583, 132224, 60675, 33581, 48117, 1835, 47054, 154071, 153593, 2, 17088, 148356, 153914, 112609, 2314, 153956, 154021, 132294, 1271, 1822, 153807, 151207, 78089, 153787, 153381, 153792, 150371, 153341, 150682, 127711, 147367, 153707, 138490, 153960, 153794, 129436, 153803, 134402, 153889]

Recently Active Thinkers