First, the good: Peterbilt Motors reduced their toxic air emissions to 37, 842 lbs., down from a
total of 96,982 lbs. in 1999.  We trust that Peterbilt, being the good corporate citizen that it is,
will demonstrate its genuine concern for the health of the community  by continuing to reduce its
toxic mixture of hazardous chemical emissions.

Now, the bad news: Safety-Kleen Corporation more than doubled its toxic emissions, reporting
total air emissions of  11,965 lbs. in 2000, up from a total of 4,290 lbs. in 1999.

Much has changed in northeast Denton since Safety-Kleen opened its facility on Cooper Creek
Road some twenty years ago. The rural nature of the area is becoming residential and
commercial. The industrial area where Safety-Kleen is located is surrounded by new
developments with more and more people exposed to the dangers of the facility.

What are those dangers? Science is linking so-called “acceptable exposures” of
toxins that Safety-Kleen is spewing into our air with public health problems such as birth
defects, autoimmune diseases, and chronic conditions in children such as attention deficit
disorder and childhood cancers. Legal emissions levels are not necessarily safe levels. These childhood diseases alone cost Americans $54.9 billion annually. (Go to the
Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s Center for Children’s Health and the Environment website,
<www.childenvironment.org>, for the facts.)

And dangers are not posed only by the toxic air emissions. Tank farms at the facility store
flammable and explosive hazardous wastes as well as PCBs (polychorinated biphenyls), the
same type of toxic chemicals that poisoned the water and fish of New York’s Hudson River.

Safety-Kleen takes all government-mandated measures to protect the public from spills,
emissions, and explosions. Yet, doesn’t common sense indicate that such potential disasters
should not be tolerated in an increasingly populated area?

The real question that must be answered for the good of our community is-Does an industry have
the right to threaten our health when there is even the slightest question as to the long-term
affects of  toxic chemical emissions? Should the city allow the public health, the common good,
and our quality of life to be endangered?  Or should the poisoning of our air be what is put at risk?

It is Safety-Kleen’s responsibility to prove that its emissions of toluene, napthalene,
ethylbenzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, and xylene are harmless and beneficial beyond the shadow
of a doubt before they are allowed to emit them. That’s good science.  It is Safety-Kleen’s
responsibility to show  how its toxic tank farm is an asset to the ever-growing residential areas of
northeast Denton. And, it is the city’s responsibility, not the citizens’, to demand similar proofs
from any polluting industry in Denton for the sake of the present and future health of the
residents.

The demographics are changing and the city must assess the situation .At a recent Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting a developer stated that he would use multi-family units, i.e.,
apartments, as a “buffer” between the industrial area in which Safety-Kleen is located and the
more expensive single-family homes in his development. While buffered from the sight of
Safety-Kleen’s emission vents and storage tanks, the residents of those single-family homes are just as
vulnerable to the health hazards of Safety-Kleens’s emissions as are the closer apartment
dwellers. There is no “buffer” from toxic air or water pollution.

That is the truly bad news. And it is time to do something about it by proactive rather than
reactive measures.

The city acted proactively when it implemented a pilot Integrated Pest Management Program in
the city’s parks. It is legal to use pesticides but there are known and highly suspected dangers,
especially to children. The city didn’t wait for the kids to get sick. It acted to prevent even the
possibility of harm.

Safety-Kleen’s toxic emissions are legal, larger, and just as dangerous as the pesticides that were
banned from our parks. The same opportunity exists to act proactively to protect the families
and neighborhoods from even the possibility of harm. The Industrial Performance Standards in the
Denton Code are one means of doing that. But those Standards must meet the environmental
challenges of the 21st, not the 19th century. They must address the prevention of pollution, not
the regulation of it. They do not protect the public health as they are now written in the Code.
And that is the most troubling news of all.
 
 

PESTICIDES IN THE PARKS UPDATE: Denton Parks & Recreation Dept. Establishes Integrated Pest Management Pilot Program

      Alarmed by the unpublicized spraying of Denton's parks and play grounds with such hazardous
pesticides as 2,4-D, Simazine, Dicamba, and MCPP, Citizens for Healthy Growth  met with Park and
Recreation Department officials Ed Hodney, Janet Simpson, and Emerson Vorel in February, 2001 and
requested that an Integrated Pest Management Plan be considered for Denton's park system. In June,
2001 a Focus Group of park users met to review current maintenance practices and to discuss viable
alternatives to a pesticide based maintenance program. Among other issues, the group asked for research
into low risk chemical practices, public notification of such practices, and the implementation of a
non-pesticide-based, organic maintenance program such as Integrated Pest Management.
      Responding to the group, the Parks Department has established pilot IPM programs at Nette Shultz
and Joe Skiles Parks, the south portion of Oakwood Cemetery, North Lakes Softball Fields 1 and 2, and
the color flower bed on the west side of the median in front of the Civic Center. Organic methods of
weed and pest control will be used in these pilot parks. Pesticides will only be used as a last resort and,
even then, in as least toxic a mixture as possible.
      The Focus Group will meet again in the Spring to evaluate the program and to provide feedback on
how the program can be expanded/adjusted. That feedback should come from those of you who use the
parks. So, especially those of you who use Nette Shultz and Joe Skiles Parks, let us know how the new
IPM program works and how the parks look when safe alternatives are used to chemical weed and pest
control.
       If you would like to find out more about IPM and how you can use it in the care of your own lawn
and garden call Janet Simpson at Parks and Recreation, 349-7275; or e mail,
<Janet.Simpson@cityofdenton.com>.