The National Guard Knows Its Armories Have Dangerous Lead Contamination, Putting Kids and Soldiers At Risk

News Feed
Wednesday, September 18, 2024

The matches came in rapid-fire succession on four pitches squeezed next to each other beneath a cavernous roof. Five boys per team, four matches at once, each 18 minutes, with only 90 seconds between them. Twelve hours later, the boys were gone, but the games went on. Eight teams, four fields, a sea of bouncing ponytails. It was peak soccer simultaneity. A vicious shot hit the crossbar on one pitch; on the next, a midfielder streaked past defenders on a breakaway; a corner kick on the third field; and on the fourth, a straight shot found the back of the net. In the stands, cheers went up for “Dani!” and “Ari!” and “Kylie!” and “Amber!” And as the night wore on, more and more of these young women stood with flushed faces and hands on hips, breathing deeply whenever a stoppage gave them a chance. The Soccer Coliseum bills itself as the “leading youth soccer arena in America, attracting more teams … than any other indoor facility.” Since 1996, this fútbol mecca — which rents space inside New Jersey’s Teaneck Armory — has offered youth soccer programs, including tournaments, classes, and camps, for kids as young as 3, introducing a generation of children to the beautiful game. Under the 35,000 square feet of red, artificial turf and the site-mandated rubber-soled shoes, however, lurked a hidden danger. The basement had housed an Army National Guard indoor firing range, or IFR, for decades. Each time a citizen-soldier fired a rifle or pistol, it emitted an extremely dangerous form of lead: toxic dust that research shows is frequently tracked around armories on soldiers’ clothing and dispersed through ventilation systems. Exclusive documents obtained by The Intercept show that the Army National Guard knowingly endangered the health and safety of soldiers and civilians at armories — also known as readiness centers — across three, and possibly 53, states and territories. A Soccer Coliseum director told The Intercept that he was never informed about a potential source of lead contamination in the basement below the playing fields. The soccer fields at the Teaneck Armory in early 2024. Photo: Nick Turse for The Intercept Despite being aware of the public health threat posed by lead-contaminated indoor firing ranges, the Army National Guard “didn’t take required action to remediate lead hazards from readiness centers with IFRs,” according to a 2020 Army audit of more than 130 armories that was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. “ARNG, States, and territories potentially put Soldiers and family members health at risk from lead exposure.” At least 600 and possibly more than 1,300 National Guard indoor firing ranges may still pose a threat. An investigation by The Intercept finds that nearly 50 years after the U.S. government sounded the alarm about the “potential health hazard” of IFRs, almost 40 years after the National Guard admitted most of its indoor ranges were “unsafe,” and more than 25 years after a Pentagon study urged decontamination of National Guard indoor firing ranges due to “lead hazards,” at least 600 and possibly more than 1,300 National Guard IFRs, from coast to coast, may still pose a threat. Additional armories may also be falsely counted as safe; an untold number that have undergone remediation may still pose health risks. But exactly where citizen-soldiers and civilians are most endangered remains a mystery. National Guard officials admit to flawed recordkeeping and say they do not have a ready list of sites that they call “high-risk IFRs.” “There ought to be congressional action. And the Secretary of the Army should immediately order the clean-up of these 600 sites. They should be cleaned up in a hurry,” said Ruth Ann Norton, a member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee and a leader of Lead-Free NJ, a collaborative focused on addressing lead hazards in the state. “It’s worth the cost, the return on investment, in terms of preventing the health impacts — kidney malfunction, hypertension, stillbirths, miscarriages, cardiac issues, neurological dysfunction — not to mention the moral imperative not to put people at risk.” Teaneck’s Soccer Coliseum is not mentioned by name in the nearly 50-page audit which obscures even the names of the states where the armories are located, but a picture of the enormous facility, with its distinctive red turf, unique windows, and high arching roof, as well as the audit’s description of the site, leaves no doubt. “Soldiers, civilians, and the public had unrestricted access to two centers with three IFRs in State C,” reads the 2020 audit, noting, in understated fashion, that one of those centers in State C — which the Army confirmed is New Jersey — “hosted an indoor soccer league.” A photo from the 2020 audit of Army National Guard armories. U.S. Army Audit Agency A National Guard official told The Intercept that their database lists the Teaneck Armory as “cleaned and remediated” according to a November 2019 “final clearance document.” But the 2020 audit states that while New Jersey’s armories with IFRs were remediated from 2017 to 2019, the remediation was done with “a high-pressure power wash system” that is barred “because it may embed lead throughout a readiness center and generate large quantities of hazardous waste.” The audit further revealed that “soldiers and civilians used the basement — a former IFR — as a storage room” and that the room still contained “lead-contaminated sand” from its days as a firing range. “You can’t take a power-washer and use it to clean a facility. … It’s just going to spew lead everywhere.” “You can’t take a power-washer and use it to clean a facility. That’s prohibited. It’s just going to spew lead everywhere — and it embeds it in all kinds of places and then it comes back out,” said Maria Doa, the senior director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund who spent more than 30 years at the EPA. “The federal government should know its own regulations and abide by them. Not doing so seems criminal.” The Intercept spoke to Yas Tambi, a director of the Soccer Coliseum, about the findings of the Army audit. Tambi, who said he has been with the organization for 29 years, could not recall receiving any information from the State of New Jersey, the Army, or the National Guard concerning lead dust or lead abatement, including during 2017 to 2019 when power-wash remediation efforts reportedly took place at the Teaneck Armory. “It wasn’t on my radar. Even if remediation was mentioned, I would think, ‘OK, they’re doing their job,’” said Tambi. “If we heard about any kind of contaminants in the building, we would be the first to complain about it.” Tambi stressed that, to his knowledge, longtime staff suffered no health effects, and that no complaints had been made by members of the public. “If anyone got sick, I would know,” he told The Intercept. The Soccer Coliseum referred The Intercept to the New Jersey National Guard for answers to additional questions. “We’ll have a response for you by the end of the day today,” Maj. Amelia Thatcher, a spokesperson for the New Jersey National Guard told The Intercept on Tuesday. After the deadline came and went, Thatcher said her promise of a comment had been “optimistic.” The Teaneck facility was one of more than 130 armories where the Army National Guard put people at risk, according to the audit. In three states — New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio — National Guard personnel did not properly report whether armories with IFRs were active; restrict public access to sites when lead levels were unknown; or conduct thorough lead abatement, jeopardizing the health and safety of soldiers and civilians.  “State ARNGs didn’t thoroughly remediate lead hazards from readiness centers with IFRs and certify results before converting IFR space to other uses (such as storage area, classroom, or office space),” reads the September 2020 report, which goes on to note that IFRs that haven’t been remediated — such as those in New Jersey — “pose a significant risk” if public access isn’t restricted. The audit also questioned the efficacy of the ANRG’s ability to manage almost $200 million spent on lead dust abatement measures. Almost four years after the audit’s release, the Army National Guard still has not followed through on the auditors’ recommendation that the director of the National Guard compel personnel in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio to perform the required in-depth evaluations to identify the full extent of lead contamination levels and conduct required remediation at 73 armories with IFRs, according to Matt Ahearn, an Army spokesperson. “It’s stunning,” said Eve Gartner, director of Crosscutting Toxics Strategies at Earthjustice, a nonprofit that uses the courts to protect the environment and the public’s health. “We’ve known for 100 years that lead is a toxin that has very serious health effects especially for developing fetuses, children, and pregnant women, but we’ve really dropped the ball as a country in truly protecting people from exposure.” New Jersey Army National Guard Soldiers with the 508th Military Police Company and 143rd Transportation Company at the Teaneck Armory on March 19, 2020. Photo: Master Sgt. Matt Hecht/U.S. Air National Guard/DVIDS From its opening in 1938, lead dust accumulated in the Teaneck Armory — as it did for decades in readiness centers across America. Whenever a National Guards member pulled a trigger, the bullet’s explosive primer, which ignites the gunpowder, released a tiny amount of lead; additional lead then flaked off as the bullet raced down the weapon’s barrel; and still more was released after it tore through its target, slammed into a backdrop, and fell into a sand pit. Across the U.S., this toxic dust was tracked into armories’ common areas on shooters’ clothing and was sucked into ventilation systems and spread throughout facilities. There is no known safe level of lead exposure according to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A heavy metal that is highly toxic when ingested or inhaled, lead is particularly dangerous to children and causes permanent damage to the brain and nervous system, resulting in stunted mental and physical growth. Even low levels of lead in the blood can reduce a child’s ability to concentrate and negatively impact academic achievement. Damage caused by lead poisoning is irreversible. In adults, lead exposure increases the risk of high blood pressure, cardiovascular problems, and kidney damage. Pregnant women exposed to high levels of lead are more likely to suffer miscarriages and stillbirths. According to a 2023 Lancet study, worldwide lead exposures may have contributed to 5.5 million adult cardiovascular disease deaths and 765 million lost IQ points among children under 5, in just one year. The danger of lead, especially to children, was becoming clear in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and several European countries banned or restricted the use of lead paint. Concerns over the toxicity of leaded gasoline were raised in the 1920s. But the U.S. would not ban lead paint until 1978, and leaded gas was not completely phased out until 1996.  Related Newark’s Lead Crisis Isn’t Over: “People Are Still Drinking Water That They Shouldn’t” Ignoring lead hazards has been a reoccurring theme in America. And over the last several decades, hidden dangers of lead have been revealed in myriad contexts, including in hundreds of neighborhoods around the U.S. where lead factories, known as smelters, once stood; in drinking water from lead pipes in places like Flint, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey; and in paint found in an estimated 29 million older homes. The hazards of lead-contaminated shooting ranges have been studied since the 1940s, and in the early 1970s, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted surveys of IFRs — most of them in basements or sub-basements similar to those in Teaneck and other armories — and discovered “a potential health hazard due to inorganic lead exposure existed at each range.” In 1979, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration finally established standards for airborne lead exposure in the workplace, including indoor firing ranges. Since then, 45 years of official reports, media investigations, and failures to act have followed. In the 1980s, National Guard requests for funds to upgrade indoor firing ranges were met with rejections from the Army for failing to specify which IFRs were selected for renovation.  In the 1990s, the Defense Department’s inspector general investigated indoor firing ranges at National Guard and Army Reserve facilities and found hazardous levels of lead dust in 12 armories, noting that a number had converted firing ranges into storage and office space without decontaminating them. As a result, all ARNG indoor ranges were mandated to “fully comply” with health and safety standards, with the completion date scheduled for February 2010. Two contractors shovel the bullet catcher material that lies in the “hot zone” behind the targets at an indoor firing range in Belgium on May 2015. Photo: Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/U.S. Army/DVIDS In 2016, an investigation by The Oregonian, based on tens of thousands of pages of official records from 41 states, found that hundreds of armories were still contaminated with dangerous amounts of lead dust. In 2015 and 2016, the Army National Guard directed all 54 states and territories to report on the operational status of readiness centers with IFRs, determine remediation requirements, restrict public access, and fully remediate all lead dust contamination by the end of 2022. All IFRs were shut down, according to National Guard Bureau spokesperson Paul Swiergosz, with about 1,300 identified as “needing remediation.” Congress also stepped in. “Nearly 20 years after a military audit urged a cleanup nationwide, the lawmakers said it’s time to make the nation’s armories safe,” reads a 2017 press release from 10 senators who called for lead remediation in National Guard armories.  But when the Army Audit Agency investigated readiness centers from 2018 to 2020, it found the same systemic problems that had persisted for decades. The audit discovered that in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio, 73 of 83 IFRs — nearly 90 percent of those analyzed — were not thoroughly remediated and the required in-depth lead evaluations were not conducted. Those 73 armories with IFRs also didn’t restrict public access when lead levels were unknown. North Carolina performed “routine housekeeping cleaning” of its 29 IFRs but not the areas outside of ranges where personnel may have tracked lead. It also failed to remediate lead from bullet traps, vents, and heating and ventilation systems. Ohio focused its lead dust remediation efforts on its 24 IFRs but neglected the rest of those facilities. Its armories did not clean or replace the heating and ventilation systems, and the audit found it was “likely that lead contaminants spread throughout the center when the system was operating.” A different 2020 audit, this one by New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, noted that while New York IFRs had not been used in more than 20 years, decades of accumulated lead dust had been tracked around armories on soldiers’ shoes; dispersed through the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; and spread by weapons cleaning, maintenance, and storage. In 2015 and 2016, 35 of 42 New York armories were found to have excessive levels of lead dust on surfaces. As part of the 2020 audit, investigators visited 12 armories that were undergoing remediation and found lead levels still exceeded the acceptable threshold at four of them: Manhattan’s Park Avenue Armory, which houses an arts institution and a women’s homeless shelter; the Jamaica Armory in Queens, also home to a women’s shelter; the Saratoga Armory, which contains a museum; and Manhattan’s Harlem Armory, home to the Harlem Children’s Zone, whose youth programs include “Parent and Me gymnastics for toddlers” as well as basketball, dance, and soccer. Bullets and rubber cleaned from an indoor firing range on Chièvres Air Base in Belgium on Dec. 6, 2017. Photo: Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/U.S. Army/DVIDS Despite assurances by New York State’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs that it had posted warnings (“Danger — Lead Hazard Area” and “Pregnant Women Not Permitted”), the comptroller’s office found no such signage at any of the four armories with dangerously high lead levels. “None of these armories disclosed these excessive lead levels to the public and this is unacceptable,” said Stephen Lynch, New York’s assistant comptroller for state government accountability who spent a combined 30 years in military service, including the Army Reserve and National Guard. “There needs to be improved oversight.”  Lynch’s personal experience highlights the risk to current Guard troops as well as the plight of generations of veterans and former members of the Guard and Reserve who were exposed to toxic lead dust in armories. Toward the end of his service, while drilling in an New York armory, Lynch saw a memo directing that no civilians or pregnant women should enter the facility because of lead contamination. “It was,” he said, “concerning for many reasons and begs the question, ‘What about military members or civilians working or training at the armory?’” The fallout of exposure to toxic lead dust to millions of military personnel across parts of three centuries has been mostly overlooked. The number of military personnel and citizen-soldiers potentially exposed to lead dust in armories since the 19th century is astronomical. By the early 1900s, a significant percentage of “organized militia” in various states were using “indoor target galleries.” And since 1916, all Guard units have been required to “assemble for drill and instruction, including indoor target practice, not less than forty-eight times each year.” That year, there were 132,194 members of the Guard and militia. By the 1950s and 1960s, the average number of Guard members had ballooned to more than 360,000, and even off-duty marksmanship training at indoor ranges was being officially encouraged. By 1988, there were 455,182 Guard members, and between 1990 and 2023, alone, more than 2.8 million military veterans served in the National Guard or Reserve. The fallout of exposure to toxic lead dust to millions of military personnel across parts of three centuries has, however, been mostly overlooked. Doa, a top official in the EPA’s Science Policy Division until 2021, said that the threat posed by lead has long been given short shrift. “Lead does such horrible things to people and — I saw this when I was working on lead at EPA — it just was not taken as seriously as it needed to be,” she said. “The Army National Guard should go in and clean up these facilities following best practices for abatement. They should get down to EPA’s more protective proposed lead dust standards,” Doa told The Intercept, referring to changes which would classify any level of lead dust greater than zero as a hazard. Since New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio didn’t conduct the necessary lead dust remediation, it was, according to the Army audit, “highly likely that other states and territories may have done the same,” and the problem “likely exists ARNG-wide.” There is good reason to believe it.  The Intercept requested the status of 27 armories. The National Guard provided information on 13 and failed to locate two in their database. The Guard refused to search for information for 12 other armories because it was “taking up too much bandwidth of the environmental team,” according to Swiergosz, the National Guard spokesperson. He instead recommended filing Freedom of Information Act requests for the documents. The Intercept is still waiting on remediation documents requested via FOIA in 2023.  The Intercept found discrepancies in the National Guard’s own data, resulting in the continued use of facilities that may still be contaminated with lead dust. In New Hampshire, the Manchester armory’s IFR has been “closed” but has not been remediated, according to the National Guard. The armory has continued to host military personnel and civilians. In February, the facility was packed with National Guard members returning from the Middle East as well as their families, including a sizable contingent of children, according to photos published in Stars and Stripes. New Hampshire Guard members reunite with friends and family at a “welcome home” ceremony Feb. 8, 2024, at the armory in Manchester, N.H. Photo: Master Sgt. Charles Johnston/U.S. Air National Guard/DVIDS The National Guard told The Intercept that according to its national database, known as PRIDE, the armory in Hernando, Mississippi, is listed as “closed,” but the National Guard found no mention of a final clearance document. “Closed” status means an IFR has been shut down and the area certified as having acceptable surface lead levels. The Army audit, however, discovered that ARNG personnel could offer “no assurance” that any of the 797 IFRs listed as closed in PRIDE “met the criteria for being successfully cleaned and converted.” The audit found, for example, an armory in North Carolina that hosted “ARNG family members” had a “fully functioning” IFR littered with bullet fragments but was nonetheless listed as “closed” in PRIDE.  The armory in Waterbury, Vermont, was cleaned in 2017 and is listed as “closed” in PRIDE. Decommissioned in 2022, it is now the site of a Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Recovery Center; was used this summer as the site of a youth camp for the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian auxiliary to the U.S. Air Force, hosting about 75 tweens and teens; and has also been talked about as a future homeless shelter. The IFR at an armory in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, was listed as having been “cleaned, tested, and closed in 2017” in PRIDE, but the National Guard offered no additional information about remediation or a final clearance document. Last December, the armory hosted a Toys for Tots event.  ARNG personnel could offer “no assurance” that any of the 797 indoor firing ranges listed as closed in PRIDE “met the criteria for being successfully cleaned and converted.” The Army Audit included 12 recommendations, including that armories in the states examined perform evaluations to identify the extent of lead contamination and that the ARNG ensure the accuracy of its database. Ahearn, the Army spokesperson, told The Intercept the critical recommendation that the states perform the required evaluations and IFR lead dust remediation efforts in accordance with ARNG guidance has not been met, although 11 other recommendations had. The Army National Guard’s ability to verify its compliance is, however, questionable.  The National Guard press office told The Intercept that “it is impractical for ARNG to travel to each site to verify completion” of remediation projects and that the Guard instead relied on self-reported data entered into the PRIDE database by the 54 individual states and territories. Two sources within the ANRG, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that even basic information about lead abatement in armories was inconsistently tracked and stored — one of the 11 issues supposedly addressed following the 2020 Army audit. Both expressed skepticism that lead contamination data was accurate. Swiergosz admitted as much in an email, noting that while he was no expert, it appeared “there are inconsistencies in how the data is entered into the database.” (He declared this was “off the record,” apparently without realizing that this stipulation is not achieved by unilateral decree.) These findings echo the Army audit which discovered proper documentation was often missing and basic information was lacking. “The data wasn’t complete or accurate,” the auditors wrote of PRIDE. “We couldn’t validate the reliability of facility and IFR data.”  “We have laws and rules about lead in residences but much less so when it comes to public buildings.” Experts say that the Army must provide definitive answers about the safety of armories and concrete proof of remediation. “Our laws are very under-protective,” said Earthjustice’s Gartner. “We have laws and rules about lead in residences but much less so when it comes to public buildings — even more so when it comes to a hybrid military and public facility.” The Army National Guard said it had “addressed” lead threats at around 710 IFRs, as of December 2023. These sites have been “repurposed” and are now “no longer a threat.” Swiergosz told The Intercept that the Army and the National Guard prioritized “high-risk IFRs” and, since 2017, allocated $205 million toward those projects. But when asked for a list of such sites, Swiergosz said they “really don’t track sites that way” and could not provide it nor an inventory of remediated armories.   In 2019, the PRIDE database listed 1,324 IFRs and 2,911 total armories, but investigators wrote that “ARNG personnel couldn’t tell us if IFRs existed at the remaining 1,587 centers.” The Army audit found that four states over- or under-counted a total of six IFRs and the operational status of another 25 was inaccurate in PRIDE. The auditors also identified one state, which was not in their review, that failed to report any IFRs in the PRIDE database but nonetheless conducted 29 lead remediation projects. Remediation is also no guarantee of safety. New York’s Whitestone Armory began serving as a community center in the 1980s and, by the early 2000s, was offering programs for children and seniors, including aerobics, arts and crafts classes, basketball, and line dancing. Information from the New York State Comptroller’s Office shows a $1.6 million contract, mostly for “lead mitigation” at the site, was awarded in 2017 and ran until 2020. The next year, however, New York’s Army National Guard informed the state’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs of excessive lead levels there. It was the same for the Orangeburg and Staten Island armories which were remediated under contracts issued in the late 2010s but were also, the comptroller’s office told The Intercept, found to have unacceptably high lead levels in 2021. “It is a known problem that armories across the country have been found to be contaminated with high levels of lead,” DiNapoli told The Intercept, noting that while New York’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs had taken steps to remediate the lead hazards, more was needed. “If testing is not done consistently and safety standards are not enforced, then unsafe levels of lead could have serious health effects on people using armory facilities.” While some National Guard armories became community centers decades into their existence, the Teaneck, New Jersey, site was never intended to be a purely military facility. As its basement began accumulating toxic dust, the Teaneck Armory became, according to the Bergen Record, the “Madison Square Garden of Bergen County.” Beginning in 1938, spectators crowded in to watch amateur boxing and, over the ensuing decades, dog shows, bingo, roller derby, professional wrestling, professional tennis, a rodeo, the crusade of evangelist Billy Graham, performances by entertainers from Frank Sinatra to the Ronettes, and a speech by then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy. In the 1960s, the armory even briefly became the home of the New Jersey Americans of the American Basketball Association. (Today, they are the National Basketball Association’s Brooklyn Nets.) The armory eventually became a movie soundstage for films like the Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan romantic comedy “You’ve Got Mail” before becoming home to the Soccer Coliseum. One morning earlier this year, girls from NJ Crush Football Club, New York City Football Club, and other teams sprinted back and forth on the Soccer Coliseum’s red turf. As the hours evaporated, goals added up and wins and losses mounted. In the stands, players’ younger siblings climbed over the folding seats, sat transfixed in front of iPads, or wolfed down baggies of snacks.       For years, scenes like this have played out weekend after weekend, adding to the hundreds of thousands of people — soldiers and civilians, children and adults — who have visited the armory over its long tenure as a sports arena, concert hall, and community hub. Much the same can be said for other National Guard armories from coast to coast that have opened their doors to members of their local communities. The number of those potentially exposed to lead dust over more than a century is staggering — and so are the potential costs. “Lead poisoning doesn’t stop when a child turns 6, the risks continue: kidney impacts, hypertension, cardiac arrest, and a 46 percent increase in early mortality,” said Lead-Free NJ’s Norton, the architect of the State of Maryland’s effort to reduce childhood lead poisoning. “But this is so fixable. It’s just a question of whether we make the moral and political choice to fix it.” The post The National Guard Knows Its Armories Have Dangerous Lead Contamination, Putting Kids and Soldiers At Risk appeared first on The Intercept.

An Intercept investigation reveals that the Army National Guard has known about poisonous lead dust at armories open to the public for years, but is doing little to respond. The post The National Guard Knows Its Armories Have Dangerous Lead Contamination, Putting Kids and Soldiers At Risk appeared first on The Intercept.

The matches came in rapid-fire succession on four pitches squeezed next to each other beneath a cavernous roof. Five boys per team, four matches at once, each 18 minutes, with only 90 seconds between them. Twelve hours later, the boys were gone, but the games went on. Eight teams, four fields, a sea of bouncing ponytails.

It was peak soccer simultaneity. A vicious shot hit the crossbar on one pitch; on the next, a midfielder streaked past defenders on a breakaway; a corner kick on the third field; and on the fourth, a straight shot found the back of the net. In the stands, cheers went up for “Dani!” and “Ari!” and “Kylie!” and “Amber!” And as the night wore on, more and more of these young women stood with flushed faces and hands on hips, breathing deeply whenever a stoppage gave them a chance.

The Soccer Coliseum bills itself as the “leading youth soccer arena in America, attracting more teams … than any other indoor facility.” Since 1996, this fútbol mecca — which rents space inside New Jersey’s Teaneck Armory — has offered youth soccer programs, including tournaments, classes, and camps, for kids as young as 3, introducing a generation of children to the beautiful game.

Under the 35,000 square feet of red, artificial turf and the site-mandated rubber-soled shoes, however, lurked a hidden danger. The basement had housed an Army National Guard indoor firing range, or IFR, for decades. Each time a citizen-soldier fired a rifle or pistol, it emitted an extremely dangerous form of lead: toxic dust that research shows is frequently tracked around armories on soldiers’ clothing and dispersed through ventilation systems.

Exclusive documents obtained by The Intercept show that the Army National Guard knowingly endangered the health and safety of soldiers and civilians at armories — also known as readiness centers — across three, and possibly 53, states and territories. A Soccer Coliseum director told The Intercept that he was never informed about a potential source of lead contamination in the basement below the playing fields.

The soccer fields at the Teaneck Armory in early 2024. Photo: Nick Turse for The Intercept

Despite being aware of the public health threat posed by lead-contaminated indoor firing ranges, the Army National Guard “didn’t take required action to remediate lead hazards from readiness centers with IFRs,” according to a 2020 Army audit of more than 130 armories that was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. “ARNG, States, and territories potentially put Soldiers and family members health at risk from lead exposure.”

At least 600 and possibly more than 1,300 National Guard indoor firing ranges may still pose a threat.

An investigation by The Intercept finds that nearly 50 years after the U.S. government sounded the alarm about the “potential health hazard” of IFRs, almost 40 years after the National Guard admitted most of its indoor ranges were “unsafe,” and more than 25 years after a Pentagon study urged decontamination of National Guard indoor firing ranges due to “lead hazards,” at least 600 and possibly more than 1,300 National Guard IFRs, from coast to coast, may still pose a threat. Additional armories may also be falsely counted as safe; an untold number that have undergone remediation may still pose health risks. But exactly where citizen-soldiers and civilians are most endangered remains a mystery. National Guard officials admit to flawed recordkeeping and say they do not have a ready list of sites that they call “high-risk IFRs.”

“There ought to be congressional action. And the Secretary of the Army should immediately order the clean-up of these 600 sites. They should be cleaned up in a hurry,” said Ruth Ann Norton, a member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee and a leader of Lead-Free NJ, a collaborative focused on addressing lead hazards in the state. “It’s worth the cost, the return on investment, in terms of preventing the health impacts — kidney malfunction, hypertension, stillbirths, miscarriages, cardiac issues, neurological dysfunction — not to mention the moral imperative not to put people at risk.”

Teaneck’s Soccer Coliseum is not mentioned by name in the nearly 50-page audit which obscures even the names of the states where the armories are located, but a picture of the enormous facility, with its distinctive red turf, unique windows, and high arching roof, as well as the audit’s description of the site, leaves no doubt. “Soldiers, civilians, and the public had unrestricted access to two centers with three IFRs in State C,” reads the 2020 audit, noting, in understated fashion, that one of those centers in State C — which the Army confirmed is New Jersey — “hosted an indoor soccer league.”

Screenshot
A photo from the 2020 audit of Army National Guard armories. U.S. Army Audit Agency

A National Guard official told The Intercept that their database lists the Teaneck Armory as “cleaned and remediated” according to a November 2019 “final clearance document.” But the 2020 audit states that while New Jersey’s armories with IFRs were remediated from 2017 to 2019, the remediation was done with “a high-pressure power wash system” that is barred “because it may embed lead throughout a readiness center and generate large quantities of hazardous waste.” The audit further revealed that “soldiers and civilians used the basement — a former IFR — as a storage room” and that the room still contained “lead-contaminated sand” from its days as a firing range.

“You can’t take a power-washer and use it to clean a facility. … It’s just going to spew lead everywhere.”

“You can’t take a power-washer and use it to clean a facility. That’s prohibited. It’s just going to spew lead everywhere — and it embeds it in all kinds of places and then it comes back out,” said Maria Doa, the senior director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund who spent more than 30 years at the EPA. “The federal government should know its own regulations and abide by them. Not doing so seems criminal.”

The Intercept spoke to Yas Tambi, a director of the Soccer Coliseum, about the findings of the Army audit. Tambi, who said he has been with the organization for 29 years, could not recall receiving any information from the State of New Jersey, the Army, or the National Guard concerning lead dust or lead abatement, including during 2017 to 2019 when power-wash remediation efforts reportedly took place at the Teaneck Armory. “It wasn’t on my radar. Even if remediation was mentioned, I would think, ‘OK, they’re doing their job,’” said Tambi. “If we heard about any kind of contaminants in the building, we would be the first to complain about it.”

Tambi stressed that, to his knowledge, longtime staff suffered no health effects, and that no complaints had been made by members of the public. “If anyone got sick, I would know,” he told The Intercept.

The Soccer Coliseum referred The Intercept to the New Jersey National Guard for answers to additional questions. “We’ll have a response for you by the end of the day today,” Maj. Amelia Thatcher, a spokesperson for the New Jersey National Guard told The Intercept on Tuesday. After the deadline came and went, Thatcher said her promise of a comment had been “optimistic.”

The Teaneck facility was one of more than 130 armories where the Army National Guard put people at risk, according to the audit. In three states — New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio — National Guard personnel did not properly report whether armories with IFRs were active; restrict public access to sites when lead levels were unknown; or conduct thorough lead abatement, jeopardizing the health and safety of soldiers and civilians. 

“State ARNGs didn’t thoroughly remediate lead hazards from readiness centers with IFRs and certify results before converting IFR space to other uses (such as storage area, classroom, or office space),” reads the September 2020 report, which goes on to note that IFRs that haven’t been remediated — such as those in New Jersey — “pose a significant risk” if public access isn’t restricted. The audit also questioned the efficacy of the ANRG’s ability to manage almost $200 million spent on lead dust abatement measures. Almost four years after the audit’s release, the Army National Guard still has not followed through on the auditors’ recommendation that the director of the National Guard compel personnel in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio to perform the required in-depth evaluations to identify the full extent of lead contamination levels and conduct required remediation at 73 armories with IFRs, according to Matt Ahearn, an Army spokesperson.

“It’s stunning,” said Eve Gartner, director of Crosscutting Toxics Strategies at Earthjustice, a nonprofit that uses the courts to protect the environment and the public’s health. “We’ve known for 100 years that lead is a toxin that has very serious health effects especially for developing fetuses, children, and pregnant women, but we’ve really dropped the ball as a country in truly protecting people from exposure.”

New Jersey Army National Guard Soldiers with the 508th Military Police Company and 143rd Transportation Company are briefed during in-processing and medical screening for state activation at the Teaneck Armory in Teaneck, N.J., March 19, 2020. The New Jersey National Guard has more than 150 members activated to support state and local authorities during the COVID-19 outbreak. Bother the 508th and 143rd will be working with the New Jersey Department of Health and local first responders at a mobile testing facility located at Bergen Community College in Paramus, N.J. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Matt Hecht)
New Jersey Army National Guard Soldiers with the 508th Military Police Company and 143rd Transportation Company at the Teaneck Armory on March 19, 2020. Photo: Master Sgt. Matt Hecht/U.S. Air National Guard/DVIDS

From its opening in 1938, lead dust accumulated in the Teaneck Armory — as it did for decades in readiness centers across America. Whenever a National Guards member pulled a trigger, the bullet’s explosive primer, which ignites the gunpowder, released a tiny amount of lead; additional lead then flaked off as the bullet raced down the weapon’s barrel; and still more was released after it tore through its target, slammed into a backdrop, and fell into a sand pit. Across the U.S., this toxic dust was tracked into armories’ common areas on shooters’ clothing and was sucked into ventilation systems and spread throughout facilities.

There is no known safe level of lead exposure according to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A heavy metal that is highly toxic when ingested or inhaled, lead is particularly dangerous to children and causes permanent damage to the brain and nervous system, resulting in stunted mental and physical growth. Even low levels of lead in the blood can reduce a child’s ability to concentrate and negatively impact academic achievement. Damage caused by lead poisoning is irreversible.

In adults, lead exposure increases the risk of high blood pressure, cardiovascular problems, and kidney damage. Pregnant women exposed to high levels of lead are more likely to suffer miscarriages and stillbirths. According to a 2023 Lancet study, worldwide lead exposures may have contributed to 5.5 million adult cardiovascular disease deaths and 765 million lost IQ points among children under 5, in just one year.

The danger of lead, especially to children, was becoming clear in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and several European countries banned or restricted the use of lead paint. Concerns over the toxicity of leaded gasoline were raised in the 1920s. But the U.S. would not ban lead paint until 1978, and leaded gas was not completely phased out until 1996. 

Related

Newark’s Lead Crisis Isn’t Over: “People Are Still Drinking Water That They Shouldn’t”

Ignoring lead hazards has been a reoccurring theme in America. And over the last several decades, hidden dangers of lead have been revealed in myriad contexts, including in hundreds of neighborhoods around the U.S. where lead factories, known as smelters, once stood; in drinking water from lead pipes in places like Flint, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey; and in paint found in an estimated 29 million older homes.

The hazards of lead-contaminated shooting ranges have been studied since the 1940s, and in the early 1970s, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted surveys of IFRs — most of them in basements or sub-basements similar to those in Teaneck and other armories — and discovered “a potential health hazard due to inorganic lead exposure existed at each range.” In 1979, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration finally established standards for airborne lead exposure in the workplace, including indoor firing ranges.

Since then, 45 years of official reports, media investigations, and failures to act have followed. In the 1980s, National Guard requests for funds to upgrade indoor firing ranges were met with rejections from the Army for failing to specify which IFRs were selected for renovation. 

In the 1990s, the Defense Department’s inspector general investigated indoor firing ranges at National Guard and Army Reserve facilities and found hazardous levels of lead dust in 12 armories, noting that a number had converted firing ranges into storage and office space without decontaminating them. As a result, all ARNG indoor ranges were mandated to “fully comply” with health and safety standards, with the completion date scheduled for February 2010.

Two contractors shovel the bullet catcher material that lies in the "hot zone" behind the targets in the TSC Benelux 25-meter indoor firing range, in order to sort the rubber material from the bullets, in Chièvres, Belgium, May 12, 2015. In accordance with the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Europe Sustainable Range Program, the Training Support Center Benelux 25-meter indoor firing range is regularly maintained, the bullet catcher is cleaned of the bullets, and all lead, contaminated debris and hazardous material are safely disposed of. (U.S. Army photo by Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/Released)
Two contractors shovel the bullet catcher material that lies in the “hot zone” behind the targets at an indoor firing range in Belgium on May 2015. Photo: Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/U.S. Army/DVIDS

In 2016, an investigation by The Oregonian, based on tens of thousands of pages of official records from 41 states, found that hundreds of armories were still contaminated with dangerous amounts of lead dust.

In 2015 and 2016, the Army National Guard directed all 54 states and territories to report on the operational status of readiness centers with IFRs, determine remediation requirements, restrict public access, and fully remediate all lead dust contamination by the end of 2022. All IFRs were shut down, according to National Guard Bureau spokesperson Paul Swiergosz, with about 1,300 identified as “needing remediation.”

Congress also stepped in. “Nearly 20 years after a military audit urged a cleanup nationwide, the lawmakers said it’s time to make the nation’s armories safe,” reads a 2017 press release from 10 senators who called for lead remediation in National Guard armories. 

But when the Army Audit Agency investigated readiness centers from 2018 to 2020, it found the same systemic problems that had persisted for decades. The audit discovered that in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio, 73 of 83 IFRs — nearly 90 percent of those analyzed — were not thoroughly remediated and the required in-depth lead evaluations were not conducted. Those 73 armories with IFRs also didn’t restrict public access when lead levels were unknown.

North Carolina performed “routine housekeeping cleaning” of its 29 IFRs but not the areas outside of ranges where personnel may have tracked lead. It also failed to remediate lead from bullet traps, vents, and heating and ventilation systems. Ohio focused its lead dust remediation efforts on its 24 IFRs but neglected the rest of those facilities. Its armories did not clean or replace the heating and ventilation systems, and the audit found it was “likely that lead contaminants spread throughout the center when the system was operating.” A different 2020 audit, this one by New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, noted that while New York IFRs had not been used in more than 20 years, decades of accumulated lead dust had been tracked around armories on soldiers’ shoes; dispersed through the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; and spread by weapons cleaning, maintenance, and storage.

In 2015 and 2016, 35 of 42 New York armories were found to have excessive levels of lead dust on surfaces. As part of the 2020 audit, investigators visited 12 armories that were undergoing remediation and found lead levels still exceeded the acceptable threshold at four of them: Manhattan’s Park Avenue Armory, which houses an arts institution and a women’s homeless shelter; the Jamaica Armory in Queens, also home to a women’s shelter; the Saratoga Armory, which contains a museum; and Manhattan’s Harlem Armory, home to the Harlem Children’s Zone, whose youth programs include “Parent and Me gymnastics for toddlers” as well as basketball, dance, and soccer.

A contractor shows the bullets and rubber that he cleaned in the Training Support Center Benelux 25-meter indoor firing range, on Chièvres Air Base, Belgium, Dec. 6, 2017. In accordance with the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Europe Sustainable Range Program, the TSC Benelux 25-meter indoor firing range is regularly maintained, bullets are removed from the bullet catcher, and all lead, contaminated debris and hazardous material are safely disposed. (U.S. Army photo by Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie)
Bullets and rubber cleaned from an indoor firing range on Chièvres Air Base in Belgium on Dec. 6, 2017. Photo: Visual Information Specialist Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie/U.S. Army/DVIDS

Despite assurances by New York State’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs that it had posted warnings (“Danger — Lead Hazard Area” and “Pregnant Women Not Permitted”), the comptroller’s office found no such signage at any of the four armories with dangerously high lead levels. “None of these armories disclosed these excessive lead levels to the public and this is unacceptable,” said Stephen Lynch, New York’s assistant comptroller for state government accountability who spent a combined 30 years in military service, including the Army Reserve and National Guard. “There needs to be improved oversight.” 

Lynch’s personal experience highlights the risk to current Guard troops as well as the plight of generations of veterans and former members of the Guard and Reserve who were exposed to toxic lead dust in armories. Toward the end of his service, while drilling in an New York armory, Lynch saw a memo directing that no civilians or pregnant women should enter the facility because of lead contamination. “It was,” he said, “concerning for many reasons and begs the question, ‘What about military members or civilians working or training at the armory?’”

The fallout of exposure to toxic lead dust to millions of military personnel across parts of three centuries has been mostly overlooked.

The number of military personnel and citizen-soldiers potentially exposed to lead dust in armories since the 19th century is astronomical. By the early 1900s, a significant percentage of “organized militia” in various states were using “indoor target galleries.” And since 1916, all Guard units have been required to “assemble for drill and instruction, including indoor target practice, not less than forty-eight times each year.” That year, there were 132,194 members of the Guard and militia. By the 1950s and 1960s, the average number of Guard members had ballooned to more than 360,000, and even off-duty marksmanship training at indoor ranges was being officially encouraged. By 1988, there were 455,182 Guard members, and between 1990 and 2023, alone, more than 2.8 million military veterans served in the National Guard or Reserve. The fallout of exposure to toxic lead dust to millions of military personnel across parts of three centuries has, however, been mostly overlooked.

Doa, a top official in the EPA’s Science Policy Division until 2021, said that the threat posed by lead has long been given short shrift. “Lead does such horrible things to people and — I saw this when I was working on lead at EPA — it just was not taken as seriously as it needed to be,” she said.

“The Army National Guard should go in and clean up these facilities following best practices for abatement. They should get down to EPA’s more protective proposed lead dust standards,” Doa told The Intercept, referring to changes which would classify any level of lead dust greater than zero as a hazard.

Since New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio didn’t conduct the necessary lead dust remediation, it was, according to the Army audit, “highly likely that other states and territories may have done the same,” and the problem “likely exists ARNG-wide.” There is good reason to believe it. 

The Intercept requested the status of 27 armories. The National Guard provided information on 13 and failed to locate two in their database. The Guard refused to search for information for 12 other armories because it was “taking up too much bandwidth of the environmental team,” according to Swiergosz, the National Guard spokesperson. He instead recommended filing Freedom of Information Act requests for the documents. The Intercept is still waiting on remediation documents requested via FOIA in 2023. 

The Intercept found discrepancies in the National Guard’s own data, resulting in the continued use of facilities that may still be contaminated with lead dust.

In New Hampshire, the Manchester armory’s IFR has been “closed” but has not been remediated, according to the National Guard. The armory has continued to host military personnel and civilians. In February, the facility was packed with National Guard members returning from the Middle East as well as their families, including a sizable contingent of children, according to photos published in Stars and Stripes.

New Hampshire Guardsmen reunite with friends and family at a 3-197th Field Artillery Regiment welcome home ceremony Feb. 8, 2024, at the Manchester armory in New Hampshire. About 370 Soldiers, including a battery of 84 Guardsmen from Michigan, deployed last spring to the Middle East. The New Hampshire Army National Guard HIMARS (high mobility rocket system) battalion completed a nine-month rotation in support of Operations Spartan Shield and Inherent Resolve. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Charles Johnston)
New Hampshire Guard members reunite with friends and family at a “welcome home” ceremony Feb. 8, 2024, at the armory in Manchester, N.H. Photo: Master Sgt. Charles Johnston/U.S. Air National Guard/DVIDS

The National Guard told The Intercept that according to its national database, known as PRIDE, the armory in Hernando, Mississippi, is listed as “closed,” but the National Guard found no mention of a final clearance document. “Closed” status means an IFR has been shut down and the area certified as having acceptable surface lead levels. The Army audit, however, discovered that ARNG personnel could offer “no assurance” that any of the 797 IFRs listed as closed in PRIDE “met the criteria for being successfully cleaned and converted.” The audit found, for example, an armory in North Carolina that hosted “ARNG family members” had a “fully functioning” IFR littered with bullet fragments but was nonetheless listed as “closed” in PRIDE. 

The armory in Waterbury, Vermont, was cleaned in 2017 and is listed as “closed” in PRIDE. Decommissioned in 2022, it is now the site of a Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Recovery Center; was used this summer as the site of a youth camp for the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian auxiliary to the U.S. Air Force, hosting about 75 tweens and teens; and has also been talked about as a future homeless shelter. The IFR at an armory in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, was listed as having been “cleaned, tested, and closed in 2017” in PRIDE, but the National Guard offered no additional information about remediation or a final clearance document. Last December, the armory hosted a Toys for Tots event

ARNG personnel could offer “no assurance” that any of the 797 indoor firing ranges listed as closed in PRIDE “met the criteria for being successfully cleaned and converted.”

The Army Audit included 12 recommendations, including that armories in the states examined perform evaluations to identify the extent of lead contamination and that the ARNG ensure the accuracy of its database. Ahearn, the Army spokesperson, told The Intercept the critical recommendation that the states perform the required evaluations and IFR lead dust remediation efforts in accordance with ARNG guidance has not been met, although 11 other recommendations had. The Army National Guard’s ability to verify its compliance is, however, questionable. 

The National Guard press office told The Intercept that “it is impractical for ARNG to travel to each site to verify completion” of remediation projects and that the Guard instead relied on self-reported data entered into the PRIDE database by the 54 individual states and territories.

Two sources within the ANRG, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that even basic information about lead abatement in armories was inconsistently tracked and stored — one of the 11 issues supposedly addressed following the 2020 Army audit. Both expressed skepticism that lead contamination data was accurate. Swiergosz admitted as much in an email, noting that while he was no expert, it appeared “there are inconsistencies in how the data is entered into the database.” (He declared this was “off the record,” apparently without realizing that this stipulation is not achieved by unilateral decree.) These findings echo the Army audit which discovered proper documentation was often missing and basic information was lacking. “The data wasn’t complete or accurate,” the auditors wrote of PRIDE. “We couldn’t validate the reliability of facility and IFR data.” 

“We have laws and rules about lead in residences but much less so when it comes to public buildings.”

Experts say that the Army must provide definitive answers about the safety of armories and concrete proof of remediation. “Our laws are very under-protective,” said Earthjustice’s Gartner. “We have laws and rules about lead in residences but much less so when it comes to public buildings — even more so when it comes to a hybrid military and public facility.”

The Army National Guard said it had “addressed” lead threats at around 710 IFRs, as of December 2023. These sites have been “repurposed” and are now “no longer a threat.” Swiergosz told The Intercept that the Army and the National Guard prioritized “high-risk IFRs” and, since 2017, allocated $205 million toward those projects. But when asked for a list of such sites, Swiergosz said they “really don’t track sites that way” and could not provide it nor an inventory of remediated armories.  

In 2019, the PRIDE database listed 1,324 IFRs and 2,911 total armories, but investigators wrote that “ARNG personnel couldn’t tell us if IFRs existed at the remaining 1,587 centers.” The Army audit found that four states over- or under-counted a total of six IFRs and the operational status of another 25 was inaccurate in PRIDE. The auditors also identified one state, which was not in their review, that failed to report any IFRs in the PRIDE database but nonetheless conducted 29 lead remediation projects.

Remediation is also no guarantee of safety. New York’s Whitestone Armory began serving as a community center in the 1980s and, by the early 2000s, was offering programs for children and seniors, including aerobics, arts and crafts classes, basketball, and line dancingInformation from the New York State Comptroller’s Office shows a $1.6 million contract, mostly for “lead mitigation” at the site, was awarded in 2017 and ran until 2020. The next year, however, New York’s Army National Guard informed the state’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs of excessive lead levels there. It was the same for the Orangeburg and Staten Island armories which were remediated under contracts issued in the late 2010s but were also, the comptroller’s office told The Intercept, found to have unacceptably high lead levels in 2021.

“It is a known problem that armories across the country have been found to be contaminated with high levels of lead,” DiNapoli told The Intercept, noting that while New York’s Division of Military and Naval Affairs had taken steps to remediate the lead hazards, more was needed. “If testing is not done consistently and safety standards are not enforced, then unsafe levels of lead could have serious health effects on people using armory facilities.”

While some National Guard armories became community centers decades into their existence, the Teaneck, New Jersey, site was never intended to be a purely military facility.

As its basement began accumulating toxic dust, the Teaneck Armory became, according to the Bergen Record, the “Madison Square Garden of Bergen County.” Beginning in 1938, spectators crowded in to watch amateur boxing and, over the ensuing decades, dog shows, bingo, roller derby, professional wrestling, professional tennis, a rodeo, the crusade of evangelist Billy Graham, performances by entertainers from Frank Sinatra to the Ronettes, and a speech by then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy. In the 1960s, the armory even briefly became the home of the New Jersey Americans of the American Basketball Association. (Today, they are the National Basketball Association’s Brooklyn Nets.) The armory eventually became a movie soundstage for films like the Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan romantic comedy “You’ve Got Mail” before becoming home to the Soccer Coliseum.

One morning earlier this year, girls from NJ Crush Football Club, New York City Football Club, and other teams sprinted back and forth on the Soccer Coliseum’s red turf. As the hours evaporated, goals added up and wins and losses mounted. In the stands, players’ younger siblings climbed over the folding seats, sat transfixed in front of iPads, or wolfed down baggies of snacks.      

For years, scenes like this have played out weekend after weekend, adding to the hundreds of thousands of people — soldiers and civilians, children and adults — who have visited the armory over its long tenure as a sports arena, concert hall, and community hub. Much the same can be said for other National Guard armories from coast to coast that have opened their doors to members of their local communities. The number of those potentially exposed to lead dust over more than a century is staggering — and so are the potential costs.

“Lead poisoning doesn’t stop when a child turns 6, the risks continue: kidney impacts, hypertension, cardiac arrest, and a 46 percent increase in early mortality,” said Lead-Free NJ’s Norton, the architect of the State of Maryland’s effort to reduce childhood lead poisoning. “But this is so fixable. It’s just a question of whether we make the moral and political choice to fix it.”

The post The National Guard Knows Its Armories Have Dangerous Lead Contamination, Putting Kids and Soldiers At Risk appeared first on The Intercept.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

PITTSBURGH — Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro ran on a promise to regulate Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry more stringently. Two years into his term, the Environmental Health Project, a public health advocacy nonprofit focused on fracking, has published a report that assesses the Shapiro administration’s progress. “Despite some steps in the right direction, we are still missing the boat on actions that can improve our economic, environmental, and health outcomes,” Alison L. Steele, executive director of the Environmental Health Project, said during a press conference. As attorney general, Shapiro spearheaded a 2020 grand jury report that concluded, in his words, that “when it comes to fracking, Pennsylvania failed” in its “duty to set, and enforce, ground rules that protect public health and safety.” During his campaign for governor in 2022, Shapiro said that if elected, he would implement the eight recommendations made by that grand jury, which included expanding no-drill zones from 500 to 2,500 feet from homes, requiring fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in wells before they’re drilled, and providing a “comprehensive health response” to the effects of living near fracking sites, among other measures. Some progress has been made on enacting those recommendations, Steele said, but “there are more opportunities available to Gov. Shapiro over the next two years of his term.” The report applauds the Shapiro administration’s progress on some environmental health measures “despite increasing challenges at the federal level,” including identifying and plugging 300 abandoned oil and gas wells, promoting renewable energy projects, and proposing alternatives to the state’s stalled participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). But the report also says the Shapiro administration has fallen short on regulating the oil and gas industry to reduce health risks, prioritizing clean energy that doesn’t include fossil fuels, and fully supporting a just transition to renewable energy.The Shapiro administration has yet to expand no-drill zones in Pennsylvania from the required 500 feet to 2,500 feet, still doesn’t require fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in fracking, and has failed to acknowledge the science on health risks of exposure to shale gas pollution, according to the report. The report also says that, despite positive efforts to advance environmental justice, agencies like the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Department of Environmental Protection are not engaging enough with frontline communities and health care providers in fracking communities, and that the Department of Environmental Protection needs additional funding to enforce existing environmental regulations. While the Shapiro administration was able to obtain a 14% increase in funding for the Department of Environmental Protection in the 2024-2025 budget, “the bulk of the 2024-2025 funding was earmarked for staff in the permitting division, not the enforcement division, where a real regulatory need exists,” according to the report. Shapiro called for an additional 12% increase in funding for the agency in the 2025-2026 budget, but details about how those funds would be allocated have not yet been released. The report makes the following recommendations for the Shapiro administration: Urge the General Assembly to amend Act 13 and mandate greater distances between homes, schools, hospitals, and fracking sites.Press the legislature to require full disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking wells, even if they are considered proprietary or a trade secret.Develop a comprehensive health plan for preventing fossil fuel pollution exposureAddress cumulative emissions when permitting fracking sites.Further increase funding for the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health.Call on the state’s departments of health and environmental protection to work more closely and transparently with communities.Take a precautionary approach to petrochemicals, blue hydrogen, and liquified natural gas.Transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable forms of energy. Steele acknowledged that some of the recommendations, including increasing the distance between wells and homes, would require new legislation. The Republican-controlled state senate vocally opposes any new regulations for the oil and gas industry, limiting what the Shapiro administration can achieve. “In those cases,” Steele said, “he could at least use his authority to vocally encourage legislative action.” Pennsylvania state Rep. Dr. Arvind Venkat, an emergency physician who represents parts of western Pennsylvania, said these recommendations are timely as federal environmental protections are being rolled back under the Trump administration. “What we're seeing out of DC is as extreme an attack on environmental regulation and the scientific understanding of the relationship between the environment and health as I've seen in my lifetime,”Venkat said during the press conference. “Both parties are pushing more things down to the state and local level, so as bad as this is…it creates an opportunity for us to be far more responsible than we have been at the state level.”Editor’s note: The Environmental Health Project and Environmental Health News both receive funding from the Heinz Endowments.

PITTSBURGH — Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro ran on a promise to regulate Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry more stringently. Two years into his term, the Environmental Health Project, a public health advocacy nonprofit focused on fracking, has published a report that assesses the Shapiro administration’s progress. “Despite some steps in the right direction, we are still missing the boat on actions that can improve our economic, environmental, and health outcomes,” Alison L. Steele, executive director of the Environmental Health Project, said during a press conference. As attorney general, Shapiro spearheaded a 2020 grand jury report that concluded, in his words, that “when it comes to fracking, Pennsylvania failed” in its “duty to set, and enforce, ground rules that protect public health and safety.” During his campaign for governor in 2022, Shapiro said that if elected, he would implement the eight recommendations made by that grand jury, which included expanding no-drill zones from 500 to 2,500 feet from homes, requiring fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in wells before they’re drilled, and providing a “comprehensive health response” to the effects of living near fracking sites, among other measures. Some progress has been made on enacting those recommendations, Steele said, but “there are more opportunities available to Gov. Shapiro over the next two years of his term.” The report applauds the Shapiro administration’s progress on some environmental health measures “despite increasing challenges at the federal level,” including identifying and plugging 300 abandoned oil and gas wells, promoting renewable energy projects, and proposing alternatives to the state’s stalled participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). But the report also says the Shapiro administration has fallen short on regulating the oil and gas industry to reduce health risks, prioritizing clean energy that doesn’t include fossil fuels, and fully supporting a just transition to renewable energy.The Shapiro administration has yet to expand no-drill zones in Pennsylvania from the required 500 feet to 2,500 feet, still doesn’t require fracking companies to publicly disclose all chemicals used in fracking, and has failed to acknowledge the science on health risks of exposure to shale gas pollution, according to the report. The report also says that, despite positive efforts to advance environmental justice, agencies like the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Department of Environmental Protection are not engaging enough with frontline communities and health care providers in fracking communities, and that the Department of Environmental Protection needs additional funding to enforce existing environmental regulations. While the Shapiro administration was able to obtain a 14% increase in funding for the Department of Environmental Protection in the 2024-2025 budget, “the bulk of the 2024-2025 funding was earmarked for staff in the permitting division, not the enforcement division, where a real regulatory need exists,” according to the report. Shapiro called for an additional 12% increase in funding for the agency in the 2025-2026 budget, but details about how those funds would be allocated have not yet been released. The report makes the following recommendations for the Shapiro administration: Urge the General Assembly to amend Act 13 and mandate greater distances between homes, schools, hospitals, and fracking sites.Press the legislature to require full disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking wells, even if they are considered proprietary or a trade secret.Develop a comprehensive health plan for preventing fossil fuel pollution exposureAddress cumulative emissions when permitting fracking sites.Further increase funding for the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health.Call on the state’s departments of health and environmental protection to work more closely and transparently with communities.Take a precautionary approach to petrochemicals, blue hydrogen, and liquified natural gas.Transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable forms of energy. Steele acknowledged that some of the recommendations, including increasing the distance between wells and homes, would require new legislation. The Republican-controlled state senate vocally opposes any new regulations for the oil and gas industry, limiting what the Shapiro administration can achieve. “In those cases,” Steele said, “he could at least use his authority to vocally encourage legislative action.” Pennsylvania state Rep. Dr. Arvind Venkat, an emergency physician who represents parts of western Pennsylvania, said these recommendations are timely as federal environmental protections are being rolled back under the Trump administration. “What we're seeing out of DC is as extreme an attack on environmental regulation and the scientific understanding of the relationship between the environment and health as I've seen in my lifetime,”Venkat said during the press conference. “Both parties are pushing more things down to the state and local level, so as bad as this is…it creates an opportunity for us to be far more responsible than we have been at the state level.”Editor’s note: The Environmental Health Project and Environmental Health News both receive funding from the Heinz Endowments.

Alcohol makes male fruit flies more attractive

Alcohol increases the release of chemical sex signals and makes males more attractive to females.

Male fruit flies that drink alcohol become more attractive to females, according to a new study.Adding alcohol to males' food increases their release of chemicals that attract females and leads to higher mating success. Fruit flies, or Drosophila melanogaster, are often found around our food waste bins as they feed on rotting fruit which gradually produces alcohol.Scientists have been trying to study why they are attracted to alcohol and how it affects them.Previous research has studied different theories about this attraction, such as the flies were seeking a euphoric state or a substitute for the high of mating among males rejected by females.Study author Bill Hansson, head of the Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology at the Max Planck Institute, said such research has taken an anthropomorphic view of fly behaviour, whereas this latest study suggests drinking alcohol gives the flies a reproductive advantage."We don't think flies drink alcohol because they are depressed," he said.The fly's attraction both to the carbohydrates and yeast in rotting fruit, as well as to the alcohol, cannot be separated, he added.In the study, alcohol, and particularly methanol, increased the males' production and release of chemical sex signals, called pheromones, which made them more attractive to females.Pheromones are released into the air from one individual to influence the behaviour of another animal of the same species.Males were therefore strongly attracted to alcohol, especially those males which had never mated.The new study also showed that the fly's response to smelling alcohol is controlled by three different neural circuits in its brain.While two are responsible for attracting male flies to small amounts of alcohol, a third ensures that excessive amounts have a deterrent effect. Because alcohol is toxic, the fly's brain must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of drinking it, and it does this by balancing signals of attraction with aversion."This means that the flies have a control mechanism that allows them to get all the benefits of alcohol consumption without risking alcohol intoxication," lead author Ian Keesey, of the University of Nebraska, said. For their investigations, the researchers combined physiological studies - such as imaging techniques to visualise processes in the fly brain, chemical analyses of environmental odours, and behavioural studies. The paper is published in the journal Science Advances.

Oregon moves to regulate harmful ‘forever chemicals’

The state Department of Environmental Quality is adding six PFAS to Oregon's list of more than 800 regulated contaminants.

Oregon’s list of regulated hazardous substances is getting its first update in nearly two decades with the addition of six “forever chemicals” known to harm human health.The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on Tuesday announced it would add six perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to the state’s list of more than 800 regulated contaminants and begin creating regulations to limit Oregonians’ exposure to them.“We need this rulemaking to hold parties responsible for contamination and to address that contamination,” said Sarah Van Glubt, a manager in DEQ’s environmental cleanup program who is leading the rulemaking. “Otherwise, right now, everything is voluntary. We can’t require parties to test and treat for these chemicals.”The Environmental Quality Commission is expected to vote on adding the chemicals to the state’s list and adopting new regulations on or after May 21.PFAS are human-made chemical chains used in products such as flame retardants, nonstick cookware and waterproof clothing that do not break down or go away naturally but instead have for decades leached into rivers and streams and contaminated soil, water and even air.They are thought to now be in the blood of everyone in the U.S., according to research and testing from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and can lead to increased risks for cancers, heart damage, high cholesterol and birth defects, among other adverse health effects.Suspected sources of past or ongoing PFAS pollution in Oregon include 139 commercial airports that are or were required to maintain PFAS-containing firefighting foam on site, as well as 18 municipal fire training facilities near 20 of the most populous cities in the state, according to rulemaking documents from DEQ.Officials at Portland International Airport began testing for PFAS in 2017 in and around a firefighter training ground there used by the Air National Guard. They identified PFAS contamination adjacent to the nearby Columbia Slough and found PFAS-impaired fish and aquatic species. They’ve since switched to using PFAS-free firefighting foam and have begun initial stages of cleanup.Oregon lawmakers are considering a bill — Senate Bill 91 — that would ban PFAS from firefighting foam used on the ground by firefighters. The Oregon Senate voted to pass the bill nearly unanimously in February, but a vote in the House has not yet been scheduled.Other sites to potentially test for PFAS contamination include 22 bulk fuel facilities and 93 metal plating facilities in Oregon.In 2024, the U.S. Envionmental Protection Agency added several PFAS to the federal list of regulated hazardous substances, and mandated states begin testing for them in drinking water systems.The Oregon Health Authority has identified PFAS in 35 Oregon public drinking water systems, with 24 of those exceeding the EPA’s new drinking water standards for the compounds. The state has until April 2026 to adopt the federal agency’s new PFAS standards and public water systems have until April 2029 to comply with those standards.DEQ’s new regulations would apply to PFAS pollution in rivers, lakes, soil and groundwater but would not address potential contamination released through the air, such as when biosolids and sewage sludge containing PFAS are burned, releasing PFAS into the air, or potential PFAS contamination from those biosolids being spread on farm fields as fertilizer.Biosolids filtered from Portland’s sewer and wastewater get heated and dried out in anaerobic digesters and sent to farms in eastern Oregon as fertilizer. The department doesn’t test those biosolids, which likely contain PFAS.Department spokesman Antony Sparrow said the EPA is developing a risk assessment for sewage sludge that will inform future state regulations.Van Glubt said the department is working on a strategic plan that would combine the work of DEQ’s air, water, biosolids and other teams, as well as work being done at other agencies, to deal with ongoing PFAS issues.“This rule making really is just addressing one piece of the puzzle,” she said. “There are other issues at play with PFAS that will need to be addressed.”Oregon’s hazardous substances list was last updated in 2006, when environmental regulators added methane to the list.Participate in the rulemaking: Email comments to PFAS2025@deq.oregon.gov. Join a public hearing on April 22 at 11 a.m. here or 6 p.m. here-- Alex Baumhardt, Oregon Capital ChronicleThe Oregon Capital Chronicle, founded in 2021, is a nonprofit news organization that focuses on Oregon state government, politics and policy.

Dow Wants to Power Its Texas Manufacturing Complex With New Nuclear Reactors Instead of Natural Gas

Dow, a major producer of chemicals and plastics, wants to use next-generation nuclear reactors for clean power and steam at a Texas manufacturing complex instead of natural gas

Dow, a major producer of chemicals and plastics, wants to use next-generation nuclear reactors for clean power and steam at a Texas manufacturing complex instead of natural gas.Dow's subsidiary, Long Mott Energy, applied Monday to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction permit. It said the project with X-energy, an advanced nuclear reactor and fuel company, would nearly eliminate the emissions associated with power and steam generation at its plant in Seadrift, Texas, avoiding roughly 500,000 metric tons of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions annually.If built and operated as planned, it would be the first U.S. commercial advanced nuclear power plant for an industrial site, according to the NRC.For many, nuclear power is emerging as an answer to meet a soaring demand for electricity nationwide, driven by the expansion of data centers and artificial intelligence, manufacturing and electrification, and to stave off the worst effects of a warming planet. However, there are safety and security concerns, the Union of Concerned Scientists cautions. The question of how to store hazardous nuclear waste in the U.S. is unresolved, too.Dow wants four of X-energy's advanced small modular reactors, the Xe-100. Combined, those could supply up to 320 megawatts of electricity or 800 megawatts of thermal power. X-energy CEO J. Clay Sell said the project would demonstrate how new nuclear technology can meet the massive growth in electricity demand.The Seadrift manufacturing complex, at about 4,700 acres, has eight production plants owned by Dow and one owned by Braskem. There, Dow makes plastics for a variety of uses including food and beverage packaging and wire and cable insulation, as well as glycols for antifreeze, polyester fabrics and bottles, and oxide derivatives for health and beauty products.Edward Stones, the business vice president of energy and climate at Dow, said submitting the permit application is an important next step in expanding access to safe, clean, reliable, cost-competitive nuclear energy in the United States. The project is supported by the Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.The NRC expects the review to take three years or less. If a permit is issued, construction could begin at the end of this decade so the reactors would be ready early in the 2030s, as the natural gas-fired equipment is retired.A total of four applicants have asked the NRC for construction permits for advanced nuclear reactors. The NRC issued a permit to Abilene Christian University for a research reactor and to Kairos Power for one reactor and two reactor test versions of that company's design. It's reviewing an application by Bill Gates and his energy company, TerraPower, to build an advanced reactor in Wyoming. X-energy is also collaborating with Amazon to bring more than 5 gigawatts of new nuclear power projects online across the United States by 2039, beginning in Washington state. Amazon and other tech giants have committed to using renewable energy to meet the surging demand from data centers and artificial intelligence and address climate change.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Oil and gas money shapes research, creates ‘echo chamber’ in higher education

Louisiana’s flagship university is looking to partner more closely with petrochemical industries in the state.

Jackson Voss loves his alma mater, Louisiana State University. He appreciates that his undergraduate education was paid for by a program dreamed up by an oil magnate and that he received additional scholarships from ExxonMobil and Shell. But the socially conscious Louisiana native was also aware of what the support of those companies seemed to buy — silence. Voss, who graduated from LSU in Baton Rouge 11 years ago with a degree in political science, says when he attended school there, he didn’t hear discussions of how climate change made Hurricane Katrina worse; why petrochemical plants along the Mississippi River sickened residents of the mostly Black communities around those facilities; or about the devastating and permanent impact of the BP oil spill that happened during Voss’ time at LSU. Voss, now director of climate policy for the New Orleans-based consumer advocacy group, the Alliance for Affordable Energy, says he didn’t hear climate change or “Cancer Alley” openly discussed until he went to the University of Michigan, 1,100 miles away, for graduate school. “It was not a place that was really discussing these issues in the way that should have been discussed at the time,” he said of LSU, where oil wells dotted the campus at least into the 1970s. Any such discussions weren’t taken seriously, he said, and even fellow students were often defensive of the industry.  “The discussions that did happen had to focus on, kind of finding a way to talk about climate without talking about climate,” Voss said, “and it was especially important not to talk about the role that oil and gas played in worsening climate change.” Louisiana State University graduate Jackson Voss attended the Baton Rouge-based school as an undergraduate about a decade ago. Pam Radtke / Floodlight Whether through funding of research projects, the creation of new academic programs focused on energy or, more subtly, through support of everything from opera to football, the oil and gas industry has been shaping discourse at LSU — and universities around the world — for decades. LSU administrators insist they have safeguards against undue influence by fossil fuel companies, which have given tens of millions of dollars to the university in just the past three years. But a joint investigation by Floodlight, WWNO/WRKF and the Louisiana Illuminator found the funding allows the industry to place a thumb on the scale of what gets studied at the state’s flagship university — and what is left out. Research by Floodlight shows between 2010 and 2020, petrochemical companies gave LSU at least $44 million through their charitable foundations, making it one of the top recipients of fossil fuel funding among U.S. universities, based on research from the nonprofit Data for Progress. LSU received more from petrochemical companies than the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and Texas A&M — and 20 times more than Voss’s other alma mater, the University of Michigan. The Data for Progress research showed over that decade, the 27 schools they examined received almost $700 million total. Increasingly, researchers are questioning the longstanding ties between fossil fuels and universities at a time when scientists and governments across the globe overwhelmingly agree that sharply reducing the use of fossil fuels and increasing reliance on renewable energy are crucial to stalling or reversing climate change. Last year, a joint report from Congress found “the oil and gas industry cultivates partnerships with academic institutions as a way to influence climate research.” And a first-of-its-kind study released by researchers last year found the fossil fuel industry’s approach is similar to how the tobacco, pharmaceutical and other industries co-opted academics.  “It’s a situation exactly parallel to public health research being funded by the tobacco industry. It’s a conflict of interest — the size of an oil tanker,” said Geoffrey Supran, associate professor of environmental science and policy who studies fossil fuel disinformation at the University of Miami and is director of its Climate Accountability Lab. He says LSU and other schools like it have become “an echo chamber for pro-fossil-fuel narratives.” LSU and its president, William Tate IV, have doubled down on the university’s ties with the fossil fuel industry in recent years, despite its shrinking importance to the Louisiana economy. Since 2020, Tate has solicited and received more than $30 million from fossil fuel companies, including a record $27.5 million from Shell. During LSU’s Giving Day campaign on Wednesday, Shell plopped down another $1.5 million for LSU libraries and the College of Science. “It’s time for a partnership in significant fashion to link the work at LSU in our energy areas, including alternative energy, and creating ways to keep that industry vibrant here in this state and for our country,” Tate told reporters in 2022, about a year after he was named to head the school.  LSU insists there are firewalls in place to prevent oil and gas companies from unduly influencing research and study. But public records and interviews indicate that fossil fuel funding can have a subtle and even direct impact on research and critical discourse.  “Universities are at risk of being pawns in a climate propaganda scheme devised and implemented by fossil fuel interests for decades,” Supran said.  ‘Tip of the iceberg’ It’s impossible to pin down how much money fossil fuel interests — or any industry — gives to universities such as LSU. Although it is a public institution, much of the money for scholarships, workforce development and buildings goes through LSU’s foundation — a nonprofit separate from the university. The foundation, in accordance with philanthropic standards, does not disclose its donors unless they agree to be identified. In its research, Data for Progress used public announcements from universities and companies, along with tax filings from fossil fuel companies’ foundations, to determine how much the universities received from those companies. “It’s most likely the tip of the iceberg,” said Jake Lowe, executive director of Campus Climate Network, which under its previous name, Fossil Free Research, worked with Data for Progress to create its 2023 report.  Louisiana State University President William Tate IV visits Shell’s facility in Convent, La., in 2023 to talk about his plan to focus on five areas at the university, including energy. Louisiana State University For example, the report includes millions of dollars the ExxonMobil Foundation gives for scholarships — but not the money going directly from the company to a school or its foundation. “If the ExxonMobil corporation has a research contract with LSU, you’re not going to see that in the tax documents or annual reports,” Lowe said. Floodlight, with the help of a Data for Progress researcher, used the same method to look at how much petrochemical money went to LSU. The analysis included examining public announcements from the companies and tax filings, called 990s, of the foundations for Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Entergy, Koch Inc., Southwest Electric Power Corp., Schlumberger (now known as SLB), Dow and Taylor Oil. From 2010 to 2020, Taylor Oil’s foundation gave the most to LSU, almost $21 million.   The second highest amount was from ExxonMobil, which gave more than $10 million — the majority of which came from a matching gift program in which the company gave $3 for every dollar donated by an employee or retiree to a college or university. Louisiana State University’s “Quad” is the heart of the campus and was named after ExxonMobil in 1999. Piper Hutchinson / Louisiana Illuminator But then, in 2022, Shell dwarfed the amount given over the previous decade with a single $27.5 million donation to LSU. The majority, $25 million, was for a new Institute for Energy Innovation to focus on “scholarship and solution delivery” on “hydrogen and carbon capture … the coast; and low-carbon fuels.” Donations buy influence  LSU doesn’t hide that the institute’s mission was shaped in partnership with the industry. In the early days, a former Shell executive, Rhoman Hardy, served as the research center’s interim director. The company also has three of the institute’s seven board seats; industry groups hold another two. Last year, the nonprofit New Orleans news outlet The Lens discovered LSU created a system: If a fossil fuel company gives $50,000 or more to the institute, it gets the right to participate in a specific research project, to use the intellectual property from that project and “robust review and discussion of the specific study and project output.” For a $1.25 million donation, a company also receives “voting rights for selected institute activities, including research.” A contribution of $5 million or more earns a donor a seat on the institute’s board. LSU president William Tate IV poses with LSU mascot Mike the Tiger. Louisiana State University When reached for comment about the institute, its donations and its potential influence, Shell responded, “We’re proud to partner with LSU to contribute to the growing compendium of peer-reviewed climate science and advance the effort to identify multiple pathways and build the ecosystems that can lead to more energy with fewer emissions.” In 2023, ExxonMobil gave $2 million to LSU and became a “strategic” partner. With the donation, ExxonMobil will work with the institute to study batteries, solar power, carbon capture and “advanced” plastics recycling. ExxonMobil did not respond to a request for comment about the donation or about the money it has previously given to LSU. At a Louisiana Board of Regents’ Energy Transition Research Symposium at LSU later that year, ExxonMobil gave a presentation on advanced plastics recycling, a controversial technology that opponents say amounts to greenwashing the problem of plastic waste by burning it rather than reusing it. “It is clear based on the board and research focus areas of the new Institute for Energy Innovation that it is focused squarely on innovations using fossil fuels,” said Logan Atkinson Burke, Voss’ boss at the Alliance for Affordable Energy, an energy consumer advocacy group. Environmentalists say technologies being studied by the institute, including carbon capture, hydrogen and low-carbon fuels, are “false solutions” that will do little to address the climate crisis. ‘Subconscious’ bias?  The institute’s current director, Brad Ives, and LSU’s vice president for research and economic development, Robert Twilley, say they have put safeguards in place to prevent industry influence. And Twilley says this type of research — working hand in hand with industries on the ground — is core to the mission of LSU as a land grant university, a program Abraham Lincoln established in 1862 that used federal land sales to fund universities focused on practical subjects including architecture, engineering and agriculture. “It’s how we as an institution manage it and the safeguards and being very conscious of our ethics, being very conscious of what projects we work on,” Twilley said. He points to federal guidelines, the scientific method and peer review as some of the safeguards that keep the university’s research independent from industry influence. The institute sends its research proposals to an anonymous third-party panel of scientists to be ranked, Twilley says. Those rankings help decide what research it funds. Louisiana State University’s Petroleum Engineering Research & Technology Transfer, or PERTT, Laboratory, is an industrial-scale facility for training and research on borehole technology. According to LSU, it is the only such facility in North America. Louisiana State University Ives says funders aren’t allowed contact with researchers either. “What we’re doing is making sure that the researchers have total academic freedom to let the research take them where it goes,” Ives said. “We know we can sleep at night because we are not doing anything that’s wrong.” But Supran, who once worked on projects funded by oil and gas, says it’s not always as simple as a researcher purposefully skewing results. Scientists are only human, making these relationships inherently fraught. “We’re all subject to biases,” he said. “Things like reciprocation. You know that if I give you a pen, you have some small subconscious desire to reciprocate it in some sense down the line.” For example, one study showed how reviews of the health effects of secondhand smoke funded by the tobacco industry were almost 90 times more likely to conclude that it was not harmful compared to reviews funded by other sources. There’s evidence that the lines between funding and academic independence are sometimes blurred at LSU. Several influential reports and studies from LSU’s Center for Energy Studies have drawn scrutiny over the years for being misleading. In one case, a utility-funded report led to the dismantling of Louisiana’s successful rooftop solar program. In another, a report helped curb efforts to sue oil and gas companies for decades of environmental damage, claiming the lawsuits cost the state more than it would gain. A more recent example was found in public records reviewed by WWNO, including a contract between the Center for Energy Studies and the Bracewell law firm, representing Gulf Coast Sequestration. That company wants to store millions of tons of carbon dioxide underground in southwest Louisiana. It asked the center to use the project as a case study for the economic impact of a carbon capture industry on the Gulf Coast. Climate advocates Corinne Salter and Jill Tupitza, who started a group and podcast called Climate Pelicans, and Cheyenne Autin discuss divestment in fossil fuels in November 2023 at Louisiana State University’s Baton Rouge campus. Tarun Kakarala / The Reveille The contract suggests that some of the report’s conclusions were reached even before the study began. The researchers said they planned to “underscore the transformative nature of CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) on the Louisiana economy.” LSU’s final report ultimately listed all of the financial reasons the Gulf Coast should welcome the projects like this one — while barely mentioning the economic risks, such as the cost and financial viability of  carbon capture facilities. WWNO showed the report to several researchers familiar with sponsored research. All of them shared concerns over the prescriptive nature of the research proposal or the terms of the contract itself. LSU allows research sponsors to give feedback on drafts before they’re published. Sponsors are also allowed to stay anonymous — meaning, the public doesn’t know who funds the research. “It gets a D grade and it’s not quite an F,” Supran said, noting that in this case, the funder was disclosed. “ The fact that this report just touts the economic benefits of this specific company funding the report — it kind of makes you wonder if it’s worth the paper it’s written on.” The report’s authors declined to comment. Twilley defended the contract, saying its terms are standard throughout the university and that researchers are allowed to propose hypotheses.  The contract is not illegal nor does it constitute research misconduct such as using fake data or plagiarizing. But according to one elected official, reports like these, which carry the credibility of a university without the scrutiny of peer review, could influence public policy. “The research plays a significant role in determining whether or not we’re on the right or wrong course,” said Davante Lewis, a public service commissioner in Louisiana. His commission regulates services in Louisiana including the electric utilities. Lewis said he counts on such academic reports to provide a fair and comprehensive picture of an issue. But, as more industry money enters research, he said he was concerned, noting, “Oftentimes we have seen where money drives facts, not facts drive money.” Burnishing their reputations Besides funding LSU’s energy institute, oil and gas interests also pays for things everyone likes, such as health programs, tutoring and even halftime kicking contests with football fans. Supran says he and other researchers have a working theory that while oil and gas companies pour big money into big research institutions such as MIT and Stanford to give them credibility, they spend money at regional universities in states including Louisiana and Texas to build a compliant population. “It doesn’t take a genius to imagine that that money may be used to burnish the reputation locally of those companies and foster a vibrant recruitment pool,” Supran said. Geoffrey Supran, an associate professor at the University of Miami, tells members of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee at a May 1, 2024 hearing that his research has found “widespread infiltration of fossil fuel interests into higher education.” U.S. Senate Budget Committee Voss says the oil and gas industry’s support of benefits for the state are “one of the few things that it actually has right.” On the flip side, he added, “I think it protects the industry from criticism, because it makes people feel like they’re a part of the community.” But the heavy presence of oil and gas on campus can have a chilling effect on people and groups who don’t support those industries. Jill Tupitza, now a marine scientist in California, was a graduate student at LSU when she and fellow graduate student Corinne Salter started Climate Pelicans, an advocacy organization that worked to get LSU to stop investing in fossil fuels. When they started questioning the ties between LSU and fossil fuels, they were met with resistance. “Immediately, doors were shut,” Tupitza said. One administrator told her, “‘I can’t tell you what to do, I can’t punish you for going further. But I would strongly recommend that you stop asking questions about this,’” she recalled. “So that, obviously, that made us double down.” The group led marches and a petition drive urging climate divestment. They started a podcast that explored topics including environmental justice and false climate solutions. Tupitza said the LSU Foundation stonewalled the group’s requests for information about how much money it had invested in fossil fuels and refused requests to attend meetings about the foundation’s $700 million endowment. Later, the foundation told Tupitza that less than 4% of its holdings were invested in fossil fuels And then, while Tupitza and fellow graduate students were writing “Divest from Fossil Fuels,” in pink chalk in front of the foundation building, they were arrested on graffiti charges.  Those charges were eventually dropped. School rules prohibit writing on the sidewalks with chalk, but it is not an arrestable offense. Tupitza described her arrest as “a huge scare tactic.”.  Supran says LSU isn’t unique in its hesitation to cut ties with the oil and gas industry.  “I think it’s fair to say that for the most part, there has not been careful deliberation about the costs and the benefits of these ties, but rather a head down, and aggressive, solicitation of as much funding as they can receive from anyone.” Voss predicts that if conditions worsen in an industry known for its booms and busts, its support for LSU will disappear. And as climate change worsens, it will make it harder for businesses and people to stay in Louisiana, which is already near the top of U.S. states when it comes to population loss.  “In many ways, higher education is sitting upon a house of cards, and relying upon oil and gas is incredibly risky — as it always has been.” Instead, he said, “I think that LSU could and should be a really critical voice in climate change and environmental justice in Louisiana. I do worry that in failing to do so and by being so heavily tied up in oil and gas interests, it actually puts the university in a worse position.” This is Part 2 of a two-part investigative series exploring the relationship between the fossil fuel industry and Louisiana State University. This story was reported by a partnership with WWNO/WRKF, the Louisiana Illuminator and Floodlight. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Oil and gas money shapes research, creates ‘echo chamber’ in higher education on Mar 29, 2025.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.