 |
| Example of a Superfund clean up site. |
The Velsicol Chemical Corp. Superfund site is located in the tiny town of St. Louis, Michigan. From 1936 to 1978, Velsicol primarily produced various chemical compounds, including DDT and PBB. To make matters worse, the main plant site is bordered on three sides by the Pine River, which eventually flows into the Saginaw Bay, a part of Lake Huron. Naturally, the powers that be at Velsicol decided to dispose of their hazardous waste in what was clearly the only logical way: by dumping it into the river. In 1982, the State of Michigan put into effect a no-consumption advisory for all species of fish within the Pine River. Almost 30 years later, it is still in effect.
 |
| Former site of Velsicol Chemical Corp. in 2009. A slurry wall and clay cap were added to the site as part of a 1982 Consent Judgement between the EPA, State of Michigan, and Velsicol. |
The river has been dredged many times, but pollution is still present in the riverbed. According to a 2010 MDEQ report, DDT had migrated into the city's drinking water aquifer. Cleanup is ongoing for this site, and the MDEQ report estimates that another $100 million to $500 million is still needed in order to complete cleanup of the site.
According to the EPA's website, there are 158 federally-recognized Superfund sites throughout the country. This doesn't include the 1,000+ sites deemed to be Superfunds by states themselves. If Roseland's graph is still true today, and Superfunds are the second-highest producers of solid waste, then it makes sense to shift from recycling waste to encouraging the elimination or reduction of waste in the first place.
Thanks for sharing about a topic so close to home, literally. All the millions and millions for clean-up costs make me think, how much money (and/or planning) would be needed to prevent the necessity for Superfund sites? My bet, less money than it costs to clean up the mess after it's made.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I found this great video about St. Louis, MI - very interesting and great visuals... not necessarily for the sensitive stomach (especially if you like cows):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEIlnLeiAn8
Dumping chemicals into the river makes me think of my own hometown: Appleton, Wisconsin. We are part of a cluster of cities located in the Fox River Valley. Though several of the companies have moved away, we are/were considered the paper production capital of the country. Kimberly Clark, Neenah Paper, and SCA, to name a few, grace the shores of the Fox River. Presumably because of the chemicals they have poured into the river, it has been dredged several times and signs everywhere tell you not to eat fish from the river. I also believe it is absolutely no coincidence that we also have one of the highest cancer rates in the country. There seems to at least at one point been a mentality that if you dump your waste in the river, it will magically go away.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing! When you think about rivers they really highlight the importance of large scale policies. Columbus just spent a lot of money to alleviate the issues related to the combined sewer overflows (CSOs). I think residents and officials often think that this solution will help the overall health of the nearby river. In a way it will, but in a way it also doesn't. Many of the water problems in the town you live in are probably associated with what is upstream. The hope can only be that the cities, towns, and property owners upstream will be conscious of what they are dumping for the sake of the people downstream. Sadly, as part of the new system Columbus moved their wastewater treatment plant further downstream. We're sorry, Seymour.
ReplyDeleteThis post is quite frightening! I think at times it is much easier to turn a blind eye to these topics. People need to be aware of the kinds of disasters that can result from uncontrolled, ill-managed or misuse/disposal of hazardous waste. Not only is wildlife effected, but also humans.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested, are people required to drink water only from bottles in surrounding towns? And have any studies been conducted on how this has affected human health in surrounding areas?
I was curious about how Superfund has changed since Love Canal, so I found a GAO study for some facts (http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d09656high.pdf). Overall, Superfund litigation has decreased (as measured by number, duration, and complexity), with the number of cases filed in court decreasing by 50%! Litigation (and related costs) has decreased because fewer sites are being added to the National Priorities List (NPL) and more settlements are being reached prior to filing cases in court. EPA listed more than 400 sites in 1983, but only 20 sites per year, on average, have been added since 1998. Program appropriations are declining while cleanup costs per site are increasing.
ReplyDeleteTwo questions to consider: First, does the trend of fewer sites being listed correlate with fewer instances of contamination/environmental negligence, or is it because the EPA doesn’t have the funding/staff to investigate all of the potentials? Second, is it better that companies are settling out of court to save legal fees for all parties involved, or do these environmental issues warrant the media attention that an all-out courthouse battle would attract? Oh, the complexities of Superfund!
Shocking. Unfortunately, we probably all grew up with a superfund site not so far away. When I lived in Evansville, I was aware our water supply was coming from the Ohio River, subject to whatever transgressions were happening upriver. Occasionally, the intake had to be shut down due to a spill making its way by. So, talk of eliminating the EPA and superfund legislation makes me very nervous. Well done!
ReplyDelete