Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Author: CHEJ Intern

Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

Helping can hurt: Complications and consequences of remediation strategies

Environmental remediation often involves a) moving large amounts of contaminated material from one place to another, b) treating the polluted material with chemical compounds, or c) both. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council says it best in their guideline document on managing risks during remediation: “Investigation and remediation activities have their own set of risks, apart from the risks associated with chemical contamination.” These risks range from spending time and resources on an ineffective remedy, to the chance of causing adverse ecosystem and health impacts through the cleanup process.

[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]

Project risks - from ITRC document

I recently read a report from a site where engineers were pumping methanol into the groundwater to aid in breaking down the compound of interest, TCE. They soon found that their shipment of methanol was contaminated by PCE – another toxic compound with which they were effectively re-polluting their treatment area. Introducing further contamination through remediation may be less common, but dealing with large amounts of polluted material can potentially cause existing contaminants to become more mobile. Especially when remediation projects deal with contaminated sediments, a question of critical importance is whether to remove the offending substance or to leave it in place. Dredging of contaminated sediment underwater must be done very carefully so as to avoid remobilizing contaminants into the water column.  There are surprises, too; sometimes, the EPA says,  “dredging uncovers unexpectedly high concentrations of contaminants beneath surface sediments.”

When contaminated materials are left in place, or before they are removed, the remediation process often involves introducing new chemical compounds to the polluted material. These “additives” help cause reactions that break down toxic chemicals into less toxic forms. However, Lisa Alexander of the Massachusetts Department of the Environment writes that these additives can cause contaminants to migrate into water, or release potentially harmful gases.

[/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]

Gulf Coast cleanup worker - from CNN

The complexities of remediation have been especially apparent in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Dispersants were released to break down oil in the Gulf, but years later the substances are still being found in tar balls washing up on the beach. The combination of oil and the dispersant Corexit has also proven to be more toxic to marine organisms than oil alone. Corexit, encountered primarily by cleanup workers after the tragedy, is also potentially toxic to humans, and its longterm health effects are unknown.

Cleaning up contaminated sites involves taking calculated risks of disrupting or polluting an already-damaged ecosystem. When even our most practiced remediation methods carry with them uncertain outcomes, how can we strike a balance between trying innovative treatment methods for contamination and avoiding unreasonable risk? I’ll explore one case in particular in my next entry: nanomaterials.

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

Categories
Backyard Talk

By: Katie O’Brien


Congratulations New York! The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued their Findings Statement on June 29, 2015, bringing their seven-year review of fracking to an end. This is big news because the state sits on 12 million acres of Marcellus shale. This formation of rock has natural gas reserves that have put states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia on the energy production map. New York is the first state with significant potential to produce major natural-gas resources that has banned fracking.



It wasn’t easy for New York to achieve this ban. Although there are many known and unknown health effects of fracking, the industry yields high profits which allows some people to see a pay raise instead of the threat that stands before them. Energy companies and some local communities fought the ban. Some NY towns even threatened secession. Many people in those communities were hoping to lease their land to energy companies and reap the economic benefits. Some states are even banning fracking bans. In May, both Oklahoma and Texas signed bills that prohibit towns from banning oil and gas operations. According to the National Law Review, Oklahoma’s ban was signed even amid “warning from the state’s own government that a recent dramatic spike in earthquakes is linked to wastewater injection”, which is a main process of fracking. Against all the odds, New York won the right to protect their communities from the aftermath of fracking.

The state of New York reviewed the process and health repercussions of fracking for seven years. New York DEC commissioner Joe Marten said based on the Findings Statement, “prohibiting high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the only reasonable alternative. High-volume hydraulic fracturing poses significant adverse impacts to land, air, water, natural resources and potential significant public health impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated. This decision is consistent with DEC’s mission to conserve, improve and protect our state’s natural resources, and to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state.”

The DEC’s Findings statement is based on a lengthy report about the fracking process that began in 2009. The DEC has been working on the statement since December 2014, when Marten stated that too little was known about the health impacts of fracking to support the ban. The statement concluded that there are no alternatives to the environmental and health risks that fracking causes. Because of this, New York joins Vermont in outlawing the risky practice.

Opponents of the ban are expected to file lawsuits, and although the fracking ban can be rescinded, Earthjustice, the attorneys representing the case, guarantee “to stand alongside the state in any legal challenge”. This is a big win for both the state of New York and the environmental justice community as a whole.

Click here to view the DEC’s full Findings Statement.


Categories
Backyard Talk

The 2000s Really Are a New Era

By: Amelia Meyer
At the beginning of the last century, about 95 years ago, women earned the right to vote. That was a milestone that took effort and dedication. Now, not even a hundred years later, on June 26th, 2015 our nation has given homosexuals the right to get married. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 allowing same sex couples to be married in every state. This is an extremely important part of our social history. Within the past decade, America has elected an African American President, has women running for president, legalized marijuana in a few states, and given homosexuals the right to marriage. All of these achievements are remarkable and really shape our society today and what the future has in store for it. It is really important to stop and realize how different our society is from 50 years, 100 years, or even 20 years ago. One significant part of our progress is social media; it has become a spectacular tool for freedom of expression, connectivity, and publicity that really helps movements like gay rights and climate change. Instead of just protests and calling people one by one, justice movements can be achieved through the internet, social media, blogs, cell phones, protests, and even profile pictures.

This past weekend was full of achievements for gay rights and for our society. We are all one nation and everyone deserves to love and be loved. On Friday there were tears of joy and ecstatic embraces not only outside of the Supreme Court, but around the world. President Obama made a speech on Friday and said “Today, we can say in no uncertain terms, that we have made our union a little more perfect.” Progress is very important in our nation and throughout the world. This ruling is not only important for the gay rights campaign, but it is vital for the stability of our society. The future promises change and improvement. Last week the Pope also openly supported the climate change movement combining the ultimate figure of religion and the most important topic of science today. Also today New York banned hydraulic fracking which is another step forward in climate justice.
Our nation reacted wonderfully throughout the weekend – there were parades around the country supporting the fact that “Love Wins.” Just walking around in different towns and cities, restaurants and stores had signs saying things like “Equality Wins.” Justice has been achieved. As our world progresses, it will be very intriguing to see what other forms of justice we can achieve.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Climate Change is Important, But What About the Rest of Pope Francis’ Message?

By: Rachel Oest

Discussions surrounding Pope Francis’ recent Encyclical, Laudato Si, appear to focus on his discussion of global warming, but it would be a huge mistake to neglect his multiple other points. Global warming, or as he titled it, “climate change” is only part of the first of five major sections dealing with ecological problems. Specifically under reported, is the issue of global inequality. This is the systematic inequalities that exist between countries, allowing for the simultaneous existence of inequalities within counties.
Pope Francis begins by stating he wants “to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home” (paragraph 3). Typically, encyclicals are addressed to bishops and parties of the Church, but Laudato Si calls on everyone, regardless of religion, because we as humans share the responsibility to protect our planet. We inhabit the same land and yet the global market prevails at the expense of the poor and future generations. People have this distorted notion that an increase in profit can solve the world’s problems. But Pope Francis rejects this mind set by noting the true concerns of the income obsessed individuals: increased revenue or the environmental damage they leave behind? Simply put, businesses are not willing to give up thousands of dollars to protect people they don’t know.
Some rely on the idea that new technology will rectify the damage done to the Earth and air. However, technology is created from the interests of certain powerful groups, and products are not neutral in a consumer based world. The encyclical acknowledges the need for developing countries to increase energy production and improve agriculture systems; but, it also recognizes the need for developed countries to help finance innovations in clean energy production. Just because some areas of the world don’t witness first-hand the environmental impact their lifestyles are creating, doesn’t excuse them from the blame. The environmental hardships our world is facing hit the poor first and the hardest by exacerbating their already existing vulnerabilities. This includes the poor’s lack of access to safe drinking water.
Like most people, the Pope claims safe drinking water is a basic and universal human right. However, we see news articles every day about water sources being polluted and groups organizing to fight the corporations that did it. Developed countries are fortunate because they have advanced systems that allow people to get their water from somewhere else if need be. But some developing countries don’t have this luxury. Often poor areas are forced to ingest chemical infused water, sometimes without even realizing it. The encyclical tells us “our world has a grave social debt towards the poor who lack access to drinking water, because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their inalienable dignity” (paragraph 30).
Pope Francis delivered a clear message calling for change. Society needs to reevaluate the way we relate to one another and to the environment in order to create a healthy and safe world. It is important that the public sees Laudato Si as more than a “global-warming encyclical.” It contains a variety of major environmental arguments being hidden behind just a few climate related paragraphs. Climate Change is important, but the problems our world face goes far beyond that.
To read Pope Francis’ Laudato Si please visit:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

Categories
Backyard Talk

The Environmental Injustice of Electronic Waste

By Michelle Atkin

An increasing number of electronic devices continue to escalate the number that are disposed of each year – in 2012 the United States produced 3.4 million tons of electronic waste! Discarded phones, tablets, computers, televisions and even washers, dryers and refrigerators are an enormous problem and only 1 million tons are recycled. Anything disposed of with an electrical component is considered e-waste and the United Nations estimates that 20-50 million tons are produced around the world each year.

The U.S. disposes of 25 million TVs, 47.5 million computers and 100 million cell phones each year. If we recycled this quantity of cell phones alone, 3500 pounds of copper, 77,200 pounds of silver, 7500 pounds of gold and 3300 pounds of palladium could be salvaged.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reports show an increase in recycling from 30.6% in 2012 to 40.4% in 2013, potentially in response to their Sustainable Materials Management Electronics Challenge.

In order to safely process e-waste, it costs a developed nation approximately $2500 per ton; however, some developing countries accept imports for as little as $3 per ton. Unfortunately, they do not have the means to properly handle these materials, yet the United States, Europe, Japan, South Korea and Australia continue to ship e-waste to vulnerable countries.

Public health and environmental concerns stem from open-air burning and acid baths used to recover valuable components from electronic equipment. The most greatly impacted population is children (as young as five to 18), sent by their parents to make a couple of dollars by burning the plastic coatings off copper wires for example, often with their bare hands.

The toxic fumes and dust inhaled during hazardous retrieval and massive plastic scrap yard fires (to reduce volume) contain lead, phthalates and chlorinated dioxins. The poor air quality has a detrimental effect on nearby food markets and deteriorates the water quality of the area rivers, lagoons and even the ocean.

Jim Puckett reminds us, “Wherever we live, we must realize that when we sweep things out of our lives and throw them away… they don’t ever disappear, as we might like to believe. We must know that ‘away’ is in fact a place… likely to be somewhere where people are impoverished, disenfranchised, powerless and too desperate to be able to resist the poison for the realities of their poverty. ‘Away’ is likely to be a place where people and environments will suffer for our carelessness, our ignorance or indifference.” As a founder of the Basal Action Network non-profit, they focus on confronting the global environmental injustice and economic inefficiency of toxic trade and its devastating impacts.

To learn more about the problem of e-waste, visit EPA’s web page here. Or to learn what you can do to help, visit Electronics Take Back Coalition.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Environmental and Public Health Implications of the TPP

By Dylan Lenzen

This past week, the House of Representatives failed to approve a measure that would provide President Obama with “fast-track authority” in negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free-trade agreement between the U.S. and eleven other countries of the pacific-rim including Japan, Vietnam, Australia, Mexico, and Canada among others. The trade agreement has been negotiated in secret for three years, and beyond leaked documents, the American public will likely not be able to view the details of the agreement until after it is approved. While President Obama supports the trade deal, he failed to convince the necessary number of his fellow democrats in order to pass the measure. Many democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have expressed concerns that the deal does not provide adequate protection for American workers. In addition, a number of environmental and consumer-advocacy groups have expressed their opposition to the trade deal for a number of reasons, including threats to the environment and public health.

Particularly alarming are the rights granted to corporations under the “investor-state dispute settlement system”. As a result, multinational corporations would essentially be given the right to sue governments before international tribunals regarding regulations they believe pose a threat to “expected future profits”. In cases where corporations win, the taxpayers of the losing country would be responsible for providing compensation. This has already been observed under past trade agreements such as NAFTA. An example was described by the Sierra Club, in which Lone Pine Resources, an oil and gas corporation, sued the Canadian government for $250 million after a fracking moratorium was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. According to consumer rights advocacy group, Public Citizen, over $3 billion has been paid out to corporations as a result of disputes under past free-trade agreements, a majority being related to environmental and public health regulation. Public Citizen goes on to state, “the mere threat of a case can put pressure on governments to weaken environment and health policies.” These policies represent important protections for the health of communities all over the world.

In addition to the threat posed by the investor-state system, others worry that hydraulic fracturing operations in the U.S. will expand due to increased natural gas exports. Currently, all natural gas exports are subject to analysis by the Department of Energy to ensure that exports do not threaten the interests of the American public. Under the TPP, this authority would be lost and all natural gas export permits would be approved, increasing pressure to expand U.S. fracking operations and infrastructure. This increases the environmental health threats already posed by the industry.

These represent but a small portion of a great number of concerns in regards to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While the capacity of free-trade agreements such as this to promote economic development and job growth is up for debate, it is clear that these agreements pose significant risk to the health of communities and ecosystems around the world.

To find out more about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, please consider the following resources:
http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership
http://www.citizen.org/TPP

Categories
Backyard Talk

Fracking for Environmental Remediation

Most of us are familiar with hydraulic fracturing as a technique used for oil and natural gas drilling. The process uses a slurry of chemicals and sand to prop open rock fissures, allowing the release of fossil fuels. However, natural gas and oil are not the only constituents trapped in rock layers; these layers can also serve as a reservoir for contaminants. At Superfund sites and other polluted areas, the process of remediation, or cleanup, can be extended and expensive. Hydraulic fracturing has been utilized as an environmental cleanup method, where the same process is used to release trapped contaminants in rock layers. The EPA provides information on the process at

http://cluin.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Environmental_Fracturing/cat/Overview/

In fracking for environmental remediation just as in fracking for oil and gas drilling, a slurry of chemicals is pumped into the ground, typically containing a combination of water, sand to prop open fissures, detergent, and nutrients/amendments which stimulate the process of chemical breakdown. According to the EPA, “Environmental fracturing can be used to make primary treatment technologies…more efficient.” By enhancing the access of chemicals for pollution treatment to the rock layers where the pollutants are trapped, fracking has the possibility to decrease treatment times at polluted sites.

Fracking for fossil fuel extraction – specifically, horizontal drilling which uses a very large volume of chemicals- has been faulted for a number of high-profile instances of water contamination. When the process fails, the stakes are high for communities whose water supplies are in proximity to fracking wells. Through environmental hydraulic fracturing is intended to clean up already-polluted sites, the parallels between this process and fracking for natural gas are difficult to ignore. Is it possible for the process to further spread contamination in instances that pipelines or wells fail? The research is slim on this topic so far, but we do know that even with the best of intentions, remediation processes do not always go as planned. In my next post, I’ll explore the potential for unintended consequences from remediation.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Great Pacific Garbage Patch

By Michelle Atkin

The world’s largest landfill is actually floating in the middle of the North Pacific Ocean. It contains three million tons of plastic, in addition to other marine debris, and is often referred to as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP). This drifting ocean litter or gyre is one of five major global garbage patches and was discovered in 1997 by Charles Moore, a California volunteer environmentalist and sailor who was so concerned he founded the Algalita Marine Research Foundation.

The size of this trash cluster is widely debated because it is difficult to measure as it shifts with the currents. While some say it is the size of France, others say it is twice the size of Texas, but it is a problem that is not going away.


Every year there are 280 million tons of plastic produced around the world, and 63 pounds of plastic packaging for each person ends up in landfills annually while only nine percent of it is recycled in the United States. Unfortunately, because plastic is not biodegradable, all of the fragments of plastic that have ever been produced still exist, excluding the small volume that has been incinerated, which releases toxic chemicals.

While water bottles and plastic bags contribute to the greatest percentage of plastic litter, a few of the many other items that can be found on the ocean’s floor or surface are buttons, fishing line, toys, cigarette lighters, PVC pipe or fragments, golf tees, gloves and markers. Over time, the sun, wind and waves can break down the plastic into millimeter sized flecks which creates a mess that is impossible to clean up. Scientists have found six times more plastic than plankton in GPGP ocean water samples, and it makes its way into the stomachs of birds, fish, whales and other marine life, which may eventually end up on our plates, along with the Bisphenol A (BPA) and other toxic chemicals found in some plastic.

The estimated 46,000 pieces of plastic per square kilometer in the world’s oceans kill millions of seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals each year from ingestion or entanglement. Half of the Earth’s wetlands have been destroyed and beaches like Kamilo Beach in Hawaii consist of more plastic particles than sand particles in the top twelve inches of the beach.

As stated by National Geographic, “because the GPGP is so far from any country’s coastline, no nation will take responsibility or provide the funding to clean it up,” but even if a net could collect the trash “the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Program has estimated that it would take 67 ships one year to clean up less than one percent of the North Pacific Ocean.”

The enormity of the ocean and this problem is difficult to grasp because like GPGP reporter Richard Grant wrote, “even if plastic production halted tomorrow, the planet would be dealing with its environmental consequences for thousands of years, and on the bottom of the oceans, where an estimated 70 percent of marine plastic debris ends up, for tens of thousands of years. It may form a layer in the geological record of the planet.”

Despite the damage that has already been done, the focus should be placed on reducing our footprint in the future. We need to work together and individually by volunteering to clean-up streams, rivers, lakes and beaches, so that we can limit the garbage that makes it into the ocean. We should also support environmental organizations and embrace environmental initiatives, reduce plastic use and recycle.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Fracking Under Fire in North Carolina

North Carolina communities have gained a temporary reprieve from the threat of fracking. Last week, Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald W. Stephens ruled that North Carolina is not allowed to approve any applications for hydraulic fracturing until the state Supreme Court determines whether or not the North Carolina Mining and Energy Commission was formed constitutionally.

Legislators appointed the majority of the commission’s members when it was formed – an action that falls under the authority of the governor, not lawmakers. According to Therese Vick of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, the decision “essentially puts a de facto moratorium on permitting activities in North Carolina until the case is heard in June or July.”

Areas of N.C. at risk from fracking. (http://rafiusa.org/issues/landowner-rights-and-fracking/fracking-map-in-nc)

N.C. governor Pat McCrory has challenged the formation of this and other commissions, claiming the appointment of commission members by lawmakers rather than the executive branch violates the constitutional requirement for separation of powers. According to Vick, this is one of the most surprising aspects of the case – that it was brought by a governor who has not been an outspoken opponent of hydraulic fracturing. Environmental groups have also challenged the Commission’s legality. The Southern Environmental Law Center brought a case on behalf of a Lee County landowner alleging the commission was formed unconstitutionally, and that it cannot legally process or approve any applications for fracking installations.

So far, the Commission has set fracking regulations but has not approved any drilling units in the state. It remains to be seen whether the forthcoming decision will keep things that way, but delay can often serve as a powerful tool in preventing harmful environmental actions. Vick thinks the case may very well be successful, and that any rules made by an unconstitutional commission could be “declared null and void.” Though we will have to wait until later in the summer for a decision, Vick says the BREL is “very pleased.”

Though the ultimate decision will rest in the legal realm, it is on-the-ground organizing that has made a major difference. Vick points out  that “the organizing and activism and resistance that held [fracking] off this long was what gave time for an opportunity to present itself for a legal hook.” According to Vick, any victories must be attributed to the hard work done by citizens across the state.

Though N.C. citizens may consider this a victory, the resistance to fracking is far from over. Says Vick, “It’s not a time to sit back and take a break – it’s time to push even harder.”

Categories
Backyard Talk

Technical Difficulties: The Long Road toward Superfund Site Remediation

Toxic environmental pollution is unfortunately widespread. If you follow Backyard Talk, by now you have probably heard the story of the West Lake Landfill near St. Louis, Missouri, a dumping ground for nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project toward which an underground fire is slowly creeping. Just last week a contingent from Just Moms St. Louis spoke at a D.C. press conference about the health challenges they and their children have faced while living near this polluted site. The following video shows footage from the press conference and the subsequent march: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpSchIhnYdE.

One commenter on this video asked me whether homeowners could potentially avoid a situation like this through diligent research into the history of where they plan to live. Shouldn’t it be relatively easy to identify whether a site near your home is on the National Priorities List? The story of this site illuminates some common complications that arise during the process of identifying a toxic area and moving toward eventual remediation. It is exceedingly difficult for environmental scientists, let alone community members, to identify pollutants and quantify risks. This post summarizes just a few of the factors that make this process so complex.

[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”]

Just Moms St. Louis demonstrate outside EPA Headquarters

Many polluted sites go unrecorded and undetected. When you think of contaminated sites, what comes to mind? We might expect the ground under a former gas station to be loaded with organic contaminants, or predict pollution downstream from a factory. However, not all sites have a clear usage history with easily predictable exposures. This is especially true in the case of places like the West Lake Landfill where waste has been illegally dumped. Radioactive waste was illegally discarded in 1973, but wasn’t uncovered until 1977.

It’s a long road from detection to Superfund designation… The West Lake Landfill was discovered to be contaminated in the 1970s, but it wasn’t until 1990 that the site wound up on the National Priorities List, which designates it as a Superfund Site. How does a site end up on the NPL? There are several different mechanisms that the EPA uses to list sites on the NPL, all of which require extensive characterization of the hazards that are present, and of potential routes for human exposure. At the end of the day, not every polluted site ends up on the Superfund list – leaving still more undocumented but polluted areas. During these interim years, the West Lake Landfill was still polluted – it just wasn’t listed.

…And it’s an even longer road to remediation. Once the West Lake Landfill was placed on the National Priorities List, it was another 18 years until a cleanup plan was ultimately developed. The process of developing a remediation plan involves countless scientific studies, and meetings with PRPs (Potentially Responsible Parties) who are tasked with devising a cleanup strategy that makes sense for the site. During this time, communities are placed in limbo. They live in a documented toxic area, making it difficult to sell their homes, and while cleanup is planned or underway, their potential exposure to toxic compounds continues.

Even then, the unexpected can happen. Much of the current concern surrounding the West Lake site stems from the presence of a smoldering underground fire in an adjacent landfill, which is slowly making its way toward the radioactive waste. It took well over a decade for the EPA to reach a decision on what to do with the West Lake site, and now that this new factor has been introduced, the risks at the site have changed considerably. Any remediation will now have to account for the fire, and underground fires are notoriously difficult to stop.

It is difficult enough for environmental scientists and managers to detect environmental pollution, to determine the urgency of remediation activities, to decide on a plan, and to revise that plan if the unexpected occurs. It is nearly impossible for potential homeowners to keep abreast of the slow-moving yet unpredictable process of listing and remediating a Superfund Site.

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]