Pat Munday - December 29, 2005
Clark Fork River Technical Assistance Committee
Mixed Bag
Hi, I’m Pat Munday, with the Clark Fork River Technical Assistance Committee.
2005 has been a mixed bag for Superfund sites in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin.
The removal of Milltown dam and the sediments behind it is getting underway. Best of all, Montana’s Natural Resource Damage Program will closely coordinate restoration with remedy, and this stream channel reconstruction and stream bank revegetation work will enhance fish habitat.
Yet we still have no Consent Decree for the upper Clark Fork River. Are we going to clean up the Milltown Dam area only to see it recontaminated with metals washing down from above?
New Year’s Resolution number one: let’s get the upper river cleaned up before we create toxic sediment traps in a restored reach at Milltown.
The entire Anaconda area seems to be the bastard child of Superfund in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin. It was listed as a Superfund site in 1983. Initial testing of the Community Soils unit showed that many homes and yards were laced with high levels of arsenic and heavy metals such as lead. More than two hundred residential sites have been cleaned up. But many homes still have toxic dust in the walls and attics—as residents discover when they begin a rewiring or remodeling project.
What’s wrong with EPA’s remedy for Anaconda? The remedy is based on a very optimistic exposure model that does not include realistic homeowner activities like remodeling projects. Because of this rosy model, the clean up level for arsenic in Anaconda was about 10 times higher than at most other arsenic-laden Superfund sites in the nation.
Last year at this time, Anaconda residents were shocked to discover that an area of town slated for commercial development was a highly toxic site. With EPA’s blessing, Arco deeded the land to the city for a Brownfield development. When a major department store began construction, workers discovered a buried toxic sludge pond the size of a football field. While this is certainly good incentive to replace your divots carefully at the nearby Old Works Golf Course, it is inexcusable on the part of Arco and EPA. Naturally, the department store pulled out of the deal and billed Anaconda $40,000 for its trouble.
New Year’s Resolution number two: let’s help the EPA get it right by insisting on real clean up and not cover up whenever the agency comes to a Record of Decision for any site.
And then there is the little town of Opportunity on the fringes of Anaconda. The nearby Opportunity Ponds have become the regional toxic waste repository for materials removed from other areas within the Upper Clark Fork River Basin—including toxic sediments to be dredged from Milltown. The Opportunity Ponds have become a beehive of activity, and the extensive network of haul roads raises a lot of dust—much of which drifts over the town residents. And yet there has been no air quality monitoring at the site for more than 15 years.
New Year’s Resolution number three: let’s treat Opportunity residents with the same kind of respect that residents of Missoula or Milltown demand.
Did I say Anaconda was the bastard child of Superfund? Maybe that dubious honor also belongs to Anaconda’s elder sister city, Butte. The agency announced its Proposed Remedy a year ago, and this announcement triggered a storm of protest from citizens, grass roots organizations, and professional scientists. All are unhappy with the EPA’s plans to leave huge amounts of waste in place: in capped mine dumps throughout residential neighborhoods; in the Parrot Tailings—a huge body of contaminated sediments in contact with ground water; and in the dust within the walls and attics of peoples’ homes.
New Year’s Resolution number four: let’s not write Butte off; insist on a remedy for this densely packed urban population that is at least as good as what has been decided for Milltown and the Clark Fork River.
As we have seen with the Warm Springs Ponds water treatment facility, it is virtually impossible to influence an EPA remedy once the agency has made a Record of Decision. The decision for the ponds clearly stated that the remedy would achieve specific performance standards. The ponds have never achieved these standards. Subsequent reviews have been a pro forma process: despite criticism from CFRTAC and other groups, EPA has simply ignored the failure of the ponds.
Superfund sites are complex. It might therefore be foolish to tie a decision to an overly specific remedy. Because of this, EPA has increasingly implemented remedies that are only remedies in a legal policy sense. Instead, these so-called remedies are in truth adaptive management plans—plans that incorporate refinements as the agency learns what does and does not work.
There is a huge flaw, however, when adaptive management substitutes for remedy: by definition, adaptive management involves stakeholders in the evolving management strategy. Unfortunately, once the agency has reached a Record of Decision, Superfund policy allows the agency to close the door on meaningful participation in the management process.
New Year’s Resolution number five: let’s insist that the EPA give us a seat at the table in any decision that involves adaptive management as a remedy.
For more information, check out CFRTAC’s website at www.cfrtac.org.
From Butte to Missoula, we deserve a clean, healthy, and accessible Clark Fork River. It’s your river. Wade in, and help make the future.
Thank you, and Happy New Year to you all.
|
|
