Feb 12, 2011

By Henry Taksier

The EPA’s Record of Decision

The Stephen Foster neighborhood in northwest Gainesville is no ordinary stretch of suburbia. Just before night falls, sunlight passes through a canopy of leaves, illuminating the walls of not-so-perfectly aligned houses. Backyards reveal forests and creeks, invisible to those who drive by on the street.

There’s a sense of community here, rather than socially constructed conformity. The residents can’t be defined by any specific age, race, lifestyle or socioeconomic class. One thing they all have in common is that they’re directly affected by a dirty secret, which publicly emerges every decade or so to make local headlines.

At the core of the neighborhood, there’s a 90-acre toxic wasteland, concealed by bushes and barbed-wire fences, known as the Cabot/Koppers Superfund site. “Superfund site” is a legal term used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to define areas polluted so severely that they pose an immediate threat to human health and local ecosystems.

Koppers Inc. operated a wood treatment facility in Gainesville since 1916, releasing a wide range of toxins into Gainesville’s air, water and soil. They sold their property in 1988 to Beazer East, a private developer that follows Koppers around the country, absorbing environmental liabilities and allowing them to operate behind closed doors. The area was granted Superfund status 28 years ago, but Koppers continued its operations until 2009.

Due to conflicts of interest between the EPA, Beazer East and neighborhood residents, the site has not been cleaned up yet. No one fully agrees on the extent of the pollution or what should be done about it. The EPA finally released its Record of Decision, which details their plans to clean the site, on Feb. 2.

Will the EPA’s Record of Decision adequately address the needs of the community? Is their plan enough to heal the damage, grief and fear caused by almost a century of highly toxic pollution, or are they trying to cut corners and save money?

Local toxicology experts, such as Joe Prager and Patricia Cline, have expressed skepticism. They’ll surely analyze the Record of Decision—all 703 pages of it—and look for answers between the lines. Public officials and environmental engineers are doing the same.

Prager contends the EPA has a “cozy relationship with industry as a rule.” The tax on corporate polluters that supplied the EPA’s “Superfund” was eliminated by Congress in 1995. Now, the EPA has no choice but to rely on the cooperation of responsible parties like Beazer East.

Prager served on the Alachua County Environmental Advisory Board from 2005 to 2008. His struggle with chemical treatment companies is a personal one. His wife was unknowingly exposed during her pregnancy to wood products treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA). Soon after, their daughter was born with a cleft lip and a cleft palette.

Prager now spends his time researching the effects of industrial toxins and sifting through public documents. He works with Cline, the Stephen Foster neighborhood’s technical advisor, to hold politicians and company representatives accountable for their actions.

Cline said on Feb. 3 that she wasn’t ready to make any official comments on the Record of Decision. Based on what she’s seen so far, she’s glad the EPA is planning to remedy off-site soil contamination in accordance with state residential standards, which are more strict than national standards, despite resistance from Beazer East.

This may be a source of relief for Gainesville residents, especially families living near the site, who are often scared to let their kids play outside. What this means for residents is that Beazer East will hire contractors to remove two feet of contaminated soil from their yards via heavy machinery and replace it with clean fill. Residents must agree to let the contractors onto their property.

Prager and other critics claim the Record of Decision doesn’t account for the concentration of dioxins inside people’s houses, which may build up over time and surpass the levels outside. It certainly doesn’t account for bioaccumulation, the process in which dioxins bind to fatty tissue and accumulate in the human body.

Dioxin—one of the major pollutants released by Koppers—has historically been used in chemical weapons like Agent Orange. According to the World Health Organization, chronic exposure can lead to reproductive problems, immune damage and cancer.

In January 2010, environmental justice attorneys hired a private consulting firm to sample fine dust particles from nine random houses within a two-mile radius of the Superfund site, revealing an average indoor dioxin concentration of 400 parts per trillion—over 50 times what the state considers to be safe for soil outdoors.

Mary Ann Jones lives in one of those houses with her extended family, which includes three grandchildren. The youngest ones—Aaron, 3, and Carlos, 6—play outside each day without understanding the situation. She tells them to wash their hands after playing outside, and if they drop something on the ground, she tells them not to pick it up.

The Jones family’s house, next door to the Superfund site, had an indoor dioxin concentration of 1200 parts per trillion—that’s 150 times higher than Florida’s outdoor residential standard. Mary Ann was not warned of the pollution when she bought her property. She said she likes to garden, but now her plants are dead because she’s scared to touch them. For the Jones family, moving away is not an option—they spent all their money on the house, and now their property is worthless.

“The more I think about it, the angrier I get,” Mary Ann said months ago. “You can’t put a price on my life or my family. Why would you try to cover up something that you know is so deadly? Why do you think money is more important than the lives of my grandkids?”

Prager suggests relocation may be the safest solution for residents living near the site. Relocation is not considered in the EPA’s Record of Decision, but they’ve done it before. In 1996, the EPA relocated 358 families in Pensacola, home to the notorious Escambia Superfund site. The relocation was a result of additional soil testing, which only occurred due to overwhelming pressure from Citizens Against Toxic Exposure (CATE), a group similar to Protect Gainesville’s Citizens.

The relocated families had been living under the shadow of what they referred to as “Mount Dioxin.” The EPA had decided to remedy the site by gathering an estimated 344,520 tons of contaminated soil and compressing it into 40 acres, resulting in a mound that was 60 feet tall. They protected the mound with a plastic seal, which was meant to last for ten years.

It only took a few years before wind and rain caused damage to the seal. Seeds got in the soil and trees began to emerge, wearing and tearing it further. Contaminated soil escaped and spread through the neighborhood. The story of Escambia is neatly spelled out in the second chapter of Sacrifice Zones, a work of investigative journalism by Steve Lerner.

The EPA’s Record of Decision calls for a similar approach in Gainesville, involving a mound of toxic soil, vertical walls and an engineered cap. Prager saw the parallelism in their proposed plan and sent an editorial to the Gainesville Sun, warning residents that Gainesville may soon be home to a new Mount Dioxin.

In their Record of Decision, the EPA analyzed Prager’s assertions and dismissed them. According to the ROD, “Many of the points raised by the commenter [Prager] related to the Escambia site are factually inaccurate. The HDPE temporary cover alluded to in the comment performed as expected and was replaced by an engineered cap.”

According to Sacrifice Zones, “Residents were first told the plastic cover would last for five years but the EPA subsequently claimed it had a ten-year lifespan. In 1996, the contractor who installed the cover reported to the EPA that it was damaged and had a two-foot hole and a two-foot tear in it along with other smaller holes.”

In a phone call, Francine Ishmael, executive director of CATE, directly testified: “It was a plastic tarp that they put on a mound of dirt. They said it would last for 10 years. It did not.”

In Gainesville, the EPA’s Record of Decision calls for an engineered cap, which they claim will have “an indefinite life expectancy with minimal maintenance.” Its dimensions and design are yet to be determined. Prager hopes, as many Gainesville residents do, that the EPA won’t repeat its mistakes in Gainesville.

Cline said the Record of Decision doesn’t explicitly spell out everything. It’s the role of concerned citizens, she says, to constantly make sure the EPA is up-to-date on relevant data and community input that they might otherwise overlook.

She expressed concern that the Record of Decision doesn’t adequately address the issue of contaminants leaching downward from the soil into the groundwater. There are many polluted areas, she said, where the EPA intends to scrape up contaminated soil and replace it without conducting further investigations on what’s underneath.

The true extent of pollution from Koppers may never be fully defined. It’s underground and above ground. It’s in the air, soil, groundwater, creeks and forests. Creosote threatens to permanently damage the Floridan aquifer. Dioxins are building up in yards and houses. The Stephen Foster Neighborhood Protection Group claims that animals, pets and even people have died as a result of Koppers.

Scott Miller of the EPA dismissed their claims as “anecdotal.” The Florida Health Department concluded that yards in the Stephen Foster neighborhood were safe but warned residents not to let their kids play in a narrow easement bordering Koppers.

Any officer of Protect Gainesville’s Citizens, an organization that aims to spread awareness, would stress the idea that the Superfund process requires relentless grassroots involvement. Otherwise, residents living in the shadow of Superfund sites are likely to be overlooked.

Update (2/18): On Feb. 18, the Gainesville City Commission held a special meeting to publicly analyze the EPA’s Record of Decision. “We didn’t get everything we wanted,” said Chris Bird, Director of the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department. “We want to target factors we can still influence.”

Update (5/1): For photos and personal testimony from troubled residents living directly along the fence of the Superfund site, check out A Haunting Past: Fenced In.

Tags:

Leave a Reply

4 Comments

  1. Steve Lerner says:

    Dear Henry Taksier:

    Thanks for your series: “A Haunting Past.” Not enough media attention is paid to residents who live on the front lines of toxic exposure in the United States in hot spots of pollution next door to heavily polluted sites.
    The sad fact is that the situation you describe in the Stephen Foster neighborhood in Gainesville next to the Cabot/Koppers Superfund Site is all too common across the United States. In fact, there are thousands of these “fence-line communities” where residents are being disproportionately exposed to toxic chemicals.
    Unfortunately, the federal and state regulatory agencies have done little to protect these populations. And as a result, people in these “sacrifice zones” continue to suffer from environmentally-induced diseases and premature death.
    My book: “Sacrifice Zones: The Front Lines of Toxic Chemical Exposure in the United States” (MIT Press: Sept., 2010) describes a dozen of these beleaguered communities from Florida to Alaska, Texas to Ohio, and New York to California where low-income, heavily-minority populations are disproportionately exposed to elevated levels of contaminants from neighboring heavy industries and military bases.
    What I found during the years I spent doing research for this book is that federal and state regulatory agencies have been slow to impose effective sanctions on companies emitting illegal volumes of toxic chemicals that waft over (or under) their property line and trespass into the adjoining residential neighborhood, homes, and bodies of their neighbors.
    Too frequently, regulators ignore a pattern of these illegal releases that are often dismissed as industrial accidents even though they happen so often as to constitute a pattern of environmental violations. When regulators do impose fines they are often so low that large corporations can absorb them as a cost of doing business and continue to poison their residential neighbors.
    The fact that there is a company that goes around buying up properties that have been heavily polluted in order to protect from financial sanctions the parent company that caused the pollution says volumes about the way in which our regulatory system frequently protects corporate malfeasance.
    What we need is an environmental protection agency (and state agencies) that are willing to actually enforce the law and require companies to install state of the art pollution control equipment that will attenuate pollution to safe levels before it is released. We need regulators that are willing to take some political heat for protecting the safety of the residents they are supposed to protect.
    We also need new laws that shift the burden of proof so that when residents can make a primafacia case that the illnesses in their neighborhood are consistent with those that would be expected from toxic releases from nearby factories, that the burden of proof shifts from the residents having to prove that they have been poisoned to the corporations being forced to prove that they are not the cause of the healthy problems. This will help hold contaminators legally responsible for their actions in a court of law.
    We also need better environmental monitoring along the fence-line with heavy industry (and Superfund sites). The monitors should be paid for by the polluters but not run by them to avoid bad science and conflicts of interest. Local residents should also be trained and equipped (at the expense of the local industry) to carry out citizen air and water monitoring. (See Global Community Monitor, a group that helps train and equip residents to monitor the air in their neighborhood.)
    And health surveys should be conducted on a regular basis is fence-line communities to establish whether or not there are clusters of illness and premature death that are likely caused by illegal contamination. To date the public health agencies have done a poor job providing us with relevant health data about disease rates in hot spots of pollution.
    Finally, there should be buffer zones established around heavily-polluting industries and waste sites to protect the population. In some cases this will require the relocation of some communities. Care should be taken to ensure that residents are fairly compensated bin relocation schemes because frequently contamination from nearby facilities decreases the value of residential properties. Homeowners in fence-line communities should not suffer financially because their corporate neighbor has polluted them. Instead, their homes should be valued at a non-polluted level. The industry that caused the problem should pay for the relocation, buy out homes, and permit families to move to safety. Where industrial properties have been abandoned the government should pay the bill.
    We should also begin to stop creating new sacrifice zones by reducing the amount of toxic feedstocks we use in industry. This can be accomplished in many cases through the application of “green chemistry” — a growing field that focuses on substituting benign feedstocks for toxic ones.
    We can and should also create incentives for this transformation of American manufacturing by “taxing bads and not goods.” In other words, we should have a toxics tax so that the goods and services that are provided by companies that use large volumes of toxic chemicals become more expensive when compared with products created with safe chemicals. This will do more to goad companies into re-engineering their production processes to make them safe than will a host of environmental regulations.
    All of this can only be accomplished if an informed public demands it. That part is up to you.

    Steve Lerner, author, “Sacrifice Zones: The Front Lines of Toxic Chemical Exposure in the United States” (MIT Press, 2010); and “Diamond: A Struggle for Environmental Justice in Louisiana’s Chemical Corridor” (MIT Press: 2005).

  2. Henry Taksier says:

    Thanks for the input, Steve! Your work has been a huge source of inspiration to me. I’m planning to start a blog pretty soon where I’ll continue to cover Koppers and answer questions anyone may have. It’ll probably evolve to cover other environmental issues as well. You should check it out when it’s ready.

    TO ANYONE INTERESTED IN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Steve’s book, Sacrifice Zones, is a real eye-opener.

  3. terry says:

    Can you be so sure that little Prager’s clef lip was caused by exposure to CCA? Such an unsupported claim misleads as much as Glenn Beck. Be Careful. If it’s true, provide evidence.

  4. Henry Taksier says:

    Terry, thanks for the input.

    In previous interviews with Prager, he said his wife was very careful during her pregnancy. She avoided everything that could possibly cause birth defects and ate an all-organic diet. What she didn’t realize was that over the course of her pregnancy, she built a deck using wood treated with CCA.

    The birth defects may have been a coincidence, but the toxicity of CCA is undisputed. CCA is a heavily regulated pesticide that contains chromium and arsenic, which can be released through burning, direct contact, or mechanical abrasion (e.g. sawing or sanding). Arsenic is a known carcinogen in humans and is also associated with a wide range of birth defects*, including those experienced by Prager’s daughter.

    You’re right that there’s no way to definitively prove that CCA exposure led to her defects. I’m going to replace “As a result…” with “Shortly after…” for that reason.

    Please let me know if you have any other questions, concerns, etc. And please do not EVER compare me to Glenn Beck. :)

    *According to the EPA, “Oral animal studies have reported inorganic arsenic at very high doses to be fetotoxic and to cause birth defects.”
    Humans are more sensitive to the effects of arsenic than most laboratory animals, according to the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (see “New Lines of CCA-Treated Wood Research: In-Service and Disposal Issues”).

Add your comment »
Stop censorship