This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/17/toxic-trail-weak-points-superfund-waste

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Toxic trail: the weak points in the Superfund waste system Toxic trail: the weak points in the Superfund waste system
(6 months later)
This story This story began with a simple question: what happens to the waste that’s pulled from the ground beneath Silicon Valley’s Superfund sites?
began with a simple question: what happens to the waste that’s A lot, it turns out. The waste goes on a journey that crisscrosses the country, revealing the environmental toll of a landmark cleanup program that’s supposed to be protecting humans and the environment from toxic waste.
pulled from the ground beneath Silicon Valley’s Superfund sites? Here are six weak points in the Superfund system identified by our reporting:
A 1. No one accounts for the environmental effects of the toxic trail that follows cleanup
lot, it turns out. The waste goes on a journey that crisscrosses the The Environmental Protection Agencyknows that the trail has serious side effects. But the agency chooses not to quantify or monitor them.
country, revealing the environmental toll of a landmark cleanup That means theEPA can’t measure whether the cleanup of these sites is worth it. The Silicon Valley site central to our story creates a host of unintended consequences – even as cleanup there seems futile.
program that’s supposed to be protecting humans and the environment 2. EPA cleanup goals are in many cases unrealistic
from toxic waste. The EPA requires that groundwater at Superfund sites be treated until it’s clean enough to drink. In Silicon Valley’s case, that could take 700 years, according to a study of the site by an environmental consulting firm.
Here are six While time frames vary, scores of other sites also can’t meet the EPA’s standards. In these cases, experts say that striving for drinking water standards is impractical and counterproductive.
weak points in the Superfund system identified by our reporting: 3. The technology being used to clean up about one-third of Superfund sites won’t work in the long run
1. No one In case after case, the EPA’s own inspectors have identified serious shortcomings with the technology being used for cleanup, known as “pump and treat”. While it works in some instances, EPA inspections show it isn’t working at hundreds of sites. Yet, treatment continues.
accounts for the environmental effects of the toxic trail that 4. No current technology can clean these sites to the government’s standards
follows cleanup A recent report from the National Research Council found that there isn’t any currently available technology that will quickly and effectively clean these sites.
The An emerging solution among experts is to do nothing. At many sites, they say the most effective answer is to allow the chemicals to break down naturally. Companies and governments would monitor the sites to make sure humans aren’t exposed to the chemicals.
Environmental Protection Agency “What’s crazy to me is that here we are in the heart of the tech world, the land of innovation, and we don’t have a technology that can clean this site anytime soon,” said Lenny Siegel, the executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight, an activist group that seeks to engage the public on Superfund cleanup.
knows that the 5. Tracking waste once it leaves a site is almost impossible
trail has serious side effects. But the agency chooses not to When the Superfund law was enacted in the 1980s, Congress was concerned that it would create more toxic waste sites by shipping out Superfund waste.
quantify or monitor them. Lawmakers and panels called for regulators to closely monitor contaminants. The EPA set up its system for tracking hazardous waste to follow it “from cradle to grave.” But regulators remain unable to do this, despite decades of work and billions of dollars spent on a tracking system.
That That system is still paper-based and spread across states. The data can’t be easily put together and analyzed to spot trends or major problems.
means the EPA 6. Major decisions are left to private companies
can’t measure whether the cleanup of these sites is worth it. The It’s up to companies responsible for cleaning the sites to vet the facilities where they send waste. The result is that waste is routinely shipped and treated at plants with well-documented histories of environmental violations.
Silicon Valley site central to our story creates a host of unintended Each year, companies decide whether the waste leaving their site will be considered hazardous or not based on sample tests. If the waste is deemed hazardous, it’s more closely regulated. If it’s nonhazardous, it can be disposed of more inexpensively and with far less oversight.
consequences – The companies also drive decisions on what technology gets used for cleanups. They can petition the EPA to change their cleanup methods. Even if the technology isn’t working, companies can be loathto change if they’re following EPA plans and already have invested in the infrastructure for the pump-and-treatsystem.
even as cleanup there seems futile. This story was produced by the independent, nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting, the country’s largest investigative reporting team. For more, visit cironline.org. Drange can be reached at mdrange@cironline.org. Rust can be reached at srust@cironline.org.
2.
EPA
cleanup goals are in many cases unrealistic
The EPA
requires that groundwater at Superfund sites be treated until it’s
clean enough to drink. In Silicon Valley’s case, that could take
700 years, according to a study of the site by an environmental
consulting firm.
While time
frames vary, scores of other sites also can’t meet the EPA’s
standards. In these cases, experts say that striving for drinking
water standards is impractical and counterproductive.
3. The
technology being used to clean up about one-third of Superfund sites
won’t work in the long run
In
case after case, the EPA’s own inspectors have identified serious
shortcomings with the technology being used for cleanup, known as
“pump and treat”. While it works in some instances, EPA
inspections show it isn’t working at hundreds of sites. Yet,
treatment continues.
4. No
current technology can clean these sites to the government’s
standards
A recent
report from the National Research Council found that there isn’t
any currently available technology that will quickly and effectively
clean these sites.
An emerging
solution among experts is to do nothing. At many sites, they say the
most effective answer is to allow the chemicals to break down
naturally. Companies and governments would monitor the sites to make
sure humans aren’t exposed to the chemicals.
“What’s
crazy to me is that here we are in the heart of the tech world, the
land of innovation, and we don’t have a technology that can clean
this site anytime soon,” said Lenny Siegel, the executive director
of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight, an activist group
that seeks to engage the public on Superfund cleanup.
5.
Tracking waste once it leaves a site is almost impossible
When the
Superfund law was enacted in the 1980s, Congress was concerned that
it would create more toxic waste sites by shipping out Superfund
waste.
Lawmakers
and panels called for regulators to closely monitor contaminants. The
EPA set up its system for tracking hazardous waste to follow it “from
cradle to grave.” But regulators remain unable to do this, despite
decades of work and billions of dollars spent on a tracking system.
That
system is still paper-based and spread across states. The data can’t
be easily put together and analyzed to spot trends or major problems.
6. Major
decisions are left to private companies
It’s up to
companies responsible for cleaning the sites to vet the facilities
where they send waste. The result is that waste is routinely shipped
and treated at plants with well-documented histories of environmental
violations.
Each year,
companies decide whether the waste leaving their site will be
considered hazardous or not based on sample tests. If the waste is
deemed hazardous, it’s more closely regulated. If it’s
nonhazardous, it can be disposed of more inexpensively and with far
less oversight.
The
companies also drive decisions on what technology gets used for
cleanups. They can petition the EPA to change their cleanup methods.
Even if the technology isn’t working, companies can be loath
to change if
they’re following EPA plans and already have invested in the
infrastructure for the pump-and-treat
system.
This
story was produced by the independent, nonprofit Center for
Investigative Reporting, the country’s largest investigative
reporting team. For more, visit cironline.org. Drange can be reached
at mdrange@cironline.org. Rust can be reached at srust@cironline.org.