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/six-things-toxic-trail-superfund-investigation

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Six things you should know about CIR’s Superfund investigation Six things you should know about CIR’s Superfund investigation
(35 minutes later)
OurOur
investigation tells the story of the toxic trail of unintendedinvestigation tells the story of the toxic trail of unintended
consequences left behind by the landmark federal Superfund program.consequences left behind by the landmark federal Superfund program.
It’sIt’s
a complicated story to report and tell. The Environmental Protectiona complicated story to report and tell. The Environmental Protection
Agency doesn’t track these side effects. It considers them tooAgency doesn’t track these side effects. It considers them too
difficult to measure. Companies, meanwhile, aren’t required todifficult to measure. Companies, meanwhile, aren’t required to
report where they send their waste.report where they send their waste.
In many cases,In many cases,
data is incomplete or nonexistent. That forced us to piece together adata is incomplete or nonexistent. That forced us to piece together a
story based on the best available documents, data, studies and scoresstory based on the best available documents, data, studies and scores
of interviews.of interviews.
Here are sixHere are six
important things to know about the reporting and storytelling.important things to know about the reporting and storytelling.
1. Our1. Our
story doesn’t cover the entire Superfund programstory doesn’t cover the entire Superfund program
There areThere are
more than 1,300 toxic waste sites in the Superfund program.more than 1,300 toxic waste sites in the Superfund program.
WeWe
zoomed in on a specific type of site. Scientific jargon alert: they’re called complex groundwater sites, which arezoomed in on a specific type of site. Scientific jargon alert: they’re called complex groundwater sites, which are
pollutedpolluted
with volatilewith volatile
organic compounds. What that means: the groundwater isorganic compounds. What that means: the groundwater is
contaminated withcontaminated with
hard-to-clean chemicals. Cleanup is complicated further by the facthard-to-clean chemicals. Cleanup is complicated further by the fact
that the ground underneath often is made up of many different typesthat the ground underneath often is made up of many different types
of soil and rock.of soil and rock.
TheseThese
account for roughly 850 Superfund sites. From there, we zoomed inaccount for roughly 850 Superfund sites. From there, we zoomed in
even further to focus only on those using a specific type ofeven further to focus only on those using a specific type of
treatment, called “pumptreatment, called “pump
and treat”.and treat”.
There are twoThere are two
reasons why we focused on these sites. First, the technology used toreasons why we focused on these sites. First, the technology used to
clean them up is outdated and, in many cases, no longer effective.clean them up is outdated and, in many cases, no longer effective.
Second, the cleanup contributes tons of waste to the toxic trailSecond, the cleanup contributes tons of waste to the toxic trail
every year. That means the effort can ultimately be for naught.every year. That means the effort can ultimately be for naught.
ThereThere
are more than 450 sites like this – or about one-third of allare more than 450 sites like this – or about one-third of all
Superfund sites. Many of the other sites don’t contribute to anySuperfund sites. Many of the other sites don’t contribute to any
toxic trail. They treat the waste on-sitetoxic trail. They treat the waste on-site
or use preventiveor use preventive
measures to keep the pollution contained.measures to keep the pollution contained.
2. You2. You
can’t directly track Superfund waste beyond one step of the trailcan’t directly track Superfund waste beyond one step of the trail
But you canBut you can
track it step by step along the way to create an overall picture oftrack it step by step along the way to create an overall picture of
the toxic trail.the toxic trail.
OnceOnce
waste leaves a cleanup site, it can go to one of thousands ofwaste leaves a cleanup site, it can go to one of thousands of
treatment plants across the country. At those plants, the waste getstreatment plants across the country. At those plants, the waste gets
combined and treated with hazardous waste and other junk from allcombined and treated with hazardous waste and other junk from all
over the country.over the country.
OnOn
the other end, new waste gets created from that mixthe other end, new waste gets created from that mix
at treatmentat treatment
plants. In turn, it can then go to any number of sites, and so on andplants. In turn, it can then go to any number of sites, and so on and
so on. You can’t paint one fleck of chemical from Silicon Valleyso on. You can’t paint one fleck of chemical from Silicon Valley
red and track it through the system. But we showed the many differentred and track it through the system. But we showed the many different
trails it can take.trails it can take.
3.3.
Available data and documentation is spottyAvailable data and documentation is spotty
We oftenWe often
couldn’t get complete information for the system as a whole. We didcouldn’t get complete information for the system as a whole. We did
find individual reports and data that provided windows into it. Theyfind individual reports and data that provided windows into it. They
helped us quantify problems and take a unique look into how thesehelped us quantify problems and take a unique look into how these
systems operate.systems operate.
WeWe
focused heavily on the Calgon Carbon Corporation’s treatment plant infocused heavily on the Calgon Carbon Corporation’s treatment plant in
Kentucky, for example. We didn’t have complete figures on itsKentucky, for example. We didn’t have complete figures on its
carbon footprint. There were, however, well-documented estimates forcarbon footprint. There were, however, well-documented estimates for
greenhouse gas emissions for a similar plant in Arizona. So we usedgreenhouse gas emissions for a similar plant in Arizona. So we used
that to compile a composite picture of the carbon footprint along onethat to compile a composite picture of the carbon footprint along one
leg of this toxic trail.leg of this toxic trail.
4. There4. There
are thousands of other sites like these outside of the Superfundare thousands of other sites like these outside of the Superfund
programprogram
These areThese are
overseen by local, state and other federal agencies, and many faceoverseen by local, state and other federal agencies, and many face
similar challenges. We didn’t dig into the efforts underway atsimilar challenges. We didn’t dig into the efforts underway at
these sites. Instead, we tracked a single type of waste leaving thethese sites. Instead, we tracked a single type of waste leaving the
Silicon Valley site.Silicon Valley site.
5. Lots of5. Lots of
people live around these sitespeople live around these sites
InIn
many cases, hundreds or even thousands of people live within a milemany cases, hundreds or even thousands of people live within a mile
of a Superfund site. Nearly halfof a Superfund site. Nearly half
of all Americansof all Americans
live within 10 miles of a Superfund site.live within 10 miles of a Superfund site.
The city ofThe city of
Mountain View, California, for example, is home to 75,000 people. TheyMountain View, California, for example, is home to 75,000 people. They
live above and around 13 Superfund sites. Here, people arelive above and around 13 Superfund sites. Here, people are
understandably concerned about exposure risks and want to see theunderstandably concerned about exposure risks and want to see the
sites cleaned,sites cleaned,
regardless of theregardless of the
method.method.
The level ofThe level of
danger depends at each site.danger depends at each site.
InIn
some cases, keeping contaminated groundwater out of the mouths ofsome cases, keeping contaminated groundwater out of the mouths of
nearby residents is all that is required. But in others, there arenearby residents is all that is required. But in others, there are
concerns that nearby residents could be breathing in toxic vapors orconcerns that nearby residents could be breathing in toxic vapors or
radiation. The EPA’s website generally lays out the risks at eachradiation. The EPA’s website generally lays out the risks at each
site using a 1-5 star system. One star means “beware” and fivesite using a 1-5 star system. One star means “beware” and five
stars means “don’t worry.” You can find this information forstars means “don’t worry.” You can find this information for
every site on the EPA’severy site on the EPA’s
Superfund Site Information search page.Superfund Site Information search page.
Yet, as ourYet, as our
story showed, in many cases cleanup goals aren’t being achieved.story showed, in many cases cleanup goals aren’t being achieved.
And the risk of exposure is often limited.And the risk of exposure is often limited.
6. We used6. We used
“Silicon Valley” as shorthand for the site we focused on. But“Silicon Valley” as shorthand for the site we focused on. But
there are more than two dozen Superfund sites in Silicon Valleythere are more than two dozen Superfund sites in Silicon Valley
alonealone
TheThe
area we focused on is a collection of three sites known as thearea we focused on is a collection of three sites known as the
Middlefield-Ellis-WhismanMiddlefield-Ellis-Whisman
Study Area, or MEW for short. But that wasn’t fun to read or write.Study Area, or MEW for short. But that wasn’t fun to read or write.
So we called it some variation of “the Silicon Valley site”So we called it some variation of “the Silicon Valley site”
throughout the story.throughout the story.
ThereThere
are more Superfund sites in Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara Countyare more Superfund sites in Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara County
23 –23 –
than any other county in the United States. These are the onlythan any other county in the United States. These are the only
visible remnants of what was once a manufacturing hub for avisible remnants of what was once a manufacturing hub for a
burgeoning tech industry.burgeoning tech industry.
ThereThere
are two reasons why we homed in on this site. First, it’s where weare two reasons why we homed in on this site. First, it’s where we
started our reporting more than a year ago, asking questions afterstarted our reporting more than a year ago, asking questions after
toxictoxic
vapors leaked into office buildings.vapors leaked into office buildings.
Second, theSecond, the
site has been studied extensively. This left behind a lengthy papersite has been studied extensively. This left behind a lengthy paper
trail that details how much waste has been removed, the pollutiontrail that details how much waste has been removed, the pollution
levels and cost estimates. These bits of information allowed us tolevels and cost estimates. These bits of information allowed us to
tell a more nuanced and complete story about the cleanup effort andtell a more nuanced and complete story about the cleanup effort and
its shortcomings.its shortcomings.
ThisThis
story was produced by the independent, nonprofit Center forstory was produced by the independent, nonprofit Center for
Investigative Reporting, the country’s largest investigativeInvestigative Reporting, the country’s largest investigative
reporting team. For more, visit cironline.org. Drange can be reached reporting team. For more, visit cironline.org. Rust can be reached at srust@cironline.org. Drange can be reached at mdrange@cironline.org.
at mdrange@cironline.org. Rust can be reached at srust@cironline.org.