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 1 Version 2
Six things you should know about CIR’s Superfund investigation Six things you should know about CIR’s Superfund investigation
(6 months later)
Our Our investigation tells the story of the toxic trail of unintended consequences left behind by the landmark federal Superfund program.
investigation tells the story of the toxic trail of unintended It’s a complicated story to report and tell. The Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t track these side effects. It considers them too difficult to measure. Companies, meanwhile, aren’t required to report where they send their waste.In many cases, data is incomplete or nonexistent. That forced us to piece together a story based on the best available documents, data, studies and scores of interviews.
consequences left behind by the landmark federal Superfund program. Here are six important things to know about the reporting and storytelling.
It’s 1. Our story doesn’t cover the entire Superfund program
a complicated story to report and tell. The Environmental Protection There are more than 1,300 toxic waste sites in the Superfund program.
Agency doesn’t track these side effects. It considers them too We zoomed in on a specific type of site. Scientific jargon alert: they’re called complex groundwater sites, which arepollutedwith volatile organic compounds. What that means: the groundwater iscontaminated with hard-to-clean chemicals. Cleanup is complicated further by the fact that the ground underneath often is made up of many different types of soil and rock.
difficult to measure. Companies, meanwhile, aren’t required to These account for roughly 850 Superfund sites. From there, we zoomed in even further to focus only on those using a specific type of treatment, called “pump and treat”.
report where they send their waste. There are two reasons why we focused on these sites. First, the technology used to clean them up is outdated and, in many cases, no longer effective. Second, the cleanup contributes tons of waste to the toxic trail every year. That means the effort can ultimately be for naught.
In many cases, There are more than 450 sites like this – or about one-third of all Superfund sites. Many of the other sites don’t contribute to any toxic trail. They treat the waste on-siteor use preventive measures to keep the pollution contained.
data is incomplete or nonexistent. That forced us to piece together a 2. You can’t directly track Superfund waste beyond one step of the trail
story based on the best available documents, data, studies and scores But you can track it step by step along the way to create an overall picture of the toxic trail.
of interviews. Once waste leaves a cleanup site, it can go to one of thousands of treatment plants across the country. At those plants, the waste gets combined and treated with hazardous waste and other junk from all over the country.
Here are six On the other end, new waste gets created from that mixat treatment plants. 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 Valley red and track it through the system. But we showed the many different trails it can take.
important things to know about the reporting and storytelling. 3. Available data and documentation is spotty
1. Our We often couldn’t get complete information for the system as a whole. We did find individual reports and data that provided windows into it. They helped us quantify problems and take a unique look into how these systems operate.
story doesn’t cover the entire Superfund program We focused heavily on the Calgon Carbon Corporation’s treatment plant in Kentucky, for example. We didn’t have complete figures on its carbon footprint. There were, however, well-documented estimates for greenhouse gas emissions for a similar plant in Arizona. So we used that to compile a composite picture of the carbon footprint along one leg of this toxic trail.
There are 4. There are thousands of other sites like these outside of the Superfund program
more than 1,300 toxic waste sites in the Superfund program. These are overseen by local, state and other federal agencies, and many face similar challenges. We didn’t dig into the efforts underway at these sites. Instead, we tracked a single type of waste leaving the Silicon Valley site.
We 5. Lots of people live around these sites
zoomed in on a specific type of site. Scientific jargon alert: they’re called complex groundwater sites, which are In many cases, hundreds or even thousands of people live within a mile of a Superfund site. Nearly half of all Americans live within 10 miles of a Superfund site.The city of Mountain View, California, for example, is home to 75,000 people. They live above and around 13 Superfund sites. Here, people are understandably concerned about exposure risks and want to see the sites cleaned,regardless of the method.
polluted The level of danger depends at each site.
with volatile In some cases, keeping contaminated groundwater out of the mouths of nearby residents is all that is required. But in others, there are concerns that nearby residents could be breathing in toxic vapors or radiation. The EPA’s website generally lays out the risks at each site using a 1-5 star system. One star means “beware” and five stars means “don’t worry.” You can find this information for every site on the EPA’s Superfund Site Information search page.
organic compounds. What that means: the groundwater is Yet, as our story showed, in many cases cleanup goals aren’t being achieved. And the risk of exposure is often limited.
contaminated with 6. We used “Silicon Valley” as shorthand for the site we focused on. But there are more than two dozen Superfund sites in Silicon Valley alone
hard-to-clean chemicals. Cleanup is complicated further by the fact The area we focused on is a collection of three sites known as the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman 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” throughout the story.
that the ground underneath often is made up of many different types There are more Superfund sites in Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara County – 23 – than any other county in the United States. These are the only visible remnants of what was once a manufacturing hub for a burgeoning tech industry.
of soil and rock. There are two reasons why we homed in on this site. First, it’s where we started our reporting more than a year ago, asking questions after toxic vapors leaked into office buildings.
These Second, the site has been studied extensively. This left behind a lengthy paper trail that details how much waste has been removed, the pollution levels and cost estimates. These bits of information allowed us to tell a more nuanced and complete story about the cleanup effort and its shortcomings.
account for roughly 850 Superfund sites. From there, we zoomed in This story was produced by the independent, nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting, the country’s largest investigative reporting team. For more, visit cironline.org. Rust can be reached at srust@cironline.org. Drange can be reached at mdrange@cironline.org.
even further to focus only on those using a specific type of
treatment, called “pump
and treat”.
There are two
reasons why we focused on these sites. First, the technology used to
clean them up is outdated and, in many cases, no longer effective.
Second, the cleanup contributes tons of waste to the toxic trail
every year. That means the effort can ultimately be for naught.
There
are more than 450 sites like this – or about one-third of all
Superfund sites. Many of the other sites don’t contribute to any
toxic trail. They treat the waste on-site
or use preventive
measures to keep the pollution contained.
2. You
can’t directly track Superfund waste beyond one step of the trail
But you can
track it step by step along the way to create an overall picture of
the toxic trail.
Once
waste leaves a cleanup site, it can go to one of thousands of
treatment plants across the country. At those plants, the waste gets
combined and treated with hazardous waste and other junk from all
over the country.
On
the other end, new waste gets created from that mix
at treatment
plants. 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 Valley
red and track it through the system. But we showed the many different
trails it can take.
3.
Available data and documentation is spotty
We often
couldn’t get complete information for the system as a whole. We did
find individual reports and data that provided windows into it. They
helped us quantify problems and take a unique look into how these
systems operate.
We
focused heavily on the Calgon Carbon Corporation’s treatment plant in
Kentucky, for example. We didn’t have complete figures on its
carbon footprint. There were, however, well-documented estimates for
greenhouse gas emissions for a similar plant in Arizona. So we used
that to compile a composite picture of the carbon footprint along one
leg of this toxic trail.
4. There
are thousands of other sites like these outside of the Superfund
program
These are
overseen by local, state and other federal agencies, and many face
similar challenges. We didn’t dig into the efforts underway at
these sites. Instead, we tracked a single type of waste leaving the
Silicon Valley site.
5. Lots of
people live around these sites
In
many cases, hundreds or even thousands of people live within a mile
of a Superfund site. Nearly half
of all Americans
live within 10 miles of a Superfund site.
The city of
Mountain View, California, for example, is home to 75,000 people. They
live above and around 13 Superfund sites. Here, people are
understandably concerned about exposure risks and want to see the
sites cleaned,
regardless of the
method.
The level of
danger depends at each site.
In
some cases, keeping contaminated groundwater out of the mouths of
nearby residents is all that is required. But in others, there are
concerns that nearby residents could be breathing in toxic vapors or
radiation. The EPA’s website generally lays out the risks at each
site using a 1-5 star system. One star means “beware” and five
stars means “don’t worry.” You can find this information for
every site on the EPA’s
Superfund Site Information search page.
Yet, as our
story showed, in many cases cleanup goals aren’t being achieved.
And the risk of exposure is often limited.
6. We used
“Silicon Valley” as shorthand for the site we focused on. But
there are more than two dozen Superfund sites in Silicon Valley
alone
The
area we focused on is a collection of three sites known as the
Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman
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”
throughout the story.
There
are more Superfund sites in Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara County
–
23 –
than any other county in the United States. These are the only
visible remnants of what was once a manufacturing hub for a
burgeoning tech industry.
There
are two reasons why we homed in on this site. First, it’s where we
started our reporting more than a year ago, asking questions after
toxic
vapors leaked into office buildings.
Second, the
site has been studied extensively. This left behind a lengthy paper
trail that details how much waste has been removed, the pollution
levels and cost estimates. These bits of information allowed us to
tell a more nuanced and complete story about the cleanup effort and
its shortcomings.
This
story was produced by the independent, nonprofit Center for
Investigative Reporting, the country’s largest investigative
reporting team. For more, visit cironline.org. Rust can be reached at srust@cironline.org. Drange can be reached at mdrange@cironline.org.