via Wikimedia Commons
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a recommendation to partially excavate the West Lake Landfill to remove some of the radioactive waste linked to past nuclear-weapons development and to cap the rest. The announcement came more than a decade after residents and environmental groups first began expressing concerns about the potential public health risks and frustration with the federal government’s management of the site. Here's a recap of how the waste ended up at the site, what's happened since, and what's next.
What does the West Lake Landfill store? In 1973, a contractor for uranium processor Cotter Corporation reportedly dumped 8,700 tons of leached barium sulfate, containing uranium stemming from nuclear testing during the Cold War, at the landfill without authorization.
Why do residents and environmental groups see it as dangerous? In 1990, the EPA declared the landfill a “Superfund site,” meaning that it was contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants. Residents in the area have expressed concerns about possible health risks because the waste is contained in a quarry that is exposed to groundwater. Public backlash grew more intense in recent years, when officials discovered an underground fire at the nearby Bridgeton landfill has been burning since 2010. Several years later, residents began smelling fumes from the site and said they were worried about what would happen if the fire reached the nuclear waste. In 2013, former Missouri State Attorney General Chris Koster filed a lawsuit against Republic Services, which operates the landfill through a subsidiary, and released reports in 2015 stating that the fire was moving toward the nuclear waste and that contamination had been detected in trees on property near the landfill. An EPA spokesperson told the Post, "I really want to assure the communities and families in St. Louis that there is no imminent threat.” The owners of the Bridgeton and West Lake landfills also filed reports in response to the suit stating that the sites are safe.
What is the EPA proposing? More than 40 years after the waste was dumped at the site, the EPA announced a plan to spend $236 million to remove 27 percent of the waste (or about 70 percent of the radioactive material) at the site. That cost would potentially be split between the U.S. Department of Energy, Republic Services, and Exelon Corp., which has a subsidiary that once owned Cotter, according to the Post. The remaining waste would be covered with a permanent cap.
What's been the response to the proposal? After announcing the proposal, the EPA stated that it would take public comment until March 22. So far, some residents have expressed frustration over the fact that only some of the waste will be removed, according to St. Louis Public Radio. “I’m concerned that they’re not going to do enough,” Sally Kincaid, a 63-year-old St. Ann resident, told the radio station. “We talk about 30 percent of the actual mass is going to remove 70 percent of the total contamination, but is that going to be enough?” The Missouri Coalition for the Environment also stated that partial removal was “not acceptable.” “It means high levels of radioactivity will be left behind with the potential for water or airborne contamination into the future, creating unnecessary long-term risks to the St. Louis region,” policy director Ed Smith said in a statement. Throughout the years-long process, some residents have sought buyouts to move away from the landfill. Unhappy with the proposal, they say they would still like to sell their homes.
Other stakeholders described the EPA proposal as progress. “The major victory is we heard a lot of acknowledgment from EPA that this waste is dangerous and needs to be removed from your community,” Dawn Chapman, a co-founder of activist group Just Moms STL told the Post-Dispatch. “This is a far cry from the conversation that was happening five years ago.”
“The path to beginning implementation of the final record of decision could take years,” Republic Services said in a statement. “From here, we will participate fully during the EPA’s comment period, as well as engage vigorously with the EPA and the other PRPs to ensure that the final remedy performed is based on science, and is fully protective of human health.” Cotter stated that the company “will continue to work toward a science-based solution that protects the health and safety of the local community.”
What happens now? The response during the public comment period is designed to help determine if or how the proposal is implemented. In the meantime, next Monday, HBO plans to air Atomic Homefront, a documentary that discusses the situation. (You can also learn more about the Bridgeton and West Lake landfills from this St. Louis Public Radio story and see a timeline of events in this Post-Dispatch article.)
