 |
|
|
| | | published Tuesday, April 27, 2010 | 2736 Views :: 0 Comments | |  |
EPA to reassess hazards at Bannister Federal Complex
By KAREN DILLON
The Kansas City Star
The Environmental Protection Agency said Monday that it may put the Bannister Federal Complex on a priority list for cleanup. Two decades ago, the agency left the site off that special Superfund list, but now it will reassess that decision.
The announcement by Karl Brooks, EPA Region 7 administrator, comes after pressure from two groups demanding an immediate reinvestigation of the site, where operations are scheduled to close and move to a new plant farther south.
Activists and residents have argued that the Bannister plant should be cleaned up before a new plant is built.
They have raised concerns that the property would be abandoned and become a blight on the neighborhood.
Current and former plant workers are also worried about what they say is an unusually high rate of cancer.
“We believe that the concerns being raised show that a reassessment is both prudent and necessary and is an appropriate next step,” Brooks said in a statement.
The two federal agencies that oversee the site had previously said the property would be sold “as is” if possible.
Environmentalists and others were pleased by Monday’s announcement.
“That’s really great news,” said Scott Dye, national director of the Sierra Club’s Water Sentinels, who has fought with environmental agencies since 2001 to clean up the pollution.
“It’s long overdue. The real winners here are the people of Kansas City, and especially the current and former workers and their children, who have spent time at that site.”
U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver also was pleased.
“There are still many issues that we need to work through regarding the complex and the health of our federal employees, but the EPA reassessment of the soil, water and air in and around the facility is a very positive step forward,” the Missouri Democrat said.
Since the 1950s, non-nuclear parts for nuclear weapons have been manufactured at the Bannister site. The federal government owns the property, and the General Services Administration is the landlord.
The National Nuclear Security Administration has a contract with Honeywell to operate the manufacturing side, which takes up more than half the complex.
The GSA oversees the other side, where several government agencies and a day care are located. The IRS was at the site but moved downtown a few years ago.
Kevin Smith, the nuclear security administration’s acting site manager, said the agency welcomed the EPA’s decision.
“We look forward to supporting the review and are confident that the results will show that we have been good stewards of the environment,” Smith said.
GSA officials said they were focused on maintaining a healthy workplace and would work closely with the EPA.
PCBs, depleted uranium, trichloroethylene, asbestos and almost 800 other chemicals have been used there. Environmental officials have said large plumes of pollution run underground.
The complex was first assessed in 1987. At that time, 15 areas on the property were identified as Superfund sites, but they did not rank high enough on a hazard scale to qualify for the national priorities list.
The list includes the EPA’s most serious hazardous waste sites, which may need long-term cleanup.
A number of investigations involving several federal agencies, including the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have been announced this year because of the concerns about cancer and pollution.
The GSA inspector general’s office also announced an investigation because of concerns raised by Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican.
Who will pay for the cleanup, if one is called for, is a question. The federal government is responsible for the property, and a priority Superfund listing could bring additional funding. It was unclear to EPA officials Monday whether private contractors, including Honeywell, would have to share in the cost.
Honeywell did not have an immediate response.
How much it would cost depends on how much cleanup EPA officials decide is necessary — if any. The cost of cleanup was forecast in 1989 to be $460 million. Since then, only about $65 million has been spent.
Brooks said in his statement that the EPA action was based in part on an April 13 petition from the Sierra Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility asking the EPA to “conduct a full and complete reinvestigation and reassessment” of the complex.
Only this year, after a records request from The Kansas City Star brought to light an EPA memo discussing the sites, did several environmental leaders learn that 15 areas on the property already had been named Superfund sites.
“The public doesn’t understand how the government allowed the discharge of hazardous pollutants to continue for so many decades,” the letter to the EPA from the two groups said.
“The public interest is in the public health and the environment, both of which have been gravely harmed by the continuing discharge of hazardous pollutants for a very long time.”
The petition said much “damning” information has come to light in recent months, including:
•Hundreds of cancer cases among workers, some of whom have died, and thousands of claims filed for health-related compensation.
•Leaked documents that have expressed concerns about the health effects on children at the Bannister site’s day care center.
•The leaching of PCBs and other toxins into Indian Creek and the Blue River.
The petition also said the situation should be categorized as an environmental justice issue, which would mean the EPA would be required to set a stricter standard for handling the health hazards.
Ann Suellentrop with Physicians for Social Responsibility said the EPA’s announcement is a “great first step.”
But after everything that has gone on, “we don’t have any trust,” Suellentrop said. “They have blown their trust.”
|
| Comments |
Currently, there are no comments. Be the first to post one!
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can login here |
|
 |
|