Lauren Poe on the subject of Koppers
I am excerpting the questions and answers that took place between Commissioner Poe and I just yesterday. I will withhold my comments at this time.
1. Is there some legal barrier to a local governmental body that keeps them from shutting it down?
Answer: In essence yes, there is a legal barrier. That barrier has to do with body of evidence necessary to declare the site a “public nuisance” and have it shut down. In order to do this, we must have evidence that the current operations of the facility cause a public nuisance. Such evidence might include codes violations from noise, or air, water or soil pollution caused from current operations. We have asked for all citations, complaints or findings of evidence from the county health of environmental departments that would give us an opportunity to proceed in a court of law. We have been provided with almost nothing that would help us make this case. You may be able to help with this via your blog. Encourage residents to call in noise violations and report all complaints to the proper authority.
In the future, if the county or state health department or environmental protection departments are able to show that the current operations are causing a nuisance we will move forward with shutting them down with all deliberate speed. I have attached a memo from the city attorney describing some of what I have just relayed to you.
2. Is there a statute of limitations for when that could be done?
Answer: Not really. Since the evidence must be related to current operations, the case would have to be tied to what is happening now, not what happened in the past. Past activities and the resulting pollution are covered by the Superfund law and governed by the EPA. This law was severely weekend under the previous administration, but has been injected with a renewed purpose under the current president. I am hopeful that this will move the process along much more effectively.
3. Who has oversight of the problem?
The main person in charge of this process is Scott Miller of the Atlanta branch of the EPA. His contact information is (404) 562-9120, miller.scott@epa.gov.
4. Who is monitoring the spread of the pollution?
There are several entities involved. GRU has been primarily responsible for monitoring the migration of the pollutants through groundwater system, mainly keeping an eye on migration towards our well field. The Department of Health is investigating the surface soil migration and is continuing to determine the ultimate spread of contaminants. The Water Management District issues their storm water permit and has asked Koppers to provide additional information to their most recent application before reissuing their permit. I believe that the site has a grossly inadequate storm water infrastructure in place and it is my hope that the water management district shares this view.
We should demand a time line from the EPA. If they don’t meet their deadline, we should hold them accountable using whatever means we can. Poison is seeping into our water supply, and the EPA has been dragging their feet on clean up for decades. Commissioner Poe, as an elected official you are responsible for the safety of the people in this city. If that poison gets into the water and people are harmed by it will not just be the EPA’s fault, it will be yours as well.
1To be fair, Robert, I cannot remember the last time I heard ANY commission candidate campaigning on this issue, yourself included. This mess has been 26 years in the making. I have brought it up because Richard Selwach made it the cornerstone of his campaign for mayor. So it goes to show you that candidates, even without being elected, can bring a lot of focus on an issue. No one has been doing that, and now that I am aware of it, I just want to know what are the mechanics of the change we need.
Perhaps we need the opinion of an environmental engineer. I think we may have one on the commission. Does this stuff seep downward? Outward? Would underground barriers keep it from moving outward? I am just looking for something that will work, and for leaders with the will to do it.
2I did talk about it, it just wasn’t one of my three main platform points. It got downplayed by other issues that were going crazy in the media at the time. Plus it wasn’t a source of controversy because everyone agreed that it needed to be cleaned up. The difference is that those in office now have been in office for years, and have done nothing to hold the EPA accountable for their lack of progress.
The EPA knows how to clean it up, they just choose to not make it a priority because they say it is slowly seeping towards the water table, but is not an immediate threat.
After more than two decades of inaction I think it’s time for the EPA to give us a timetable that lays out exactly when they plan to fix the issue.
3In Poe’s defense, I was just reading the minutes from the joint City/County meeting about Koppers, and he did move to use more “assertive” laguange in a letter to the EPA, so that will probably make a difference. http://j.mp/7GoEm0 (page 3)
4The last I heard, we had received the EPA’s final remediation plan in November 2009, as scheduled, and there was an outcry over the fact that it didn’t remediate up to residential standards. If the EPA presents a plan and then we reject the plan, it stands to reason that we can expect further delays to remediation efforts. These delays are the price we’ll pay for indulging our desire to “make them pay,” even if their paying more is really not necessary.
I’m not sure that the area is viable as a residential development, cleaned up or not. Let’s assume it were developed for housing for the moment: who is going to buy a residential property there, even if the EPA offers assurances that the $100 million cleanup made it so you could irrigate on the property? As a developer, would you take that risk?
It seems to me we should remediate as soon as possible, arrest the growth of the plume — if this hasn’t alrerady happened — clean the soil and put this behind us.
Or, we can try to squeeze Beazer some more … whichever is better for the community.
5Keith,
The reason it was rejected is because the EPA basically wanted to cover it with a concrete slab and hope for the best.
Are you willing to accept that solution? Do you want to have a large concrete slab in the center of our city covering up poison that may or may not be moving towards our water supply indefinitely? Would it be responsible for us to leave that there for our children and grandchildren to live/work near?
6