Tag: groundwater contamination

Report Brief: Institutional Controls push environmental costs on to future generations

Published on November 13th, 2024 by - Blog Posts, Reports, Reports & Media Releases

Click to download (PDF)

Out of sight, out of mind: measures designed to shield public from contamination push costs on future generations

Here in Michigan, 45% of the population gets its drinking water from groundwater, including two million who rely on private wells. Groundwater also feeds streams and rivers, and sustains wetlands. It is an invaluable resource, but Michigan has thousands of sites where groundwater is unsafe and undrinkable due to industrial pollution.

Since 1995, state policy has allowed contaminated groundwater to remain degraded, rather than requiring that contamination gets cleaned up. The legal tools that enable this are called institutional controls.

Download the summary brief (PDF) to learn more about institutional controls in Michigan, the consequences of this policy, and FLOW’s recommendations for how Michigan can do a better job protecting groundwater.

Download the full report:
Institutional Controls for Groundwater Management: Long-Term Costs and Policy Impacts

 

 

 

Michigan taxpayers left holding the bag for contamination caused by now-defunct businesses

Published on October 17th, 2024 by - Blog Posts

If there was ever any doubt that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, a recent estimate of the cost to Michigan taxpayers of cleaning up environmental contamination should have dispelled it.

According to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE), there are some 13,000 so-called orphan sites across the state of Michigan. These are sites where no party responsible for the contamination can be identified. That is typically because the contamination happened so long ago it is unclear who caused the pollution and/or the potentially responsible parties are bankrupt.

In its new video highlighting EGLE’s efforts to address these orphan sites, the agency estimates that the cost to taxpayers of doing so could be as high as $13 billion.

FLOW and the MSU Institute for Water Research recently issued a report analyzing the costs of not cleaning up many contaminated sites. So why doesn’t the state have an up-to-date strategy for preventing contamination in the first place? Until it does, the public cost of cleanup is likely to grow beyond $13 billion as pollution taints more groundwater.

Other states have made more effort. Some have groundwater coordinating councils that bring together the state agencies that deal with groundwater. (In Michigan, four principal departments have some level of groundwater responsibility.) That helps assure a holistic view from state governments in groundwater policy and management. Michigan does not have such a council.

Some states, like Iowa, have groundwater protection acts that make education about and prevention of groundwater pollution a priority. Michigan has no such law.

And some states, like Minnesota, have groundwater monitoring programs that serve as an early warning system and design and enable the development of strategies for best management practices to prevent contamination. Michigan has no such program.

Since 2018, FLOW has been calling for a comprehensive state groundwater strategy. We will step up those efforts in the months ahead. We can do no less for a resource that provides drinking water for 45% of Michigan residents.

The Filthy Five: Michigan’s most notorious contamination sites

Published on September 18th, 2024 by - Blog Posts

Out of Michigan’s 24,000 Contaminated Sites, These Are Among the Most Notorious

Once upon a time, Michigan scientifically ranked our thousands of contamination sites by the hazard they represented to public health and the environment. Released annually, the list generated extensive publicity and legislative attention, resulting in significant appropriations for the cleanup of the worst sites.

In 1995, the state eliminated the annual ranking, in large part because the head of the agency resented the publicity and pressure. But while there is no annual ranking and public report, some sites are especially notorious because of both their hazard and their history.

The legacy these corporate polluters have left behind is especially important to consider as the Michigan legislature is likely to consider a package of Polluter Accountability bills later this year. The legislation would hold corporations responsible for cleaning up their own messes – rather than Michigan taxpayers.

Gelman Sciences – Washtenaw County

Source: Detroit Free Press

The Gelman Site is an area of groundwater contamination in Washtenaw County that includes portions of the City of Ann Arbor, and Scio Township. The groundwater is contaminated with the industrial solvent 1,4-dioxane (dioxane). The contamination plume encompasses a total area approximately 1 mile wide and 4 miles long. From 1966 until 1986, Gelman Sciences, Inc. manufactured medical filters using dioxane in the manufacturing process. In 1985, dioxane was discovered in residential drinking water wells in the area. Almost four decades later, the liable party and the state continue to haggle, with additional involvement by the County Court, local government, and active community members.

Packaging Corporation of America – Filer City (near Manistee)

Source: epa.gov

In 1949, Packaging Corporation of America switched to a new cooking process at this pulp mill, which produced much more contaminated wastewater. Waste from the cooking process depleted oxygen in Manistee Lake and resulted in a massive fish kill. From 1951 to 1976, the plant pumped seven billion gallons of wastewater resulting from use of a black pulping liquor into eight unlined seepage lagoons on 105 acres of land, resulting in an extensive plume of groundwater contamination. The plume initially flows under 1.5 square miles of industrially zoned land east of Manistee Lake.

Despite state studies confirming a discharge of at least a portion of the groundwater plume to the lake, and a high level of aquatic toxicity in the venting groundwater, U.S. EPA officially found no current or potential unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. The company is no longer being required to do more than monitor the plume.

Upper Peninsula Stamp Sands – Hubbell (in Houghton area)

Photo: Michigan Tech Archives

Copper mining activities in the area from the 1890s until 1969 produced mill tailings that were deposited along the Torch Lake shoreline. About 200 million tons of copper mill tailings were dumped into the lake. Stamp sands, tailings, and slags were deposited in the vicinity of former copper smelters, stamp mills, leach plants, reclamation plants and power plants. Extensive cleanup has taken place, but much more remains to be done.

Ott/Story/Cordova – Muskegon County

The Ott/Story/Cordova Superfund site has extensive soil and groundwater contamination resulting from waste disposal and chemical manufacturing practices in the 1950s through the 1980s. A pumping system extracts the contaminated groundwater, which is then treated and discharged to local surface waters. Court rulings have essentially created an obligation for the state (meaning taxpayers) to fund groundwater treatment and operations maintenance essentially in perpetuity –to the tune of millions of dollars per year.

Wickes Corporation – Mancelona

In 1986 Wickes disclosed that toxic Trichloroethylene (TCE) had been used at the site by a previous (and by then bankrupt) owner, Mt. Clemens Metal Products. EPA conducted groundwater testing and discovered extensive TCE contamination in groundwater and drinking water. It is now known that 13 trillion gallons of groundwater are contaminated by the use of chemicals at the site (by comparison, Grand Traverse Bay contains approximately 9 trillion gallons). This contamination has spread six miles to the northwest, affecting private drinking water wells. The state decided, in order to conserve limited public remediation funds, to support the development of a local drinking water authority and connecting homes to municipal water, rather than treat the contaminated water. Because of the ever-spreading groundwater plume, this “solution” has cost taxpayers over $27 million.

New Report Explores the Long-Term Costs of Relying on Institutional Controls in Responding to Groundwater Contamination

Published on September 3rd, 2024 by - Blog Posts, Reports, Reports & Media Releases

Download the report:
Institutional Controls for Groundwater Management: Long-Term Costs and Policy Impacts

The true economic, ecological, and social costs of relying on land use restrictions to address groundwater and soil contamination instead of active clean up are likely significantly higher than generally estimated. That is a conclusion of a new report submitted to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE).

Institutional Controls for Groundwater Management: Long-Term Costs and Policy Impacts, authored by the Institute for Water Research (IWR) at Michigan State University and by FLOW, an environmental law and policy center in Traverse City, Michigan, analyzes the effects of such measures. Institutional controls (ICs), often in the form of deed restrictions or local ordinances that prohibit the use of contaminated groundwater, have been put in place at over 2,000 sites across Michigan, affecting a cumulative area more than twice the size of the City of Grand Rapids.

The project originated with a request for proposals from EGLE to assess the long-term economic cost of using ICs and other restrictive actions to manage risks associated with groundwater contamination compared with the cost of other potential management actions.

The IWR/FLOW team conducted extensive background research at seven case study sites, reconstructing timelines and gathering relevant cost data. That research informed the subsequent economic analysis that sought to isolate costs related to IC implementation and extrapolate them into the future. The team found that when responsible parties or their consultants estimated the cost of an IC-only response as part of a remedial action plan, those estimates fell short, often significantly, of the actual costs incurred. The differences were mainly attributable to failures to anticipate contaminant migration (necessitating additional monitoring and the extension of municipal water sources) or the adoption of stricter criteria for acceptable contamination levels based on emerging science.

Despite the tendency to underestimate their true long-term costs, the analysis found that IC-driven approaches were still cheaper in the near term than active remediation efforts to restore contaminated aquifers, such as pumping and treating or soil vapor extraction. It is often more affordable for responsible parties to fall back on approaches that do not actively clean up contaminated aquifers. But choosing to let groundwater contaminants attenuate for decades (centuries in some cases) allows them to continue to migrate with the flow of groundwater, effectively writing off a public resource, resulting in orphan sites and contaminating public and private drinking water across the state of Michigan.

Though the analysis focused on more readily quantifiable costs, such as the extension of municipal water lines, monitoring well installations, and staffing, the team acknowledged the broader social and ecological impacts of not actively remediating groundwater contamination sites. These include the erosion of public trust, threats to environmental justice, the stigmatization of cities and regions, and degraded ecological function.

The team developed a decision framework tool, organized as a spreadsheet, to help evaluate the potential costs of an IC-only approach, potentially as part of the development of a remedial action plan. While the tool’s cost estimates are limited to those that the project team was able to quantify in its analysis, it also informs users of the harder to quantify societal and ecological impacts of not actively removing contaminants from the ground and encourages their consideration as part of remediation planning.

From the report: “This project highlights the need for a market-based correction that imposes much more of the impacts associated with groundwater contamination to be captured in the cost of doing business by the contaminating entities.”

In addition to the cost analyses and development of the decision framework tool, the report provides recommendations on how groundwater management policy, specifically regarding the management of ICs, could be improved. These include:

  • Prioritization of Sites: Prioritize the investigation and identification of all source areas and removal or prevention of those source areas from continuing to contaminate and migrate.
  • Natural Resources Damage Assessment: Consider a natural resource damage assessment payment to the state for any responsible party that utilizes an IC on groundwater as a part of its remedy. This fee could be a function of the extent to which the responsible party implements remedial actions to remove source materials, reduce concentrations of the contamination in the aquifer, and restrict expansion of the plume.
  • Sellers Disclosure Act: More strongly enforce the Sellers Disclosure Act, Act 92 of 1993. Require landowners with knowledge of existing contamination, institutional controls, or restrictive covenants to notify EGLE, local government, and prospective new purchasers/lessees of the contamination/RCs/ICs. Include such information in title searches for mortgages.
  • Future Hazardous Conditions: During remedy selection processes, EGLE should consider the possible future generation of hazardous conditions, such as explosive vapors (e.g., methane) from the biodegradation of organic materials (wood, charcoal, landfill content) in groundwater. Potentially affected properties should be eligible for free groundwater and soil vapor testing.
  • One-call System: Develop a one-call system like Michigan’s 811 program (MISS Dig) to include all sites with use restrictions due to soil or groundwater contamination.

“Institutional Controls are an important part of the environmental remediation toolkit. They help protect the public from exposure to dangerous chemicals. But if they are the only tool used in response to contamination, then it creates long-term economic, social, and environmental risks to be borne by current and future generations. We have to find ways to prioritize the removal of contaminants from the environment, not just shielding ourselves from them.” – Glenn O’Neil (Environmental Scientist, IWR)

“This report underscores the need for a greater emphasis on active cleanup of groundwater contamination sites. The fact that groundwater is out of sight does not mean it is worthless. It supplies drinking water to 45% of Michigan’s population. This report documents both quantitative and qualitative costs from the use of institutional controls, which generally let groundwater contamination persist.” – Liz Kirkwood (Executive Director of FLOW)

Download the full report and access an IC cost calculator tool online at: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/ic-report