The Village of DePue: Put it in someone else's backyard - Part 13

NIMBY (an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"), or Nimby, is a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away. Opposing residents themselves are sometimes called Nimbies. (1)

With that in mind, let's begin:

In a nut shell, here is how the public looks at a situation similar to the one in DePue.

Source

It does not matter what the chemical of concern is, if there is any type of risk involved, the public reacts in a very predictable way.  In the case of DePue we are not talking about siting a facility there, but keeping the waste in place.  Revers siting so-to-speak, same thing though, the folks in DePue do not want it in their back yard.

In my last post I asked the question "what's the beef?"  I found out that the contamination in OU-4, the area of public health concern because that's where actual exposure can take place, is going to be cleaned up.

"[Exxon Mobil and CBS/Viacom] proposes to excavate [OU-4] contaminated soil from residential lots and other areas of the village and deposit the soil in the corrective action management unit..." (2)

So if that contaminated soil is going to be removed, what's the issue that requires the involvement of the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Northwestern University School of Law’s Bluhm Legal Clinic?

According to the Chicago Tribune article that started me on these posts:

[T]he involvement of Northwestern University's Environmental Advocacy Center — which is providing DePue with free legal representation — has given them some much-needed clout and could help the town finally realize its goal of eliminating or containing the contamination.

Isn't that the goal of the Illinois EPA?  Isn't that what is being proposed in the plan?  I have read all that I can find about this situation in DePue.  Unless the Illinois EPA is lying to the Illinois House and Senate, the issue in OU-4, the area where exposure could take place, is being rectified.  No where in the CleanupDePue.org website or press release does it specifically tell me what they - DePue - want done differently.

But I think I know.  NIMBY.  An not just regular good ol' NIMBY, but NIMBY made acceptable by educated folks who are associated with a prestigious university.

When Nancy Loeb, the director of the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Northwestern University School of Law’s Bluhm Legal Clinic states in the Press Release...:

"The companies spent millions of dollars on consultants in an attempt to show that this SuperFund site poses no significant risks, and they delivered a superficial plan that barely touches many of the contaminated areas, leaves the slag pile and other waste in place, does nothing to stop contamination from seeping into the groundwater, and leaves backyards, playgrounds and Lake DePue without real remediation.”

...she is helping the NIMBY phenomenon by perpetuating all five of the factors that lead to a strong opposition.  The burden to educate and advocate soundly falls squarely on her shoulders.  She is the educated one here, and she - through Northwestern University - has the ability to bring in the expertise needed to confirm protection of public health for the citizens of DePue and provide analysis and clarification of the data and risk for the remediation proposed.  This, in my opinion, has not been done. If it had, I would not be writing 13 posts explaining what the risks are.

Let's look at these five factors giving way to the NIMBY phenomenon using CleanUp DePue's Press Release:

Distrust of government and other project components:

 "The companies spent millions of dollars on consultants in an attempt to show that this SuperFund site poses no significant risks..."

"Illinois EPA has had the responsibility for oversight, and for most of that time, the Illinois EPA did little to force ExxonMobil and CBS to fulfill this order."

 “People here are tired of ExxonMobil and CBS earning record profits while jeopardizing the health and well-being of the children, families and wildlife in DePue,”

“We are raising awareness, and raising funds so we can hire experts to reply to ExxonMobil and CBS’s faulty science,”

 Limited information about the problem and risks:

"Visit www.CleanUpDePue.org to see an interactive map that details the way-above-normal concentrations of pollutants at hundreds of contaminated sites."

“The consent order required the responsible parties to come up with the plan, supervised by the Illinois EPA. I don’t know how to respond to that plan. It’s not even close to what’s needed.” 

Parochial and localized view of problem, risks, and costs:

"and their “solution” would turn the central Illinois River town into a permanent toxic waste dump."

"the companies presented a plan that basically proposes to dig up a handful of the polluted areas and throw the toxic waste over the fence.”

"ExxonMobil and CBS are continuing to minimize the risks to human health and the environment and to set the groundwork for leaving the contaminated waste where it is,”

"Keith Garcia, a science teacher at DePue High School who had his class sample soil and water to document unsafe concentrations of pollutants."

Emotional assessment to siting proposals

The reality is that children are growing up here, eating from home gardens, playing in parks and ball fields, boating in the lake, and later working and living as adults in DePue."

 “Industry took their profits, and left their toxic contamination here,” 

“I feel like the victim again,”

Generalized and particular risk aversion

"Contaminated debris blows onto public and private property throughout the village and surrounding natural areas, exposing residents -- more than a quarter of whom are children under the age of 16 -- and local wildlife to arsenic and heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium."

That press release, that quotes Nancy Loeb, is dated August 15, 2012.  It came out after the August 10, 2012 letter from the Illinois EPA to the Illinois House and Senate detailing the plan of action proposed.

What is being proposed and considered by Illinois EPA does not support CleanUp DePue's press release rhetoric which basically contends the plan is "not even close to what’s needed."

What exactly is the opposition to this plan?  The Illinois EPA tells us in their letter:

Source

It's that last sentence that is the crux of what all of this is about.  The plan is to remove the [OU-4] soil and place it in a corrective action management unit, on the existing slag pile, or to temporarily store the soil elsewhere on the plant site.  This, with Nancy Loeb's apparent blessing, is construed to mean "dig up a handful of the polluted areas and throw the toxic waste over the fence.”

Northwestern University, through Nancy Loeb, should be assisting the town in moving away from this "parochial and localized view of problem, risks, and costs" into one of understanding what the best remedy for this situation is.  Instead, Ms. Loeb tells them:

"ExxonMobil and CBS are continuing to minimize the risks to human health and the environment and to set the groundwork for leaving the contaminated waste where it is,”

Because Ms. Loeb has a "parochial and localized view of problem, risks, and costs" those that are listening to her will also have said view.  What Ms. Loeb is advocating for is to have the contaminated soil removed from DePue.  Dig it up and move it out of there appears to be the only acceptable method of remediation that Ms. Loeb will consider for DePue. What she is not addressing is the fact that if you removed it from DePue, who's backyard will you send it to?

She should be advocating to make sure that the levels of contamination where people are exposed, OU-4, are brought to a legal and/or risk-based level.  That appears to be the remedy for OU-4.  So why is she alowing the town to take exception to the deposition of Village soils on the plant site?

Why, because of NIMBY.  Only in this case, NIMBY would result in taking this slag pile and putting it somewhere else, you know, in somebody else's backyard.

Who's backyard?  A hazardous waste landfill?  Sure, those guys would love to receive 750,000 tons of soil.  But there is more risk of digging it up and transporting it then any exposure to that soil if it is left in place.  Right now that slag pile and corrective action management unit does not appear to be exposing anyone.  If it is, then something needs to be done about that.  Since none of the data on their website supports that (I checked - see previous posts), then the slag pile and corrective action unit are not presenting a health issue.  And once the elevated soils are removed from OU-4, exposure ceases for the folks in DePue.

But, Ms. Loeb claims the plan "does nothing to stop contamination from seeping into the groundwater, and leaves backyards, playgrounds and Lake DePue without real remediation.”  Show me why.

That's not what the Illinois EPA is telling the Illinois House and Senate.  That's not what they tell the folks in DePue.  You can read about what has been done here.  Show me what "real remediation" means.  Right now what I know has been done, and what has been proposed, makes sense to me.  If I am missing something here, then put that on the CleanUp DePue website.

If the only acceptable remedy is to "remove the materials and clean the site of all contaminants to the satisfaction of the Village" and to "clean the site and have it removed from the NPL [Superfund List]" then nothing is going to make these folks happy short of that. (3)

Ms. Loeb needs to help them understand all of the risks involved.  The contamination is already there.  It sucks that it is, but that's the reality.  There is no practical way to dig up and remove all of that soil without filling up somebody else's backyard.  If you claim it is unsafe to leave it there, why would you want to place it somewhere else?  And if you think a hazardous waste landfill is the way to go, you need to think about capacity and the distance to drive a truck to that location. What needs to be advocated for is minimizing real exposure, not removing the contaminant.

To remove 750,000 tons of the slag pile would take about 28,000 trips on the road.  Is the risk of a truck hauling dirt on a public highway less than the risk of leaving that slag pile in place?  Is the risk of occupational accidents as we excavate that soil less than the risk of leaving that slag pile there?  Would the risk of air dispersion of contaminants when the soil is excavated and loaded onto trucks be less than leaving the slag pile untouched?

I think not.

If Nancy Loeb thinks those new risks are necessary to take in order to protect the folks in DePue, then let her advocate for them by showing why those new risks can be ignored.  But if she does, then she will also have to explain why putting the contaminant in someone else's backyard makes sense as well.



Next post: The Village of DePue:  A totally unrealistic methods for looking at risk - Part 14