The Army Corps of Engineers will apparently “do the right thing” when it comes to taking responsibility for treating one source of Cheyenne’s drinking water for trichloroethylene, or TCE, which is a result of Cold War-era nuclear missile maintenance east of Cheyenne.Read the full story here.
Paul Johnston, public affairs officer for the Omaha district of the Army Corps of Engineers, said the Corps is charged by the Department of Defense to administer the FUDS (formerly used defense sites) program.
That means taking care of a range of sites, “from missile sites to old training grounds to WWI and WWII bombing ranges and old munitions storage; the whole gamut,” Johnston said.
But right now, the city is paying the $20,000 a year it takes to remove the TCE from the water before it arrives at residents’ taps.
It also paid $600,000 for the aeration basin that removes the chemical when it was first found in 1998, Jane Francis, geological supervisor at the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, said.
“Our first priority is safe drinking water,” Bud Spillman, manager of the water treatment division of the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities, said in a news release. “We can remove the TCE at the treatment plant and do not allow any water contaminated with TCE to be piped to town.”
But before the water from the newly-acquired Belvoir Ranch can be sent to Cheyenne, the aeration basin at the treatment plant will need to be increased, according to a BOPU news release.
“The cost to increase capacity at the aeration basin is a cost that Cheyenne’s residents shouldn’t have to pay,” Spillman said in the release.
[...]
The Army Corps has been studying the contamination in Cheyenne for the last seven years, Francis said.
They’re making slow progress in trying to find out how long the contamination plume is, she added. It is the position of the department that there is one large plume of TCE that is a result of the chemical being used at the Atlas No. 4 missile site.
Johnston said there are two areas of contamination. One is obviously because of the work at the missile site.
The Army Corps is taking full responsibility for that site, he said, and taking steps to clean it up.
But there is a 2- to 3-mile stretch where there is no contamination, and the TCE picks up again about 10 miles from the missile site. The source of the contamination at that site isn’t clear to the Army Corps, Johnston said.
Working with the Environmental Protection Agency and BOPU, “all of us cannot find a firm link between the two contaminated areas,” he said.
That’s as of yet, anyway. In June, Johnston said the Army Corps plans to have more people out in the field doing studies to determine the source of contamination for the second plume.
If it is found that the water is also contaminated because of the missile maintenance, the Army Corps will take full responsibility and clean it up, he said.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
With about 60 percent of Dutchess County residents getting their water supply from groundwater — interest in keeping it clean and abundant, especially with increased pollution, is important to many residents.Read more in the Poughkeepsie Journal
On Oct. 29, the Groundwater 2005 Conference will be held at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eleven geologists, environmental consultants, hazardous waste engineers, research scientists, state officials and other speakers will present information. The conference is intended for the public, politicians, developers and members of planning and zoning boards.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Final list of reps and letter to the EPA
- Representative Pallone joins the Kelly gang (NJ)
- If your state representative wants to support better protections...
- Congresswoman Katherine Harris makes it a bi-partisan appeal for protection (FL)...
- Senator Boxer writes to National Academy regarding TCE concerns (CA)
- Congresswoman to EPA: We need better protection against TCE, now; invites colleagues to join
- Congressman acts to protect the public from TCE dangers (NY)
Saturday, March 26, 2005
· 85% of the sites below were discovered 15 yrs ago or more---
· over 60% of the potentially eligible sites and over 35% of all sites below report no clean-up activities
Table IV.1: Sites Classified as Awaiting an NPL Decision in Each State, by Eligibility for Listing and Status of Cleanup Progress
+
Table VI.1: State Officials’ Assessments of States’ Financial Capabilities to Clean Up Potentially Eligible Sites
| State | Number of sites classified as awaiting an NPL decision | Number of sites unlikely to become eligible for the NPL | Number of potentially eligible sites with some cleanup activities | Number of potentially eligible sites with no reported cleanup activities | Number of sites for which no surveys were received | State officials’ assessment of state’s financial capability to clean up potentially eligible sites |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 25 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 0 | Very poor |
| Alaska | 28 | 14 | 8 | 6 | 0 | Excellent |
| Arizona | 34 | 16 | 10 | 8 | 0 | Excellent |
| Arkansas | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Good |
| California | a 189 | 64 | 51 | 74 | 0 | Fair |
| Colorado | 30 | 12 | 10 | 6 | 2 | Very poor |
| Connecticut | 290 | 74 | 98 | 118 | 0 | Poor |
| Delaware | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Excellent |
| District of Columbia | a 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Florida | 269 | 74 | 85 | 110 | 0 | Fair |
| Georgia | 74 | 39 | 8 | 27 | 0 | Poor |
| Guam | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Hawaii | 17 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 0 | Fair |
| Idaho | 16 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 0 | * |
| Illinois | 207 | 95 | 43 | 69 | 0 | Fair |
| Indiana | 54 | 21 | 15 | 18 | 0 | Very poor |
| Iowa | 33 | 29 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Very poor |
| Kansas | 37 | 28 | 4 | 5 | 0 | Very poor |
| Kentucky | 20 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 0 | Good |
| Louisiana | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Poor |
| Maine | 56 | 28 | 17 | 11 | 0 | Poor |
| Maryland | 20 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 0 | Other b |
| Massachusetts | a 201 | 11 | 19 | 171 | 0 | Fair |
| Michigan | 50 | 22 | 18 | 10 | 0 | Excellent |
| Midway Island | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Minnesota | 17 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 0 | Good |
| Mississippi | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Very poor |
| Missouri | 91 | 73 | 7 | 11 | 0 | * |
| Montana | 11 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 | Very poor |
| Navajo Nation | 14 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | |
| Nebraska | a 36 | 16 | 4 | 15 | 1 | Very poor |
| Nevada | 12 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Poor |
| New Hampshire | 42 | 24 | 9 | 9 | 0 | Poor |
| New Jersey | 172 | 60 | 49 | 63 | 0 | Good |
| New Mexico | 15 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 0 | Very poor |
| New York | a 192 | 135 | 15 | 41 | 1 | * |
| North Carolina | 57 | 18 | 21 | 18 | 0 | Poor |
| North Dakota | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Poor |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Ohio | 79 | 25 | 23 | 31 | 0 | Very poor |
| Oklahoma | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Very poor |
| Oregon | 29 | 7 | 6 | 16 | 0 | Fair |
| Pennsylvania | 73 | 35 | 18 | 20 | 0 | Excellent |
| Puerto Rico | 16 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 0 | |
| Rhode Island | 121 | 14 | 23 | 84 | 0 | Poor |
| South Carolina | 45 | 32 | 8 | 5 | 0 | Good |
| South Dakota | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Other b |
| Tennessee | 102 | 51 | 19 | 32 | 0 | Poor |
| Texas | 21 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 0 | Poor |
| Utah | 48 | 17 | 8 | 16 | 7 | * |
| Vermont | 30 | 16 | 5 | 9 | 0 | Poor |
| Virginia | 22 | 8 | 2 | 12 | 0 | * |
| Washington | 28 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 0 | Fair |
| West Virginia | 11 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Other b |
| Wisconsin | 53 | 34 | 8 | 11 | 0 | Excellent |
| Wyoming | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 3,036 | 1,234 | 686 | 1,103 | 13 |
a California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Nebraska did not respond to surveys. For these states, the data in table IV.1 are based on EPA’s survey responses alone and, for that reason, may be less reliable than for states having responses from both EPA and states. New York provided responses to only a few questions in our survey.
b “Other” indicates that the respondent was uncertain about the state’s financial capability.
* State officials in Idaho, New York, Missouri, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming declined to participate in [the] telephone survey.
Related Posts (on one page):
- State by state: Contaminated sites awaiting an EPA decision, not on Superfund list
- Waiting for clean-up: Unaddressed risks at potential Superfund sites
Friday, March 25, 2005
The purpose of this document is to provide a synopsis of trichloroethylene (TCE) inhalation toxicity values and provide the corresponding risk-based indoor air concentrations for use in vapor intrusion assessment. Table 1 summarizes the toxicity values and risk-based concentrations. Figure 1 provides a graphic comparison of the ranges of concentrations corresponding to each of the toxicity values.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- EPA Region 8: TCE inhalation toxicity values and risk based indoor air concentrations
- EPA Region 9's air standards for TCE
- On the appeal for stricter standards (NY)...
- Guide to Indoor Air Sampling in Massachusetts (MA)
- Regulation standards for TCE (WI)
- Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in the State of New York (NY)
