Answers T O Superfund
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANSWERS TO SUPERFUND A PUBLICA TION OF THE C L A RK F ORK WA TERSHED E DUCA TION PROGRA M THE MOUNTAIN CON MINE YARD (FOREMAN’S PARK) PHOTO COURTESY OF CFWEP.ORG HOW DID THE CLARK FORK BECOME A SUPERFUND SITE? BY RAYELYNN CONNOLE he history of mining in the the entire camp. Furthermore, The rampant depositing of Mining continued in Butte TClark Fork Watershed be- tailings, the flour-like, acid- wastes throughout the Summit with underground mining even- gins with the discovery of gold producing mine wastes that and the Deer Lodge valleys tually giving way to open pit in Silver Bow Creek near Butte result from milling the ore, was further compounded by mining in the 1950’s. In 1977, in 1864. Gold mining in Butte were discharged into Silver an unprecedented 100-year the Anaconda Company was was rather short-lived; in fact, Bow Creek. For more than 100 flood in 1908. This flood car- bought by the big oil company, many historians reflect that the years, Silver Bow Creek was an ried tailings wastes from Butte Atlantic Richfield Company Butte camp was nearly a ghost open industrial sewer, being and Anaconda, and from the (ARCO). In 1980, ARCO closed town before the great copper used as a transport system for sediments of Silver Bow Creek the Anaconda Smelter, mark- boom of the 1880’s. The de- sending these tailings waste and Warm Springs Creek, and ing the beginning of ARCO’s mand for Butte’s copper ores downstream. spread them throughout the exit from mining. The Berkeley during the 1880’s was fueled by Solid mine wastes were not Clark Fork Watershed. The Pit ended operations in 1982, our country’s thirst for electric- the only contaminants being flood deposited millions of and by 1983, ARCO had ceased ity during the industrial age. spread throughout the Clark cubic yards of tailings along operations in Butte complete- This demand created great Fork Watershed. There was the river’s bed, banks and ly. In 1983, ARCO shut off the wealth within the watershed, also contamination from the flood plains before being pumps in the Kelley Mine, al- spreading beyond Butte to the toxic smoke that was produced stopped by William A. Clark’s lowing the Berkeley Pit to fill. communities of Anaconda, by the burning of the crushed newly constructed Milltown Superfund law (CERCLA) Deer Lodge, Bonner, and ore. The smelters of Butte, Hydroelectric Dam. was born in 1980 after years Missoula. The mining work- and later Anaconda, produced For over 100 years, the ar- of environmental disasters force numbered in the thou- many tons of airborne arsenic eas of Silver Bow Creek and around the United States sands and the economies that and sulfur every day. This tox- the Clark Fork River remained caused by industrial and natu- supported the mines thrived. ic smoke was such a big prob- battle scarred. The banks of ral resource activities. In 1983, With all the underground lem during the early days of Silver Bow Creek were acidic just three years after the law mining came great amounts of mining, and the air quality of and covered with yellow ‘sand’ was passed, the Upper Clark waste. In the late 1880’s and Butte and Anaconda was so le- that allowed nothing to grow. Fork Superfund Site was des- early 1900’s environmental thal to residents, that the first Depositional areas along the ignated. The State of Montana regulations were virtually non- city ordinance to address mine Clark Fork were named ‘slick- filed its complaint against existent, allowing the wastes waste pollution was specifically ens’ by the ranchers because of ARCO in 1983 for the histor- to be spread throughout the linked to air pollution. In 1890 the tendency for the tailings to ic damages to our watershed. cities of Butte and Anaconda. a city ordinance was enacted The series of settlements from be slick when wet. The ranchers Mining companies dumped that banned open heap roast- this suit marked the beginning had to fence these slickens areas waste rock all over the Summit ing (burning ore in the open) of the era of Superfund in the Valley, creating acres of highly in order to minimize the harm off from their cattle because of Clark Fork Watershed. acidic materials throughout caused by the smoke. how harmful they were. THE DIRECTOR'S LETTER RAYELYNN CONNOLE ANSWERS TO SUPERFUND VOLUME II This is the second edition of Answers to Superfund. Our first edition was published several years ago and much has THE MONTANA STEWARD AND ANSWERS TO SUPERFUND ARE PRODUCED BY changed since that time, not the least of which is that our THE CLARK FORK WATERSHED EDUCATION PROGRAM (CFWEP.ORG) then Director, Matt Vincent, is currently Butte Silver-Bow’s Chief Executive. In this edition, we hope to provide an up- date on the progress of cleanup and management at the var- ious sites, offer a deeper understanding of the Superfund Program, connect citizens to project leaders, and reflect on the legacy we wish to create here in western Montana. When the Environmental Protection Agency listed the Clark Fork Watershed as a Superfund site in 1983, many residents of the basin found the label controversial and worrisome. Many wondered if our communities would ever recover from the moniker, “Largest Superfund Site in the Country.” Some leaders and politicians hoped that Butte and Anaconda would distance themselves from the fact that our communities were listed on the National Priorities List for cleanup, claiming that economic development and growth would be stifled by this label. Fast forward thirty plus years to the present day and one will find that there is still worry and controversy about Su- perfund. However, these worries have shifted. Today, our citizenry is concerned with ensuring the best possible clean- up, one that leaves a legacy of human and environmental health, and, yes, also economic growth and development that includes healthy mining practices. The economic im- pact of our watershed’s green-collar jobs within the clean- up and environmental engineering sectors are equal to the impact of jobs in the mining sector. Thirty years ago, few dreamed that such an economic reality would come to pass. In many ways, the communities of the Clark Fork Water- shed are lucky to be listed and have a responsible party who paid damages to the citizens of Montana for cleanup. As you will see within this issue, not all Superfund sites have this advantage. Superfund law has changed greatly in the past thirty years. Most notably and ironically, Superfund itself is not funded. How did concerned, civically engaged, well- Map created by evan norMan, informed citizens allow this to happen? data coMpiled & synthesized by chris doyle Butte residents know that despite our worries, despite our disagreements, and despite our frustrations with the agen- cies, having an Environmental Protection Agency, a state Department of Environmental Quality, and concerned citi- THIS TRAVEL AND DENSITY OUTREACH MAP illustrates the dis- tribution of programming provided by the Clark Fork Watershed zens is critical for gaining the funding to complete the work Education Program (Cfwep.Org) throughout the state of Montana. needed to help a watershed heal itself post environmental Since our inception in 2005, Cfwep.Org has expanded to these many disaster. What would the communities of the Clark Fork regions of the Clark Fork Watershed and the State of Montana with Watershed have been like without a Superfund? Perhaps it our extensive educational programs, professional development op- is time to reflect and be grateful that we had excellent local portunities, camps, festivals, watershed days and community ser- and state leaders who foresaw the necessity of Superfund vice events. Through our programming efforts, we have reached over status, engaged in listing our area immediately, and re- 40,000 students to date. We recognized that in order to fulfill our mained at the helm to see this clean-up through to the end. mission to create a legacy of stewardship, teachers were key. Our teacher professional development programs have grown with grant We can all agree that not everything has been done perfect- support and now span statewide. Our current projects are spon- ly, but today we have the means and the knowledge to work sored by the Natural Resource Damage Program (NRDP), the Office toward the best possible outcomes. Cfwep.Org is uniquely of Public Instruction (OPI) and the National Institutes of Health, not a political group nor an advocacy group. However, we Science Education Partnership Award (NIH-SEPA), as well as local believe that an educated and informed citizenry is critical to contracts and foundation gifts. We are able to continue to fulfill our this process. Our work ends at the information and educa- mission statement of creating environmental stewards with our highly tion stage. Your work begins once you know the facts. Please qualified staff team, generous partners and dedicated volunteers. For engage in the conversations about your communities. Work more information about what our organization is about, check out with your civic leaders to shape the legacy you wish to see our website at www.cfwep.org. To volunteer or donate for one of our in this watershed. We hope for a balanced legacy of healthy events, please contact Abby Peltomaa at [email protected] or mining and a healthy environment. Stay informed. We all 406-496-4790. make better decisions when we have good information. This publication s content is the result of collabora- ’ CFWEP STAFF tive efforts between many passionate and dedicated PUBLICATION EDITORS individuals. Each member of the Cfwep.Org staff team Arlene Alvarado, contributed time and effort to bring this guide to life.