In a packed auditorium in Bridgeton on March 5, residents of the area surrounding St. Louis’ radioactive West Lake Landfill stood up for what they want out of the cleanup plan for their community – and the solution they’re advocating for is not the one the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prefers.
Bridgeton Councilman Randy Hein was one of many residents who stood up to speak at the EPA-hosted public meeting which took place at Bridgeton’s Machinists Union Hall. The community is home to several areas where radioactive material was disposed of and which is responsible for highly elevated levels of radiation, including in some resident’s homes. Many activists also believe it is linked to incidences of rare cancers in the area.
A crowd of over a thousand came to hear the EPA’s plans to clean up radioactivity in West Lake Landfill and the Coldwater Creek area, but Hein was one of the majority who was let down.
“How many more casualties?” Hein asked. “How many more? I say a lot more, if you let this happen.”
Hein, and many of his fellow attendees, were unhappy with the plan the EPA chose as its “preferred alternative” for cleaning up the sites. Alternative 4, one of eight that were discussed during the EPA’s presentation, would require the removal of high-level radioactive materials up to 16 feet below the ground. The site would then be covered by an engineered protective cap. The surrounding area would be monitored long-term for radioactivity and water safety.
“RIM [radiologically impacted material] located at depths greater than 16 feet, regardless of concentration, would be left in place,” the EPA’s documentation on the proposed plans reads.
That was not good enough for many community members at the meeting. Many of them favored the EPA’s Alternative 7, which would require the total removal of radioactive material from the site. It would also cost approximately $455 million to Alternative 4’s $236 million and take an estimated 14.6 years to complete, in contrast to five years for Alternative 4.
Harvey Ferdman, chair of the West Lake Community Advisory Group, was the first to speak during the meeting’s public comment portion.
“A partial removal is a partial solution,” Ferdman said. “Our city, county and state deserve a full solution. We deserve Alternative 7.”
After years of advocacy from residents in the area around the landfill, a solution seems closer than ever. Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator appointed by President Donald Trump, has taken a special interest in the West Lake Landfill and designated it as a target of the Superfund program that addresses America’s highest-priority environmental disasters. The issue also gained greater public attention from “Atomic Homefront,” an HBO documentary that depicted community activists’ efforts to get the EPA’s help.
Two class-action lawsuits were recently filed on behalf of residents around West Lake Landfill and the contaminated Coldwater Creek, aiming to hold the companies that mismanaged the nuclear waste accountable for its costs.
Kay Drey, a longtime environmental activist, said the federal government has just as much responsibility for the problems at West Lake Landfill as the corporations that handled the radioactive materials.
“The federal government creates nuclear weapons,” Drey said. “The federal government has the moral and fiscal responsibility to clean up the nuclear weapons waste at West Lake Landfill.”
The radioactive material that now resides at the landfill was first brought to St. Louis as part of early nuclear weapons development programs in the 1940s. It was then managed by several private corporations, including Republic Services and Cutter Corp., which failed to properly dispose of it.
Dawn Chapman, one of the co-founders of Just Moms STL, a prominent activist group that formed in response to the issue, called for complete removal of the radioactive materials and relocation for those closest to the site.
“Raise your hand if you feel like an acceptable risk,” Chapman asked the audience.
The number of hands that raised for that question was the same number raised when Chapman’s fellow co-founder, Karen Nickel, asked who in the crowd favored implementing the EPA’s preferred plan: zero.
The EPA is seeking public comments on which alternative to implement until April 23. Comments can be submitted to R7_WestLakeLandfilPublicComments@epa.gov, or mailed to Benjamin Washburn at the EPA Region 7’s Office of Public Affairs, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
