A Grand Prairie industrial site that leaked cancer-causing chemicals under more than 100 homes is now eligible for cleanup funding, the Environmental Protection Agency announced Tuesday.
The 1.1-acre Delfasco Forge property has been placed on the Superfund National Priorities List, which features some of the nation’s most polluted sites. Still, funding and cleanup of the toxic groundwater and soil could take 10 to 15 more years, said Jim Cummings, Grand Prairie’s environmental services director.
“It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s just a step,” said Grand Prairie Mayor Ron Jensen. “I don’t want anybody to think that everything is going to be good next year. It’s a long process. We’re going to have to be patient and vigilant.”
The owner of the Delfasco Forge plant, which made practice bombs for Navy and Air Force pilots, filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Officials at the Hurst-based company blamed its bankruptcy on liabilities from the contamination as well as reductions in military training.
They also claimed that the pollution was caused by previous owners or other industrial sites.
Testing at the time found trichloroethylene in 10 nearby businesses and homes. The EPA concluded that the site was a threat to public health.
The bankruptcy court set aside money to temporarily protect some properties near the plant at 114 N.E. 28th St. Trichloroethylene, or TCE, used as a degreaser, along with other hazardous chemicals were found in groundwater underneath 65 acres of a mostly residential area of Grand Prairie.
Cummings said scientists realized that there was still a danger from the pollution even if the groundwater wasn’t used. Fumes from the TCE and other chemicals that evaporate quickly migrated into the soil and then leaked into the structures above ground.
The groundwater is about 18 to 32 feet below the surface, according to EPA records.
Some property owners were provided equipment to vent fumes outside their homes or businesses, although installation wasn’t mandatory. Four exhaust fan systems were installed in 2008 and 31 more in 2014. The owners of nearly 50 more homes located above the toxic underground plume were offered these systems but declined, according to the EPA.
Agency officials on Tuesday said this was the first time these vapor concerns had been used as a factor for inclusion on the Superfund list. Previously, there was less concern about groundwater contamination if the properties didn’t use well water.
The EPA has proposed banning the use of TCE in commercial vapor and aerosol degreasing and dry cleaning because of its health risks. Besides causing cancer, the chemical can also harm fetuses, irritate the respiratory and central nervous systems and harm the liver, kidneys and immune system.
The site’s soil and groundwater is tainted with five other toxic chemicals known to harm most organ systems and also cause cancer.
The plant opened in the 1950s near Dallas’ former Naval Air Station and was bought by Delfasco in 1980. The Grand Prairie plant, which also had metal fabrication and forging operations, shut down in 1998. The owner then leased it to an auto repair business.
Jensen said the city plans to use mailers, door hangers and social media to alert nearby residents and businesses about the progress. Informational meetings and hearings will also be planned.
The San Jacinto River Waste Pits, an EPA Superfund site that is contaminated with dioxins, is located off Interstate 10 east of Houston. Photo: Michael Stravato
The criteria Texas uses to determine how much — and whether — to clean up abandoned industrial facilities, waste dumps and other polluted sites are so lax that they may allow residential homes to be built in areas that neighboring states wouldn’t even consider safe for factories or oil refineries.
That’s according to a report by the Texas Campaign for the Environment Fund set to be released on Tuesday that compares benchmarks for more than 80 different pollutants that Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Mississippi and Oklahoma use to determine whether a site is contaminated enough to warrant cleanup and how much pollution should be removed from the soil or water there before it can be re-developed.
The overarching conclusion of the report: Texas’ formulas are “substantially weaker” than those used by almost every nearby state, in part because it tolerates a greater risk of cancer. That means that some polluted Texas sites that would be eligible for cleanup in other states may not be eligible here — and if the state does decide to clean them up, it may not remove as much pollution as its neighbors.
While some neighboring states — namely Arkansas and Oklahoma — rely on federal criteria, Texas uses its own benchmarks. Overall, they are so weak that Texas allows “pollution concentrations on land designated for residential uses that Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi wouldn’t even restrict to industrial uses,” the report found.
For example, Texas’ cleanup rules say that the ground at residential properties should contain no more than 69 milligrams of the carcinogenic petrochemical benzene for every 1 kilogram of soil; Louisiana, meanwhile, only allows 3.1 milligrams of benzene per kilogram of soil — and that’s for sites intended for industrial use.
The report comes a year after heavy rains from Hurricane Harvey flooded many polluted sites in the Houston area, sparking concerns about contaminants leaching into homes and waterways. And statewide, rapid urban revitalization and population growth means many contaminated sites are being remediated and redeveloped for both commercial and residential use.
Almost all of the 5,533 polluted sites in Texas that have been identified as needing some amount of cleanup are enrolled in state-run cleanup programs, according to the report, while only about 7 percent are enrolled in federal cleanup programs. One percent are enrolled in the federal Superfund program, which is generally reserved for the most highly polluted sites in the most urgent need of cleanup. The state’s environmental regulatory agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, also is responsible — per U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements — for determining which sites are eligible for the Superfund program.
The report also found that Texas’ benchmarks are significantly weaker than those used by the federal government to determine whether a site is eligible for Superfund status.
“On average, for all chemicals targeted by Texas and the EPA, the strictest Texas benchmarks tolerate soil pollution at a rate nearly 14 times greater than the benchmarks used to score potential Superfund sites and groundwater pollution at a rate nearly 35 times higher,” according to the report, which emphasizes that the disparity is particularly stark for carcinogenic contaminants.
While Texas benchmarks for pollutants that are not thought to cause cancer are 4.5 percent stronger than federal Superfund thresholds, the report found that they are 1,682 percent weaker for known carcinogens.
“It is fair to say that the more dangerous a pollutant, the less emphasis Texas puts on cleaning it up,” the report concludes.
In a statement, the TCEQ said its cleanup standards were “developed based on broad-based stakeholder input” and “are the result of sound science and uniform methods that assess risk at each site using conservative assumptions to be protective of human health and the environment.”
The report found that the benchmarks in Texas are weaker in part because the state assumes “that Texans are smaller on average than people in other states, that they drink less water, and that children accidentally consume less dirt.”
“As a result we accept greater levels of pollution in our soil and water,” the report says.
But the report found that an even bigger factor was that Texas tolerates a higher cancer risk than other states. In Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Mississippi, benchmarks are based on an amount of pollution that would likely cause one additional case of cancer for every 1 million people. Meanwhile, Texas’ benchmarks tolerate an additional case of cancer for every 100,000 people (New Mexico uses the same standard).
The report recommends adopting a more conservative cancer risk level and revising formulas to match assumptions of accidental soil consumption and body size that are used in other states, either through legislation or TCEQ rulemaking.
For the report, the Texas Campaign for the Environment Fund and Air Alliance Houston also requested files on TCEQ investigations of at least 818 potentially contaminated sites from 2007 to 2017. Most of those probes ended with a determination that no further action was necessary, even in some cases when evidence suggested that pollutant levels exceeded state benchmarks and where the EPA later deemed the site a cleanup priority. The report noted that many of the investigation reports omitted specific pollutant concentrations — or lacked a thorough explanation of why the agency decided no further action was warranted.
In May, the EPA added — or proposed to add — two polluted Texas sites to the Superfund program’s National Priorities List that the TCEQ had previously determined required no further action, according to the report. They include a former metal forging and fabrication business in Grande Prairie that the TCEQ decided not to clean up because “the area was not on well water,” the report says, and a long-troubled metal plating facility in San Antonio the TCEQ had investigated and ordered to remove vats and drums. While the agency found “elevated levels” of the toxic liquid bromodichloromethane at the facility, it was below state benchmarks so no further action was taken.
The EPA eventually added the San Antonio site to the Superfund list because it was concerned it may contaminate the Edwards Aquifer, which provides drinking water to some 2 million people. It found that the soil and groundwater at the site are contaminated with heavy metals and cyanide and that concentrations of hexavalent chromium — a toxic carcinogen — exceeded maximums set in the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Portland, TX (KIII News) — Environmental groups are now officially on record opposing an air quality permit for the new multi-billion dollar Exxon plastics plant planned for the Portland area.
A hearing was held by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Thursday aimed at finding out just how much opposition to the project there is.
The hearing began with the questioning of residents who are members of environmental groups opposed to the Gulf Coast Growth Ventures project. Both the Sierra Club and the Texas Campaign for the Environment were recognized as official parties to the opposition of the air quality permit. Both groups asked for more time to prepare their cases.
The attorney with the Sierra Club said the group objects to the permit because of possible pollution.
“Everbody likes the money that comes from industry, almost nobody likes the flares at night, the way the air smells, that kind of stuff,” Sierra Club Attorney David Frederick said.
One resident who belongs to the environmental group was asked why he was opposed to the permit.
“I have grandchildren and a daughter that live, we all live in that area, within a half mile of the plant,” resident Dewey Magee said. “Very concerned about the things that they’re asking permission to emit.”
An attorney for Gulf Coast Growth Ventures told the hearing judge they believe in the public process but believe any delay will cost millions. A company spokesman provided a statement.
“We will commit to operating in such a way that ensures the safety of our employees, our people, the communities and of the environment itself,” said Jacob McAlister of Gulf Coast Growth Ventures.
The hearing judge promised to decide on a date for the ruling by early next week.
English
English
Spanish