The case study of Beazer East is a small beacon of hope in a sea of otherwise bleak situations. It illustrates how toxicity can be successfully contained at a site. However, containing this toxicity did not come without a cost. Beazer East spent millions of dollars containing these toxic materials, and only did so after being forced to act by the Maryland Department of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency.
|
site background
The company that would be come to be known as Beazer East was originally established in 1933 as J.I. Wells Company. They focused on producing creosote wood products (i.e. wooden telephone poles). This production resulted in harmful chemicals being released into the environment (specifically the soil and water), which were seen to cause kidney and liver problems in animals, and in high concentration, skin damage, and respiratory tract irritation in humans. This continued steadily for multiple years, until the Koppers Co., a larger, international company bought them out. Koppers Co, then chose to split the company into two, with Koppers Co. continuing to produce creosote wood products worldwide, and Beazer East (the newly created sister company) would be tasked with cleaning up the environmental waste at the Salisbury Site that was left from the previous production. By doing this, Koppers Co. cleansed themselves of any negative press and responsibility for the leftover toxicity. They were free to continue producing their creosote products at other sites, while Beazer East would be solely focused on remediation and containment efforts. Beazer East was then required by the Maryland Department of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency to work towards containing the residual toxicity.
what is being done?
After the MDE and EPA assessed the site in 1984, multiple remedies were discussed, but eventually it was decided to use a multi part solution, which consisted of an underground plastic barrier wall encircling 41.3 acres around the property, rerouting the nearby Keens's Creek to avoid the contamination leaking into the water, planting new trees to help draw the toxicity out of the soil(phytoremediation), a shallow hydraulic gate, in situ (on-site) biological groundwater treatment, wetland mitigation ,product (creosote) recovery, and soil cover.
The primary component of the remediation effort was the barrier, and all of the other components were to assist with the containment.The initial capital cost of the remedy was about $10–$11 million with annual operation and maintenance costing approximately $200,000. Beazer east was forced to pay for these remediation efforts under orders from the Maryland Department of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2008, the barrier was re-assessed by the MDE and was found to be effective. This was based on existing water-level data from monitoring wells inside and outside the barrier wall, and tidal influences observed in monitoring wells located inside and outside the barrier wall. One very important thing to note is that a lot of the specific fact sheets and information connected to this site appear to have been removed, or were simply missing from the EPA and MDE's websites.
The primary component of the remediation effort was the barrier, and all of the other components were to assist with the containment.The initial capital cost of the remedy was about $10–$11 million with annual operation and maintenance costing approximately $200,000. Beazer east was forced to pay for these remediation efforts under orders from the Maryland Department of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2008, the barrier was re-assessed by the MDE and was found to be effective. This was based on existing water-level data from monitoring wells inside and outside the barrier wall, and tidal influences observed in monitoring wells located inside and outside the barrier wall. One very important thing to note is that a lot of the specific fact sheets and information connected to this site appear to have been removed, or were simply missing from the EPA and MDE's websites.
conclusion
The successful implementation of the remedies at this site demonstrates that containment for large sources may be the most appropriate approach, rather than attempting to remove the toxic chemicals from the area. However, this solution was extremely costly, and the need to constantly monitor the area to ensure it is working correctly could be an issue for other sites. Also, it is important to note that Beazer East did not clean up their act out of the goodness of their hearts. They were forced to act by the MDE and EPA, which shows how government involvement can be effective in working towards remediation. While the toxicity has been stopped from spreading, this land (41.3 acres) is now essentially unuseable, a hefty environmental cost. Looking at some of the other case studies shown in this story map (Dresser Industries and Plymoth Tube Co.) we can see how other companies chose to deal with (or ignore) their toxic emissions.
additional resources
- Beazer East obtains Third Circuit dismissal of claims brought by Pennsylvania Dep relating to cleanup of Boldan Landfill: Experience. Experience | Jones Day. (2014, January). Retrieved May 4, 2022, from https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2014/01/beazer-east-obtains-third-circuit-dismissal-of-claims-brought-by-pennsylvania-dep-relating-to-cleanup-of-boldan-landfill
- Clinical epidemiology. Clinical Epidemiology. (2019, November 4). Retrieved May 4, 2022, from https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/clinical-epidemiology/
- Homefacts.com. (n.d.). Homefacts Koppers Co. Homefacts. Retrieved May 4, 2022, from https://www.homefacts.com/environmentalhazards/Maryland/Wicomico-County/Salisbury/Superfund-Koppers-Co-Salisbury-Mdd056506389.html
- Koppers Co. Sustainability Report. Koppers Sustainability Report. (2020). Retrieved May 4, 2022, from http://www.koppers.com/sustainability-report-2020/
- Read "alternatives for managing the nation's complex contaminated groundwater sites" at nap.edu. 4 Current Capabilities to Remove or Contain Contamination | Alternatives for Managing the Nation's Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites |The National Academies Press. (n.d.). Retrieved May 4, 2022, from https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/14668/chapter/6#136