"Capitol City Plume"--Fifty City Block Toxic Underground Plume in Montgomery, Alabama

This story has a compelling similarity to the Walter Coke contamination in north Birmingham--state and federal environmental officials have known about the contamination for decades and have been slow to act in cleaning up the area, while development has proceeded at a fast clip. A statewide pattern seems to be finally making its way onto the public radar revealing Alabama to be systemically and dangerously contaminated.

There's a tradeoff cost in human health and life that doesn't seem to figure into our governmental and business leader's plans. We cannot seem to count on EPA Region 4 for help either--they too seem to be carrying the water for the developers and getting into the *PR business outside of their environmental and public safety watchdog purview.

*(linked further on down in article on the phrase "revitalization of downtown Montgomery")

How many other areas in Alabama is the deadly deception going on unbeknownst to the potentially-vulnerable-to-exposure general public? And why?  Here's a list for Alabama from the Center For Public Integrity National Priority sites. Five Alabama sites are on the "Most Dangerous Superfunds Sites" list. The Capital City Plume, according to the census figures from 2000, was affecting a population of 209,615.

News story July 26, 2011 Associated Press via Al.com state wire:

The Environmental Protection Agency has identified the Montgomery Advertiser as one of the entities that may have caused the plume when operating at its former location.

County Commission Chairman Elton Dean said he remains confident that the county did due diligence before purchasing the old newspaper building and turning it into the county's main building after renovations.

News story by Ben Flanagan Al.com September 28, 2010: "Montgomery Commission tests air quality of county building":

"During a search for the source of the problem, a black, sooty substance was discovered in several isolated areas on the original concrete structure, according to a press release. A sample of that substance was collected on Sept. 3 and sent to Sutherland Environmental Company, Inc., where it was analyzed for 58 volatile organic compounds. Fifty-five of the compounds were not detected but small concentrations of *three compounds were detected." *note that the substances are not identified.

Region 4 Superfund

The Capitol City Plume site is located in downtown Montgomery, Alabama. The contaminated ground water plume is believed to exist throughout the downtown area. In September 1993, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) began investigating a report of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) soil contamination at the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) Energy Plant site at the corner of Monroe Street and McDonough Street.

After 17 months of investigative work, ADEM came to the conclusion that there are a minimum of 6 ground water plumes contaminated with PCE and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX). The site covers an area from Alabama Street (south) to Pollard Street (north) and Court Street (west) to Union Street (east). 

In 1993, soil containing PCE was excavated during construction of the RSA Tower. The soil was removed and disposed of properly. The discovery of the PCE in the soil prompted ADEM to conduct a preliminary assessment of the area near the RSA Tower. The preliminary assessment performed by ADEM concluded that ground water was contaminated with PCE and BTEX.

Field work for the RI/FS began in March 2000 and was completed in 2003. Soil samples and ground water samples have been collected to delineate the areal extent of the contamination plumes. Analytical results from the ground water indicate that the shallow aquifer in the Montgomery downtown area is contaminated with PCE, BTEX, TCE (Trichloroethylene), and metals. 

Installation of 16 new monitoring wells and 16 temporary wells has been completed. The City has removed and plugged two shallow drinking water wells at the Court Street Pump Station but continues to pump drinking water from deep wells.
The City of Montgomery has implemented a moratorium on well drilling in the vicinity of the site (downtown area). Beginning in May 2006, the City began monitoring the ground water contamination through monitoring wells. Monitoring will continue for five years. The City will be sending the ground water monitoring data to ADEM and EPA Region 4.
The City of Montgomery has also been working with EPA in implementing a voluntary phytoremediation effort in the ground water plume to reduce risk to human health and the environment.

A supplemental remedial investigation took place in stages from August 2008 to the present. *Sample results have identified sources of contamination and the time at which the contamination was discharged to the environment.

*Please note the above sentence which states that there are "identified sources of contamination" while this linked narrative from May 11, 2000 cites only "potential sources" generally identified without a specific business name as "a chemical wholesaler, airport maintenance shops, airport fueling areas, an auto repair shop and a dry cleaner."

Site investigation activities are being led primarily by EPA and the United States Geological Survey.

From August 2-5, 2011, EPA and USGS representatives will conduct field sampling activities to further delineate the groundwater contamination as well as to assess if vapor intrusion is taking place in an existing Montgomery County building.

Who's making the decision to "move forward with privately-funded activities" instead of applying for Superfund monies to clean up this massive twenty year old contamination?

On August 1, 2011, EPA will meet with representatives of two potentially-responsible parties identified in a Site remedial investigation, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, City of Montgomery, USGS, and Montgomery Water Works representatives to discuss moving forward with privately-funded activities related to Site characterization and remediation. 

Alabama could have applied for the $600,000,000 made available for Superfund cleanup from the 2009 Stimulus Funds but they did not make any applications for a percent of the available money in this area: (but they did in many other areas for federal handouts)

Hazardous Substances Superfund - (Alabama will not be receiving stimulus funds for this program)

(National Appropriation: $600,000,000)

Description: This program provides additional funding to the Environmental Protection Agency for the Superfund Remedial Program. This program allows states to enter in competitive agreements with the EPA to conduct certain remedial actions at Superfund sites and receive a credit from the government for 90 percent of eligible expenses.

John Archibald, of the Birmingham News, in one of his recent columns offered this statement about Alabama's rampant pollution and economic development mindset: "That's traditional Alabama values again: better dead than unprofitable." EPA Region 4 seems to go along with that idea, especially since they knew about the CC Plume, in the following statements on the *revitalization of downtown Montgomery and the importance of 'sticking to the plan':

Capitol City Ground Water PlumeGround water in western portions of downtown Montgomery, Alabama, is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE), chemicals commonly used in dry cleaning and cleaning of machine parts. Work to assess the ground water contamination and develop the site’s cleanup plan is currently ongoing. The City of Montgomery is working closely with EPA to facilitate the site’s cleanup. Downtown Montgomery remains open for business during the site’s ground water cleanup. Land uses include retail districts, neighborhoods, parks, offices and industrial areas. The revitalization of Montgomery’s downtown is a major community priority. The area is recognized as the “heart of the city.” Recent redevelopment projects include the Montgomery Biscuits minor league baseball stadium, retail centers, downtown apartments and restaurants.

Have our business leaders, politicians, economic developers and state agencies simply lost their minds from the effects of all the pollution or are they just out to eliminate the undesirable elements of Alabama's communities? The location of the Capital City Plume seems to negate the latter, because a large portion of the businesses and developments in the affected area are housing some of our state elites, primarily in the RSA Tower Complex of Montgomery, located in the toxic zone.

So what other possibility does that leave us as to why Alabama continues to labor under the delusion of their favorite hackney-eyed, overused phrase of describing economic development as "world class?" There's nothing blue ribbon or superior about any development that comes with a staggering cost of health to a large segment of people.

Unless Archibald's right--"better dead than unprofitable."

Or maybe it's something else entirely consisting of the usual BARD suspects and their webs of deceit.

Maybe it's a combination of the two strengthened by the political pay to play system our legislators have grown ridiculously accustomed to.

Whatever the reasons, the citizens of this state deserve truth, accountability and transparency with information that directly affects the quality of their lives and not the same old deadly deceptions of business as usual.

 Subscribe in a reader

Uranium Mill Proposed For Small Colorado Town in Paradox Valley Reopens Old Wounds

"We're all willing to go back into that hole and work until we die, just so we can be employed."

We found this in a comment section from the Colorado Independent from someone who had attended the meetings for the proposed mill:

WOULD YOU PLEAD TO IMPORT PEOPLE COMPETING WITH YOU FOR A POSSIBLE JOB ?

I am not sure what is REALLY going on in the West End, besides many opponents of the project being threatened with bodily and property harm...what about this:

My heart went to the West End population DESPERATELY pleading for jobs. What am to think though as I heard during a Montrose hearings "Please give us the mill - we want to IMPORT another 300 people so we can again say that 1,000 people live here - as it says on our sign when entering the town of Nucla..."

I attended most of the Montrose County and CDPHE hearings. It was very interesting to witness how one minute the Energy Fuels environmental director assured the public that they now have 'leakproof uranium tailings liners' and then witness that same person say "of course those liners LEAK..THEY ALL LEAK.."...and the Montrose county officials just nodding and smiling NOT ASKING a SINGLE QUESTION about those discrepancies...The person who asked those questions was waved to SIT DOWN and shut her mouth.

Local residents from Paradox Valley Bedrock are the only REAL insiders. The crowd from Nucla and Naturita DO NOT LIVE where the huge toxic uranium processing factory would be seated - in a beautiful valley ZONED AGRICULTURAL.

Montrose County Commissioners knew darn well that the Colorado Department of Health and Environment has the power to overrule their decision to process only new ore, no reprocessing of so called 'alternative fuels'...they said to assure of adherence to that rule dictated their awarding a "special permit" to process uranium in agricultural zone.

Phill Egidi of CDHPE assured me after the last Montrose County hearing that commissioners have the power to uphold that decision, yet his boss Steve Tarlton said to me personally after another hearing that the commissioner DO NOT have that power...It is CUSTOMARY for uranium 'mill' operators to import 'alternative fuels'.

Who is one to trust to look after the health of the public ? Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is not conducting an EIS (Environmental Impact Study) as you could perhaps naively expect - given their name ...on their web site they boast that since this would not be a 'federal project' basically public health is irrelevant...Free for all on private lands ? 

We hear voices how our energy needs gravely need that Uranium...

Laughable! The Canadian Energy Fuels Corporation stated publicly during hearings that the Pinon Ridge Uranium is NOT intended for the US markets ...

What ? Various individuals kept begging the commissioners and the CDPHE to allow us to have this source of uranium...Unfortunately these individuals were out of touch with reality ...EF representative publicly confirmed that uranium would go "to the highest bidder"

Even to China ? ''Yes even to China."

There is one hell of fight going on in Colorado and we are reminded of a question raised by the filmmakers of the Perry County, Alabama coal ash documentary:
"What happens to a community when it has to rely on a toxic entity for its only means of economic survival?"

We watch Alabama being torn up for coal to support the China dragon and now Colorado is reopening the book on Uranium mining to further fuel that country's insatiable appetite for industrial fuels. China suffers because of this, we suffer because of this, but who is really winning in this dirty game? Big business, as usual. 


We're not completely against nuclear energy per say, but how the material is gathered to produce it has us greatly concerned with the bad history in Colorado because of the refusal of government to strictly enforce regulations and compliance on these toxic mining industries. They are already signaling their willingness to be lax by not even performing an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) which is surprising given the history of uranium mining in Colorado before.


That did not go well. But they claim it will this time because "we have learned from our past mistakes and there are many more safeguards in place now." Well, that's good and some of that claim is true, but we're not buying into it. We've heard that too many times before in communities all across America to have faith in assurances from big business and state environmental agencies to "do the right thing" and police themselves.


Following environmental regulations are not profitable to these companies, they thwart major issues by tying it up in court for prolonged amounts of time which allows them to continue to operate and delay "judgment." Furthermore, when they are caught in "run of the mill" violations, the fine is minuscule and therefore no real deterrents exist. They know the game and take full advantage of the weakness of the system.


It's the age old problem that seems to have no clear answers and is only made worse by the powerful influence of lobbyists representing these entities, corruptible local officials, state representatives who rely on the free flowing campaign contributions, and the wink and a nod manner that still exists when handing out the cash to just "look the other way."

 Subscribe in a reader

"Cathedrals of the Natural World"--Ancient Trees in England

A beautiful gallery from the Guardian UK and the glorious ancient trees of England. 

Living proof that we can still walk with giants, but for how much longer?

Photograph: Paul Wakefield/NTPL

A view under a sunlit chestnut tree with moving leaves among the ancient trees of Hatfield Forest, Essex.

 "Hatfield is the only intact Royal Hunting Forest in Europe, dating back to the Norman kings ... Walking with ancient trees can give you a real sense of history and the things that they've seen through the centuries"

National Trust website inviting the public to visit the places where these ancient forests/trees are located. That's not something you will see in America with the possible exception of the California Redwoods.

A Study in Contrasts

In America we have a bit less respect for trees and their vital link to biodiversity thanks to Big Timber and their appetite for destruction under the guise of bio fuels. Along with China, Belgium and a few other regions in the world, we're now encouraging the planting of genetically modified trees, especially in the South.

Policies supporting the use of "biomass" - wood, agriculture residues, waste, manure and more as "green" substitutes for petroleum are supported by big agribusiness, forestry and biotechnology industries. They  envision a "bioeconomy" where massive refineries use risky "synthetic biology" to convert biomass into biofuels, bioenergy, bioplastics, chemicals and bioproducts. Others propose using charcoal (aka biochar) to "sequester carbon" in soils. These trends create massive new demands for land and are causing land grabs around the world.

Read more here: Southern US States Targeted for Genetically Engineered Tree Plantations.

Some groups are serious about putting an end to this before it grows bigger and have filed suit to stop this dangerous practice that we know far too little about to move ahead with. In typical big business fashion, corporations of paper and forestry combined have instituted "test plots" throughout the South through the ArborGen program despite the controversy.

GM trees are the latest development of scientific forestry. Invented in Europe around 200 years ago, scientific forestry aims to redesign forests to suit the needs of the timber industry. The vast monoculture industrial tree plantations marching across landscapes in the South are perhaps the most extreme application of this forestry science. In the process local people have seen their farmland and forests converted to industrial tree monocultures.

Research into GM trees will not help local people. Instead, forestry scientists are responding to their industrial masters' demands for more efficient plantations.

When faced with criticism of their research into GM trees, forestry scientists have a standard answer: The critic is not an expert and therefore is not really entitled to comment. The science behind GM research is fiendishly complicated. Scientific reports are often written in an technical, academic style which is simply incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't spent years wrapping their heads round the subject. 

Yet when asked about their work, some forestry scientists seem strangely reluctant to explain what they are doing.

That was in in the early 2000s, since then they've gotten much more adept with their propaganda and claim they're doing this "in such small acreage plots that nothing can possibly go wrong."

How many times have we heard that line before?