http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/06/a-tale-of-two-phases/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-tale-of-two-phases EPA's Blog About Our World Tue, 21 May 2013 17:34:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/06/a-tale-of-two-phases/comment-page-1/#comment-17316 Dave King Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:11:11 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=945#comment-17316 The material is being sent to Texas because it was one of a very few permitted sites large enough to take the volume of sediment being dredged from the river. Other sites include ones in Utah, Oregon and Michigan.
The amount of PCBs that could be mobilized during the dredging has been calculated to limit long term impact to the overall river system. Leaving the contamination in the river means that the system will never recover to the level permitting eating the fish or eliminating impacts to the environment. The idea that clean sediment will cover the contaminants has been shown to be wrong for many areas. Those are the locations where we are dredging to remove the PCBs.

]]> http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/06/a-tale-of-two-phases/comment-page-1/#comment-17256 rn Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:22:54 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=945#comment-17256 It seems like a long way to transport this material, all the way to texas? Why does it have to go there? Guess no one else wants it (nimby issue).?? How much pollution will this generate, in cleaning up the remaining toxins?
I’m sure the issue has been debated that maybe better off to leave toxins in the river?

]]>