EPA plans to monitor toxic town's legacy
EPA plans to monitor toxic town

By John David Sutter
Published: May 18, 2008

EARLY 1900s

Part of Picher's legacy will be its toxicity.

"In 100 years, where is that (mine) water going to go?” resident David Ray said. "It eventually will get into Grand Lake, and it eventually will get into the aquifer. Water has a mind of its own. It simply goes.”


Featured Video

Advertisement

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will continue working in Picher, at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, for at least another 30 years, said John Meyer, the agency's remedial site project manager. So far, the agency has spent at least $150 million on cleanup at Tar Creek. Another $167 million is planned.

That money will go toward clearing out the mountains of toxic mine tailings, since the agency has done tests that say it's safe to turn the gravel into material that's used in road construction.

People who own the lead-laced gravel, many of them Quapaw Indians, will get money as they sell it to asphalt companies, Meyer said. All of the mountains must be gone in 30 years, Meyer said, but the work will be far from finished then.

The EPA plans to test the soil in streams from Kansas to Grand Lake, looking for heavy metals, and seeing if fish and other aquatic organisms can survive (or if they've been able to since the mines closed). If the water it's found too toxic for aquatic life, the agency may dredge the river beds to take out the toxic metals.

Or it might simply leave things alone, Meyer said, since over time, nature might be able to fix things on its own.

MAY 12, 2008


Toolbar sponsored by: David Stanley Ford
Bookmark and Share



Comments

Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.

Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.

Leave a comment. Log in below or sign up (it's free).

   
Maybe EPA has looked around and seen that people have been living in the middle of it for thirty years and seen that there have been few, if any, ill effects to their health. Or maybe you guys think the folks that told the government all these years to stick it, they weren't leaving, were brain damaged by all the poisons there. It takes the EPA to wade in those creeks to see if anything's living there? Maybe they could go to the local middle school and ask a few of the boys there. If the EPA follows Lawrence's recommendations, $300 million will look like small change.
Floyd R, Purtle - May 28, 2008 7:13 AM
Report as inappropriate
By the way, this quote is a little scary to me, "If the water it's found too toxic for aquatic life, the agency may dredge the river beds to take out the toxic metals.

Or it might simply leave things alone, Meyer said, since over time, nature might be able to fix things on its own". I think people should expect more than spending > 300 million dollars just to let nature take its course. Maybe Tar Creek needs a new site manager that uses the funds to clean up the superfund site. Also, I wonder will EPA let us know if they find highly toxic waste in the aquifers and in grand lake? then what - everyone in NE Oklahoma drnks bottled water for the next 50-100 years until nature finishes its course?

Lawerence, Oklahoma City - May 18, 2008 11:50 PM
Report as inappropriate
I think EPA could come up with a better plan then that! 30 years and more - it has already been over 20 years - 50+ years to clean up a site??? that would not happen in California.
Lawerence, Oklahoma City - May 18, 2008 8:07 PM
Report as inappropriate