EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Environmental Hazards Remain After Joplin Tornado
JOPLIN, Mo. — As residents confront a gigantic cleanup following the tornado that savaged Joplin, experts say environmental dangers could lurk amid the mountains of debris in the southwestern Missouri city and even in the water and air.
Some of the greatest long-term environmental risks from tornadoes come during the cleanups, experts said. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Damage from tornadoes, like floods and hurricanes, often goes beyond what is readily visible. Liquid fuels and chemicals can leak from ruptured containers and contaminate groundwater. Ruined buildings may contain asbestos. Fires can generate smoke containing soot, dioxins and other pollutants. Household, industrial and medical wastes are strewn about.
In the initial hours after the May 22 twister, the odor of gasoline was evident around several flattened service stations. A large fire burned for hours near the devastated St. John's Regional Medical Center. Heavy rains caused flash flooding, possibly fouling local waterways.
Yet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency teams sent to inspect the damage turned up no serious pollution issues in the first week, although the search was continuing, spokesman Chris Whitley said.
"Until the systematic assessment of the tornado's impact area is complete, it is not possible to fairly evaluate levels of risk or priorities for environmental response," he said in an email.
The nation's deadliest single tornado in more than six decades packed winds of more than 200 mph and measured a half-mile across. It killed at least 132 people and injured more than 900 while severely damaging or leveling many buildings in the city's industrial corridor, which includes chemical suppliers, natural gas companies and paint manufacturers. An estimated 8,000 structures were destroyed.
A brief anhydrous ammonia leak from a valve at the Jasper Products trucking company was sealed by the company's hazardous materials crew. Otherwise, an EPA emergency response team combing the area last week found no significant toxic releases after checking 40 sites, coordinator Eric Nold said.
"If there was a screaming release that needed to be found, it would have been by now," he said. His two-person team looked at underground storage tanks, wastewater treatment plants and other potential pollution sources.
"Given this size tornado, there could have been a lot worse from a chemical release standpoint," Nold said over the sound of crunching metal as bulldozers worked nearby.
Many companies sent their own environmental response teams to the disaster area.
Among other places being examined were the destroyed hospital and a Superfund site in western Jasper County tainted by years of lead and zinc mining. The tornado missed piles of waste material from the mines, but touched down in nearby neighborhoods where clean layers of topsoil were placed atop polluted soils between 1995 and 2002, Whitley said.
Property owners and emergency workers were advised to use caution when removing debris from the area, he said. Lead exposure happens primarily by ingesting contaminated soil on dirty hands — a particular danger for children — and breathing contaminated dust.
Another likely hazard is oil spilled from downed electrical transformers, some of which contain highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. It wasn't immediately clear how many were blown down during the storm.
But a spokesman for Alabama Power, that state's largest electric utility, said more than 4,000 transformers had been recovered there following a series of tornadoes last month. Some of the older ones contained trace amounts of PCBs, spokesman Michael Sznajderman said. All were bagged and sent to a licensed recycler, while oil and dirt around fallen transformers were hauled to a hazardous waste landfill.
Some of the greatest long-term environmental risks from tornadoes come during the cleanups, experts said.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources last week announced a temporary waiver of some solid waste and air pollution regulations for Jasper and Newton counties, where the tornado struck. The move allows landfills to accept brush, yard waste, appliances and other materials that normally wouldn't be allowed, although recycling of appliances is encouraged. It permits burning of tree and brush waste under certain conditions.
Also waived was a requirement that state-certified supervisors be involved in removal of material containing asbestos, a fiber that can cause lung diseases including cancer. Federal asbestos regulations remain in place.
Relaxing the rules during an emergency is understandable, but improper handling or disposal of waste material could make a bad situation worse, said David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany-SUNY.
If plastics, asbestos material or treated wood find their way into brush fires, they could produce emissions particularly dangerous for people with asthma or respiratory diseases, he said.
"I know there's a huge amount of debris, but finding a landfill in a valley someplace where you can put it and cover it over is a lot wiser than burning it," Carpenter said. "There are health hazards associated with burning debris of any sort."
Some storms produce such overwhelming volumes of waste that limited burning must be allowed, said John Mitchell, environment division director with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Fires were permitted after the 2007 tornado that wiped out Greensburg, Kan., he said, although the state prefers other disposal methods.
It's important to segregate different types of waste so they can be disposed of properly, as some landfills aren't suitable for materials such as household chemicals, paints and treated woods, Mitchell said. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources is urging people to recycle appliances and compost vegetation.
Environmentalists weren't objecting to bending the rules for a while.
"The last thing you want to do when a community's dealing with a situation like this is require a lot of permits and paperwork," said Kathleen Logan Smith, executive director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
People in the Joplin area aren't the only ones who should be on the lookout for contaminated materials, said John Snow, a University of Oklahoma meteorology expert. Research has shown that tornadoes can suck up debris and deposit it up to 200 miles away, he said.
"This is kind of an unappreciated hazard that merits a lot more careful attention than it's been given," Snow said.
Flesher reported from Traverse City, Mich. Associated Press writer Jim Salter contributed to this story from Joplin.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

12 Comments so far
Show All``Damage from tornadoes, like floods and hurricanes, often goes beyond what is readily visible.`` -
just like damaged nuclear power stations, n`est pas?
Very similar, yes. And similar particularly in they way they will be handled by companies and gov't agencies.
At least one key aspect of response for the public involves judging how close one can get to the catastrophe, or how far one must flee and for how long. Because of social pressures on the guilty parties, the information released always conflicts.
For instance, here we read these comments:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency spokesman Chris Whitley said.
"Until the systematic assessment of the tornado's impact area is complete, it is not possible to fairly evaluate levels of risk or priorities for environmental response."
"Coordinator" Eric Nold:
"A brief anhydrous ammonia leak from a valve at the Jasper Products trucking company was sealed by the company's hazardous materials crew. Otherwise, an EPA emergency response team combing the area last week found no significant toxic releases after checking 40 sites, coordinator Eric Nold said.
Obviously, Nold and Whitney cannot both be correct unless we significally tweak their intentions, but both are consistent *socially*: the spoken positions of both men grow out of what they have committed themselves to defend, and the stories they need to tell to carry out that defense: Whitney need carry out no action unless some danger is demonstrated, so if he declares that nothing is certain, he may cover whatever corporate commitments he may have with little crow to eat later. Nold has to defend himself by being almost incomprehensibly vague. How many deaths above median will be considered "significant"? Does it matter in which neighborhoods they occur?
I have very little information by which to judge Whitney or Nold's opinions or character, but perhaps that matters little: the actions of both men are rigorously consistent with what would be expected of both men working to support corporate interests in a circumstance in which they have little or no idea what the extent of toxicity might be.
The story is this: officials have very little idea what may or may not have been released by the tornado. They have little or no record of immediately obvious and traceable deaths by toxicity, so "damage-control" for government and corporations involves denying any possible damage or any knowledge of damage rather than evacuating people and thereby drawing a lot more attention.
How soon shhould people go back to their homes, and how close to the damage? That is hard to tell, frankly. But some risk clearly remains for some distance around, or these gentlemen would not be hedging their bets.
"But a spokesman for Alabama Power, that state's largest electric utility". Duh, no, Joplin isn't in Alabama, it's in Missouri. Empire Electric and Gas, an investor owned utility, supplies Joplin.
After many years in the contruction trades, I am convinced the difference between our homes, workplaces, schools, etc, and a land, fill is purely cosmetic.
What an excellent, true, and terrifying observation.
I am actually extremely surpised that this story was covered at all, but the fact that we live in a toxic cesspool will never make a blip on most peoples' radars...
Well said philiphoko.
Not to worry though. The difference will become much less cosmetic as our homes are foreclosed, our jobs are exported and we are forced to live at the landfill.
Oh Beautiful for smoggy skies, insecticided grain,
For strip-mined mountain's majesty above the asphalt plain.
America, America, man sheds his waste on thee,
And hides the pines with billboard signs, from sea to oily sea.
~George Carlin
When an inland hurricane hit Southern Illinois in 2009, my city alone burned 4,000 trees. Oak, walnut, pine, hickory, black walnut and other valuable trees, turned into air pollution.
Other cities also burned trees. Most of the citizens were appalled. Why waste such a valuable resource, a literal windfall?
I read in the New Yorker that NYC did the same thing when a storm hit Central Park.
One part of global warming will be increased storms. The US needs to come up with a way to use all the timber that falls during these storms.
To burn them is obscene!
In Missouri, they don't need natural disasters as an excuse to burn trees.
That's how the local Mennonites finish clearing their land. They buy forested property, bring in the dozers, make big piles, and strike a match.
That ought to provide some indication as to the seriousness of Missouri's DNR commitment towards environmental enforcement.
So... wood chippers could be used to create mulch, for instance. If the Mennonites do not use such devices (although I believe they might considering some Mennonites use tractors and bulldozers) then the municipality could do so.
What is not completely appreciated, is that in many cases Mennonites are the face of corporate agriculture.
The impression that Mennonites oppose and avoid modern machinery; chemicals; GMO technology in conjunction with CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) is fallacious.
They burn the trees because it is the cheapest way to rid them from the land. The revenue from timber sales is not sufficient to offset the processing costs, so they simply doze and burn it.
As for the municipality, with the exception of only a few counties in the state, there are no ordinances prohibiting open burning. Missouri has no over-riding state statutes---it is a confederation in microcosm.
Given the saturation of exclusively right-wing media propaganda, the local gentry tend to harbor contempt for all manner of 'tree-hugging left-wing socialist extremists' meddling in the affairs of commerce, business, and Big-Ag.
The Show Me State, is not an enlightened state, and, until they are shown the full consequences of their willful ignorance they remain adamantly opposed to any notions that might threaten their status quo.
As such, DNR is a model agency and they know which side their bread is buttered on--Scott Walker would be proud.
Harrisburg? The flat line winds? Or over by the big river and the storm that knocked down the Larue Pine Hills?
I'm with you on this. The Shawnee is my home forest, Carbondale/Makanda area. Many people heat with wood. It is still burning it, but it would help people survive the winter. Also, many woodworkers and cabinet maker could put those trees to good use.
But, don't forget to leave some lie to feed the forest, aiding its regeneration.