Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, February 16, 1993 TAG: 9302160270
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOEL TURNER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
TOXIC WASTE NOT A WORRY
The good news is that apparently there are no toxic or hazardous-waste dumps along the Roanoke River - no Love Canal, says Kit Kiser.The bad news is that there are 42 sites near the river where there might be less serious contamination, said Kiser, director of utilities and operations for the city.
The sites include property owned by Norfolk Southern Corp., Appalachian Power Co. and 20 other businesses, some located in the Roanoke Industrial Center, formerly the site of the American Viscose plant.
The sites also include nearly a dozen residences along the river in the Piedmont Avenue area where a landfill is thought to have been once located.
Some of the potentially contaminated sites are owned by the city, including South Roanoke Park, where another landfill was once located.
Recent publicity about the Roanoke River flood-reduction project and hazardous waste might have caused some city residents to suspect that there are hazardous-waste dumps near the stream, Kiser said.
Not so, he said.
The problem is that there are dozens of sites where there might have been leaks in fuel tanks, small chemical spills or storage of old tires and other waste materials that could cause environmental problems if they are uncovered or disturbed.
Kiser said consultants' preliminary tests have shown that the soil might be contaminated at some sites with chromium, lead, silver, zinc or other metals you would likely find in an industrial corridor.
At low levels, these materials are not dangerous, he said, but they can cause health problems at high levels.
City officials said the waste materials do not pose any danger to people who live near the river or use property along the stream.
If there are hazardous materials or underground fuel leaks near the river, they could be uncovered when the stream's channel is being widened.
Dewberry and Davis, a consultant firm with offices in Roanoke, made the preliminary tests, physically inspecting all property along the river and recording conditions that suggested contamination.
The consultants had been working on a second round of tests to determine the conditions and whether the sites are polluted.
But city officials have halted further tests until the environmental and pollution regulations are established for such projects.
The second round of tests will cost $1 million. The tests include collecting soil samples and doing laboratory analysis of the soil and water. The consultants have also recommended that soil borings be made at some sites. The tests will cost $30,000 to $40,000 at some sites.
Kiser said the city does not know the standards that federal and state agencies will use for the project to determine what, if any, contaminated soil has to be cleaned up.
"Will we have to use drinking-water standards and have to remove everything?" Kiser said. "Until we know what the standards are, we don't know if we have a problem."
The city is trying to arrange a meeting with representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Solid Waste Management to discuss the standards, Kiser said.
The consultants said the industrial nature of the corridor along the river is the main reason for the apparent contamination.
"As with most industries having a long established use [over 100 years in the Roanoke Valley], chemicals in storage and use have been inadvertently spilled and sometimes disposed of on these sites," the consultants said.
"It is also important to consider that [that] which was acceptable standard operating practice [complying with regulations mandated at that time] may be the cause of environmental degradation as it is strictly regulated today."
The Army Corps of Engineers, which is cooperating with the city on the $38 million project, did an earlier environmental study and found no major pollution problems.
But the city, which must acquire the property for the project, wanted to protect itself from potential liability if part of the land is contaminated, Kiser said.
"We don't want to take the chance of more exposure. We want to know what the conditions are before we acquire the land," Kiser said. "We want to be proactive and try to prevent a problem later."
The city is willing to spend $15 million to $18 million as its share of the cost of the project, Kiser said, but wants to protect itself from more liability for environmental damage.
He said the corps doesn't have any liability under the terms of the agreement for the project.
Depending on the pollution levels that are set by federal and state governments, Kiser said, the city and corps can decide whether some areas will be cleaned up or the project will have to be redesigned to avoid toxic or hazardous waste in the soil.
It is likely that the project will redesigned, but no decision will be made until standards are established and the tests are finished, he said.
Meanwhile, Friends of the Roanoke River may urge the city to establish a financial-assistance program to help businesses and industries along the river to relocate within the city.
Bill Tanger, president of the coalition of river enthusiasts and environmentalists, said some businesses along the river have considered moving out of the city.
To stem the loss of its tax base, the city needs to help businesses relocate within its boundaries, Tanger said.