Successful Superfund Remediation in Pueblo, Colorado: A Provocative Reflection on Community Engagement and Empowerment
Main Article Content
Abstract
The city of Pueblo, Colorado has a long industrial past; shortly after the nascence of the settlement, the city began to establish itself as a major hub for the smelting of mined materials transported into town from the Front Range. Between 1880 and 1921, five main smelters were established and operated in and around the city’s center. Though the smelting activities ended over a century ago, they left behind a topsoil contaminated with toxic heavy metals, putting local residents at health and socio-economic risks. Epidemiological studies showed elevated blood lead levels in children living near the smelters and caused the site to be listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund National Priorities List. This report describes how industrial activities degraded the environment in the city and compromised public heath, the history of the Superfund law, and how communities in the affected neighborhoods collectively organized to stand up for themselves and partake in all aspects of the Superfund remediation process in order to secure a healthy living environment. The paper shows that, regardless of background or socio-economic status, when average citizens engage and empower themselves by working with stakeholders and elected or executive leaders at the local, regional and national levels, almost anything can be accomplished in the interests of all. The paper provides a reflection on the potential implications of inaction by the scientific and leadership groups in the face of growing global environmental degradation and public health risks.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. IPCC, 2023: Sections. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115, Doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647. IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2025.
3. Wu P, Clark R, Furtado K, et al. A case study of the July 2021 Henan extreme rainfall event: From weather forecast to climate risks. Weather and Climate Extremes. 2023;40, 100571, ISSN 2212-0947, https://Doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2023.100571
4. Buckingham A.N. Analytical Results Report Santa Fe Avenue Bridge Culvert. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE); Pueblo, CO, USA. 1995. p. 20. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/colorado-smelter-ref-14-santa-fe-ave-bridge-culvert-arr-6-10-1995.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2013.
5. Fry E. Smelters of Pueblo. Pueblo County Historical Society; Pueblo, CO, USA: 2000. p. 164.
6. EVRAZ North America About EVRAZ North America. evrazna.com. Accessed May 2, 2025.
7. Diawara MM, Litt JS, Unis D, et al. Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in surface soils, Pueblo, Colorado: Implications for population health risk. Environ Geochem Health. 2006;28(4):97-315. Doi: 10.1007/s10653-005-9000-6
8. Bessemer Historical Society (BHS). A Preliminary Inventory of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. Archives, 2004, 1856–1993. Bessemer Historic Study | Pueblo, CO - Official Website
9. United States Census Bureau. Census Bureau Tables. 2013. Accessed May 23, 2025.
10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological profile for lead. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxProfiles/ToxProfiles.aspx?id=96&tid=22. Last update August 07, 2020. Accessed May 1, 2025
11. Bergdahl IA, Skerfving S. Lead, Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals, fifth ed. Elsevier B.V. 2022. https://Doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822946-0.00036-2.
12. Balachandar R, Bagepally BS, Kalahasthi R, Haridoss M. Blood lead levels and male reproductive hormones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Toxicology. 2020;443:152574. Doi:10.1016/j.tox.2020.152574
13. Gidlow DA. Lead toxicity. Occup Med (Lond). 2015 Jul;65(5):348-56. Doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqv018. Erratum in: Occup Med (Lond). 2015 Dec;65(9):770. Doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqv170. Doi:10.1093/occmed/kqv018
14. Stajnko A, Palir N, Snoj Tratnik J, et al. Genetic susceptibility to low-level lead exposure in men: Insights from ALAD polymorphisms. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2024 Mar;256:114315. PMID: 38168581. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2023.114315
15. Diawara MM. Pharmacogenetics of Lead Toxicity. Medical Research Archives. 2025;13(1). https://Doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i1.6268
16. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (HMWMD) Analytical Results Report. Colorado Smelter; Pueblo, CO, USA: 2011. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/ARR_Jun2011.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2025.
17. US EPA. LOVE CANAL NIAGARA FALLS, NY Cleanup Activities https://www.epa.gov/history/epa-history-love-canal. Accessed May 21, 2025.
18. Austin AA, Fitzgerald EF, Pantea CI, Gensburg LJ, Kim NK, Stark AD, Hwang SA. Reproductive outcomes among former Love Canal residents, Niagara Falls, New York. Environ Res. 2011;111(5):693-701. Doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2011.04.002. Epub 2011 May 8. PMID: 21555122.
19. Gensburg LJ, Pantea C, Kielb C, Fitzgerald E, Stark A, Kim N. Cancer incidence among former Love Canal residents. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(8):1265-71. Doi: 10.1289/ehp.0800153. Epub 2009 May 5. PMID: 19672407; PMCID: PMC2721871.
20. EPA Superfund Cleanup Process. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cleanup-process. Accessed May 1, 2025.
21. EPA NPL Superfund: National Priorities List (NPL). 2024. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl. Accessed May 1, 2025.
22. Topaz CM, Garcia Nueva B, Izidro de Souza P, Schumann J, Shvedova L, Cai X, Ning S. Race and Superfund site remediation. PNAS Nexus. 2024; 23;3(9):pgae364. Doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae364. PMID: 39473574; PMCID: PMC11520737.
23. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (HMWMD) Analytical Results Report. Colorado Smelter; Pueblo, CO, USA: 2011. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1279593.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2025.
24. EPA. Colorado Smelter Superfund site, Pueblo, CO Cleanup Activities. (https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0802700#Emergency). Accessed May 20, 2025.
25. Diawara MM, Shrestha S, Carsella J, Farmer S. Smelting Remains a Public Health Risk Nearly a Century Later: A Case Study in Pueblo, Colorado, USA. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(5):932. Doi: 10.3390/ijerph15050932
26. Letter of Governor John Hickenlooper to EPA Regional Administrator. State/Tribal Correspondence regarding State of Colorado’s conditional support for listing of the Colorado Smelter site on the National Priorities List. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1570681.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2025.
27. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Colorado Smelter Community Advisory Group. 2025 https://cdphe.colorado.gov/hm/cosmelt-CAG. Accessed May 24, 2025.
28. Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority. 2025. https://puebloura.org/. Accessed May 24, 2025.
29. Colorado Smelter Revitalization Plan. 2025. https://county.pueblo.org/public-health/CSRP. Accessed May 24, 2025.
30. Pueblo History and Art Walk. 2025. https://begincoalition.godaddysites.com/pueblo-history-art-walk. Accessed May 24, 2025.
31. NeighborWorks Southern Colorado. 2025. https://nwsoco.org/. Accessed May 24, 2025.
32. Stretesky P, Hogan MJ. Environmental justice: an analysis of Superfund sites in Florida. Soc Probl. 1998;45(2):268–287.
33. Smith CL. Economic deprivation and racial segregation: comparing Superfund sites in Portland, Oregon and Detroit, Michigan. Soc Sci Res. 2009;38(3):681–692.
34. Burda M, Harding M. Environmental justice: evidence from Superfund cleanup durations. J Econ Behav Org. 2014;107:380–401.
35. Hird JA. Environmental policy and equity: the case of Superfund. J Policy Anal Manag. 1993;12(2):323–343.
36. Anderton DL, Oakes JM, Egan KL. Environmental equity in Superfund: demographics of the discovery and prioritization of abandoned toxic sites. Eval Rev. 1997;21(1):3–26.
37. Kiaghadi A, Rifai HS, Dawson CN. The presence of Superfund sites as a determinant of life expectancy in the United States. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1947.
38. Currie J, Greenstone M, Moretti E. Superfund cleanups and infant health. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. VOL. 101, NO. 3, MAY 2011(pp. 435–41).
39. Lybarger JA, Lee R, Vogt DP, Perhac RM Jr, Spengler RF, Brown DR. Medical costs and lost productivity from health conditions at volatile organic compound-contaminated superfund sites. Environ Res. 1998;79(1):9-19. Doi: 10.1006/enrs.1998.3845. PMID: 9756676.
40. Farber S. Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies. Ecolog Econ. 1998;24(1):1–14.
41. European Environmental Agency. Soil Thematic Strategy, COM(2006) 231. 2006 https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/soil-thematic-strategy-com-2006-231. Accessed May 21, 2025.
42. European Union. Waste Framework Directives. 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32018L0851. Accessed May 21, 2025.
43. European Innovation Council. https://eic.ec.europa.eu/index_en. (Accessed May11, 2025)