When Suzanne McDermott arrived in Butte six years ago to see her son, the environmental epidemiologist couldn’t help but notice the massive mountain with its evident excavation that overshadowed the town.
Butte is currently experiencing the ongoing consequences of open-pit mining that have persisted for decades. McDermott was taken aback by the proximity of the mining pits to residential areas and commercial establishments. Within the town, she observed parked cars covered in a layer of dust that resembled ash from a fire. Her son, employed by the local newspaper, later informed her about children in Butte who had developed unexplained illnesses.
McDermott, a professor at City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, stated that he had suddenly realized the presence of a highly detrimental situation.
Once a thriving city, Butte now harbors a colossal Superfund site under the watchful eye of the Environmental Protection Agency. The previous mining activities have contaminated the soil and water within and surrounding Butte. When Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) ceased operations in 1982, it abandoned a pit that has since become a hazardous water body, causing the death of numerous bird species upon landing.
However, McDermott’s primary concern was not the contaminated Berkeley Pit. It was the adjacent copper and molybdenum mine, managed by Montana Resources, which belonged to the wealthiest individual in the state, Dennis Washington. Positioned at the outskirts of town, she could witness the mine’s dust being carried by the wind and settling on the residences of the locals.
For years, residents have been questioning whether the dust in their area contains harmful heavy metals that could be gradually causing poisoning. Nevertheless, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and health authorities have conveyed what appears to be contradictory statements to many. On one hand, they acknowledge that past open-pit mining activities in Butte have left behind a hazardous aftermath, requiring a significant cleanup endeavor. On the other hand, they assert that the ongoing open-pit mining operation is secure and poses no danger.
In recent years, a series of small, underfunded studies conducted by McDermott and other independent scientists have raised doubts about the prevailing narrative. These researchers have faced resistance from the mining companies in the local area, namely ARCO and Montana Resources.
However, they have also encountered an unexpected adversary: the EPA.
InvestigateWest has obtained emails that expose a close bond between EPA officials and the mining companies in Butte. These emails, consisting of numerous pages, shed light on how the EPA collaborated with the companies they are responsible for overseeing. Shockingly, they worked together to discredit researchers like McDermott and tarnish the credibility of peer-reviewed scientific studies that have raised concerns about the current mining methods.
In a single email, EPA toxicologists explicitly encouraged Montana Resources to develop a strategy aimed at pressuring scientists to withdraw their findings. Furthermore, the mining company inquired whether the EPA could investigate the funding origins of McDermott and another researcher. Lastly, in another exchange, the EPA relied on a mining company representative for direction regarding public communication.
Christopher Sellers, an environmental health researcher at Stony Brook University, who reviewed the cache of records, stated that the documents offer a unique and significant insight into how a regulatory agency can become influenced by the industry. Sellers, who has extensively studied instances where the EPA may align with private industry and forewarned about similar scenarios during the Trump administration, expressed astonishment at witnessing his concerns so explicitly manifested.
According to Sellers, in the realm of science and its associated political and regulatory conflicts, there exists a substantial body of evidence or documentation, commonly referred to as a paper trail.
Interview requests for this article were denied by the EPA, and they refused to address specific emails exchanged between the agency and industry representatives. Instead, spokesperson Richard Mylott issued a statement via email, asserting that the EPA had an obligation to engage with all stakeholders in light of new research.
The answer to a long-standing question in Butte has been hidden amidst a scientific battle, concerning whether the very thing that has sustained the small mining town’s economy for years may also be responsible for loss of lives.
McDermott highlighted the undeniable partnership that has formed between the EPA and the mining company throughout the years. He expressed his belief that our government should prioritize serving the people rather than catering to specific corporate interests.
RAISING ALARMS
A study conducted by McDermott and two other scientists in 2019 suggested a possible “potential public health emergency” associated with the ongoing mining activities in Butte. The study involved comparing meconium samples, which are the first bowel movements of babies, from Butte to those from South Carolina where no mining operations are present. The results revealed that the Butte samples contained metal levels thousands of times higher than those found in South Carolina.
Initially, the researchers conceived the study as a pilot and had no intention to publish it. However, due to the astonishing outcomes, they felt compelled to share them with the public.
Katie Hailer, a bioinorganic chemist at Montana Technical University in Butte, disagreed with including the “public health emergency” statement in the study. She argued against it, as she believed it would undermine the town’s essence. Another scientist involved in the research shared her viewpoint.
“I knew that that sentence was going to cause issues,” Hailer says. “But I underestimated the number of issues that sentence was going to cause.”
Throughout its history, Butte has maintained its status as a mining town. During the early 1900s, the city’s underground mines, operated by approximately 10,000 miners, played a crucial role in providing the nation’s electrical grid with copper. This lucrative industry bestowed immense wealth upon the influential “copper kings” of that era.
Today, Butte’s population is a mere 34,000, which is less than half of what it was during its prime. The town now encompasses deserted mine shafts, a diminishing university, and ancient brick structures. However, despite these changes, Montana Resources continues to provide employment to almost 400 individuals, and Hailer acknowledges the significant impact the current mine holds. Any insinuation that the mine might pose a threat could jeopardize the livelihoods of these individuals. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the 2019 study was not the initial attempt to scrutinize the Butte mine.
Two years ago, Hailer released a study that revealed higher metal concentrations in the hair of individuals from Butte, in comparison to another city in Montana. Notably, the subjects from Butte showed considerably increased levels of arsenic in both their hair and blood. Hailer emphasized the need for caution when interpreting the findings, primarily due to the limited number of participants in the study. Consequently, the research did not receive significant attention.
According to Hailer, the topic was completely ignored within the community for a span of two years.
On the other side of the country, McDermott, meanwhile, researched Butte as sort of a passion project in her career of studying environmental impacts on human health. While she often receives federal funding for large studies, she self-funded the smaller Butte research, she says. She previously examined death data for Butte residents, finding that adults living in and around Butte had higher rates of cancer deaths and other diseases than the rest of the state. In a separate study, she also found a higher incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers in children living in and around Butte compared with other areas of Montana.
Although arsenic and other heavy metals are known to cause cancer, neither study determined that the cause originated from heavy metals or active mining.
In the pursuit of understanding the hazards posed by mining in Butte, Meconium, McDermott, and Hailer recognized the potential of their research to shed light on the exposure of humans to hazardous metals. To enhance the credibility of their findings, they sought the assistance of Jamie Lead, a highly acclaimed nanoscientist who ranked among the top 1% of globally recognized scientists in 2019.
Hailer shared the raw data with EPA officials well in advance of the study’s publication in order to preemptively address any potential negative repercussions. However, the EPA showed little interest and failed to thoroughly investigate the inquiries prompted by the data.
After the study was published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, it quickly caught the attention of the local media a couple of weeks later. The article created a significant impact within the community, causing a stir among its members.
Suddenly, the EPA was interested.
SIDING WITH INDUSTRY
Following the publication of the meconium study, toxicologists from the EPA, who were involved in the Superfund site in Butte, reached out to various public agencies, local health officials, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention via a series of emails, seeking their valuable input and guidance.
However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also reached out to Montana Resources, the mining company, and ARCO, a subsidiary of the oil giant BP, for input. Through email exchanges with these industry representatives, the EPA actively collaborated on countering the study, agreed on public messaging, and explored methods of monitoring the researchers’ funding.
It is important to acknowledge that McDermott acknowledges the limitations of the meconium study. The investigation of metals in meconium is still a relatively recent field of research. In fact, McDermott is currently conducting an extensive study in New York City, funded by the EPA, in order to establish a standardized methodology for future research on analyzing meconium.
In hindsight, she acknowledges that comparing Butte meconium to South Carolina was not an accurate comparison. She believes that the sampling procedures might have varied between the two locations, which could explain the significant disparity observed.
However, despite the criticisms of the study, Hailer and McDermott argue that the Butte samples provide sufficient grounds for the EPA to carry out additional research on the matter. Hailer emphasizes that the presence of arsenic alone is a cause for concern.
According to Hailer, all of those samples contained detectable levels of arsenic, which he considers to be relatively high compared to other published research.
According to Ron Sahu, a mechanical engineer and independent consultant on environmental regulatory compliance, the meconium study has brought up crucial inquiries that should be thoroughly investigated. Although the study may not be flawless, Sahu believes that any shortcomings should be addressed through scientific investigation.
Sahu suggests, “In case you identify any issues with the methodology, we should work together to resolve them.”
The EPA promptly directed its attention to the data from South Carolina, asserting that the metal levels in that state were not only significantly lower than those observed in Butte’s samples but also deviated from findings in other studies that measured metals in meconium. The discrepancies in the South Carolina data remain unexplained as Lead, the nanoscientist responsible for it, has chosen not to disclose the data. (Despite being contacted for comment in relation to this story, Lead did not respond.)
According to the EPA, the levels in Butte are comparable to other studies on meconium, excluding the data from South Carolina. However, drawing comparisons between Butte samples and other studies can be challenging due to various factors. For instance, different studies measure meconium using either dry weight or wet weight, leading to inconsistencies. Additionally, other studies conducted in areas affected by toxic accidents may not provide accurate comparisons to Butte. McDermott points out these limitations in making meaningful comparisons to Butte.
Rather than conducting a comprehensive study, the EPA collaborated closely with mining companies to carry out an aggressive campaign. In an email, the EPA requested Mark Thompson, the vice president of environmental affairs for Montana Resources, to exert influence on Hailer and McDermott to retract their findings. This request was prompted by a review of the study conducted by a consultant hired by the company.
Nikia Greene, the EPA’s remedial project manager for the Superfund site in Butte, expressed her belief that any scientist who reviews both our assessment and your assessment would draw the same conclusion. Therefore, if you choose to communicate via email, kindly refrain from copying us but inform us of your decision.
During an interview with InvestigateWest, Thompson remembered informing EPA officials that the mine’s statements and ARCO’s opinions would be insignificant. He suggested that the EPA seek analysis from alternative state or federal agencies instead. Consequently, he did not send the email.
According to Mylott, the spokesperson for the EPA, in a statement to InvestigateWest, the agency is obligated to conduct an impartial assessment of the McDermott study. To fulfill this responsibility, the EPA has been in contact with multiple parties, including the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Butte-Silver Bow Health Department, and the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.
He stated that these actions demonstrated a wish to foster the creation and dissemination of precise information, as well as promote responsibility in clarifying the study.
Montana Resources is indicated to have exerted direct influence on the EPA’s response, as suggested by additional emails. In one correspondence, Thompson inquired Greene at the EPA about any advancements made regarding the publication of the paper. Subsequently, the EPA requested the journal to retract the study, but this appeal was ultimately denied.
Montana Resources expressed their confidence in requesting the EPA’s assistance, as evident from the emails. In 2020, Thompson came across a flier seeking volunteers for a pilot study conducted by McDermott and David Hutchins. Subsequently, he promptly emailed Greene and local health officials.
Thompson inquired, “Are there any possibilities of tracing the funding for David Hutchins and McDermott, considering they are engaged in their usual activities?”
Greene shared the email with three additional officials, accompanied by a message stating, “Just so you know, this is bordering on unethical. Charlie and I are investigating the matter. We will update you on any developments.” The EPA declined to comment on the email when approached by InvestigateWest.
However, during an interview, Thompson clarifies that the EPA did, indeed, express willingness to investigate the federal funding aspect to determine if McDermott’s research was being supported by a federal source. According to Thompson, in such a scenario, the EPA aimed to raise doubts about the credibility of the funding.
Thompson says that there were discussions regarding the origin of the money and whether the individuals providing it should have a say in the quality of its utilization.
According to Hailer, Montana Resources made attempts to exert influence over her employer, Montana Tech. Following the release of the meconium study, she received information that Montana Resources had requested a meeting with her supervisor with the aim of suppressing her voice. The dean of her college at the time verified the meeting request from Montana Resources, but refrained from providing details about the specific topics discussed.
For a period of two years after the meconium study, Hailer made an effort to keep a low profile, refraining from public attention. However, she has remained engaged in conducting research on the mining activities in Butte, albeit without significant financial backing. It was only recently that she became aware of the emails obtained by InvestigateWest.
Hailer asserts that he has personally witnessed and experienced the close connection between ARCO, Montana Resources, and the EPA. He deems this association highly inappropriate, as it entails allowing the very individuals responsible for creating the problem to also dictate the community’s cleanup process.
‘REGULATORY CAPTURE’
During the Trump administration, numerous scientists expressed significant concerns regarding the level of coordination between the EPA and the companies it was tasked with regulating.
When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, he appointed Scott Pruitt as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt, previously Oklahoma’s attorney general, had a cozy relationship with the fossil fuel industry and a record of suing the EPA. Shortly after taking over as head of the EPA, emails were released that showed that as AG, Pruitt “coordinated with industry officials to fight unwanted regulations from Washington.”
In 2018, a group of researchers thoroughly examined the EPA during Pruitt’s tenure, carefully analyzing his speeches, political appointments, and actions. Their findings, published in a paper, concluded that the EPA had become excessively pro-business to the extent that it was inadvertently fostering a state of “regulatory capture.” In other words, the agency seemed to prioritize the interests of the industries it was meant to regulate over the welfare of the general public.
According to Sellers, a professor at Stony Brook University and co-author of the paper, the Trump administration allowed unprecedented industrial influence within the EPA. He stated that the agency actively worked against its own rules and budget to benefit industry, and even appointed industry representatives to scientific advisory committees. The paper highlights the involvement of corporate scientists in manipulating the scientific system in favor of industry.
However, when Sellers wrote the paper, he acknowledged that there were limited real-world instances of the EPA effectively functioning for the benefit of industry.
According to Sellers, there wasn’t sufficient documentation to demonstrate the alignment between industry expectations, agency actions, and their actual implementation.
According to Sellers, the interaction between the EPA and Montana Resources regarding McDermott and Hailer’s study is noteworthy. However, he clarifies that the EPA is not held accountable legally for choosing a particular stance in a scientific dispute.
A SAFE PLACE?
For decades, Steve McGrath has been residing in the Greeley neighborhood, which is conveniently situated opposite Montana Resources. From his residence, he has a clear view of the continuous activities taking place at the mine, from the blasting of rocks to the constant movement of trucks transporting ore. While some residents of Butte may not be concerned about the dust that originates from the mine, McGrath finds it impossible to overlook.
McGrath states that the residents of this neighborhood are constantly being bombarded by the dust.
Ten years ago, McGrath, an analytical chemist employed at Butte’s Montana Technical University, attended a local health department meeting and presented a bag of gray dust that had gathered at his residence. (Comment requests to local health officials went unanswered.)
McGrath remembers asking, “Is this something I should be concerned about from a health perspective?” He received a response stating that it was merely an annoyance and not within their regulatory scope.
Thompson, an employee at Montana Resources, has attended public meetings where residents living near the mine have presented a piece of glass covered in dust from their backyard. He agrees with them on the need for further research to address this issue. However, he believes that independent scientists are unfairly criticizing mining in Butte without sufficient evidence. Furthermore, he argues that the dust in the Greeley neighborhood is not as severe as it is being portrayed by individuals.
Thompson states, “I don’t perceive what they are perceiving.”
Montana Resources has invested a significant amount of money in dust mitigation. The company strongly believes in maintaining a positive relationship with the community. In fact, Thompson, the company’s spokesperson, emphasizes the importance of being a good neighbor. Notably, his own son resides in the Greeley neighborhood situated closest to the mine.
Thompson reassures his kids, saying, “Are we in a safe place?” And he confidently responds, “You’re safe. I have my own family to protect.”
Studies examining the effects of dust in Butte have been financially supported by Montana Resources. However, residents frequently exhibit skepticism towards studies funded by mining companies, as these studies tend to possess inherent limitations.
In 2021, an engineering firm was employed by Montana Resources to conduct an analysis of particulate matter in the Greeley neighborhood. The study, supported by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, revealed that the levels of particulate matter were deemed safe as they complied with federal regulations.
Sahu, the independent consultant, studied the data and said that was the wrong conclusion to reach. For starters, except for lead, there are no federal standards for individual metals in the air such as arsenic, copper or molybdenum — metals of concern in Butte. The EPA’s standards for particulate matter are looser than those of the World Health Organization. In the Greeley neighborhood, annual averages were recorded from 2018 to 2020 that would exceed the WHO limit. The Biden administration proposed stricter standards in January, taking aim at the Trump administration for retaining the looser standards.
Last year at a meeting in Butte, Sahu emphasized that meeting the standards does not guarantee safety.
Ed Banderob, the president of the community development corporation in the nearby neighborhood, has been a resident of Butte for approximately 15 years. Despite several independent studies conducted over the past decade, he admits to feeling uncertain about the actual risks associated with living in this area. Banderob firmly believes that the residents of Butte do not have any plans to close down the currently operational mine. In his own words, “we’re not that foolish.” All they seek are clear and comprehensive explanations regarding their concerns.
Banderob stated that our standpoint is to acknowledge the issues and openly confront them. He criticized their approach, which seemed to be to ignore the problems and hope they go away.
McDermott asserts that in Butte, the EPA, mining companies, and other governmental officials are not genuinely trying to find solutions. Instead, they divert their attention to irrelevant distractions, which McDermott refers to as “red herrings.”
She claims, “Their approach involves continuously engaging in minor actions to comfort individuals and divert their attention, which is not the right way for science to advance,” according to McDermott.
“Why don’t you consider repeating my studies? Instead of accusing me of being wrong, why not collaborate with the university and let them handle the sample and analysis? McDermott suggests that this is how scientific progress is made.”
InvestigateWest (invw.org) is an independent news nonprofit dedicated to investigative journalism in the Pacific Northwest. Reach reporter Wilson Criscione at [email protected]. This report was supported in part by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
