This article is a terrific example of click bait masquerading as science. Anonymous sources expressing their grave concern. Extrapolating dire conditions based on questionable samples with no apparent chain of custody or documentation of the sampling detail. In other words, useless in drawing any conclusions or of remediation utility. Scientific and engineering clickbait.
I have the impression that many people see evil motives in others because they are not seeing instant gratification on restoring to an idealistic, pristine state of of the wreck site or the environment writ large. I'll rip the band-aid off that illusion.
Draw a circle around the wreck site. This area will be in remediation for years. In the first hours and days, responders were throwing up barriers, collecting surface water runoff and removing gross amounts of contaminated soil. All this would be hauled off to hazardous waste disposal, probably specialized incineration systems.
The next steps will likely consist of putting in engineered barriers to prohibit off site migration of contaminants. My guess is a soil cap on top of the site. Slurry walls will contain subsurface water movement and wells will pump out contaminated water to hazardous material disposal.
Now comes the long slog. Detailed profiling of the contamination. Determine options for cleanup then implement.
This ain't gonna happen in a week or two.
I'll stop now. If anyone wants to talk technology stuff, I'm game for it. If anyone wants to quote mindless slogans not grounded in reality, I’ve got no time.
Good post. My Dad participated for quite a few years in research and trial projects restoring strip mined land where lots of nasties were distributed all over the place, including at varying depths, sometimes aquifers were ontaminated with said nasties, etc. Pretty interesting stuff, even if I was only catching “pieces” of info from him now and then.
One location (with some add-ons) is now a 20,000 acre state park with over 30 fishable (and most stocked) ponds and lakes on it.
That’s not exactly the same thing as this situation, but, it gives me a good sense of the correctness of your post. :-)