After battery plant fire, southeast Missouri town alarmed about potential contamination

Jennifer Torr walks along the outside of the Critical Mineral Recovery property near Fredericktown. The plant, which recycled lithium-ion batteries, caught fire in October (Allison Kite/Missouri Independent).
FREDERICKTOWN — Jennifer Torr was at a coffee shop next door to the the Critical Mineral Recovery battery recycling plant when it caught fire in October, sending a tower of smoke into the air.
She had no idea when she and her husband, Darin, bought their blueberry farm a few miles north of town that the facility might one day pose a danger. But when she saw the building erupt in flames, she immediately thought, 'we have to get out of this area.'
'I remember my husband and I getting in our vehicle and texting my kids, 'You guys need to pack some bags,'' Torr said in an interview.
By the time they got back to the farm just over eight miles away, her family members were covering their faces to guard against the smell and fumes from the fire while they packed their car.
Since the fire, Torr and other residents have been organizing to bring their concerns to Madison County and state officials about the battery plant and a cobalt mine on the other side of town. Fredericktown lies at the heart of Missouri's old Lead Belt. After generations of contamination from lead mining, residents worry now that battery development and recycling poses yet another health hazard.
'Will my grandchildren be sitting here and saying, 'My grandma tried to stop this 60 years ago and now we're all sick because nobody would listen?'' Kimi Royer asked her state legislator, Republican Rep. Dale Wright of Farmington, on a visit to Jefferson City earlier this month.
It took days for firefighters to fully extinguish the blaze at Critical Mineral Recovery, which recycled lithium-ion batteries. The facility opened at the edge of Fredericktown in 2023. Now, only its burnt husk remains.
Parts of Fredericktown were evacuated when the facility went up in flames, and families who lived across from the plant were displaced. Lawsuits filed by neighbors of the plant say the explosion caused respiratory problems and post-traumatic stress disorder and raised heavy metals levels in some residents' blood.
Al Watkins, an attorney for Critical Mineral Recovery, said the company shares residents' concerns about the effect of the fire on their health and property values.
At the opposite end of town, U.S. Strategic Metals hopes to mine cobalt, stirring fears of the kind of environmental contamination the community suffered from lead mining, which ended in the area in the 1960s.
Residents said in interviews earlier this month that they understand the need for the battery recycling plant and the mine. Cobalt is essential for battery production, and precious materials can be recovered from lithium-ion batteries.
'We're not opposed to having this industry,' Torr said. 'What we're opposed to is having this placed in areas where they're going to be next to people, communities where there's schools and residential areas people are living.'
Melissa Vatterott, policy and strategy director for the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, has helped residents from the Fredericktown area push legislation at the Missouri Capitol that would require cobalt mines and battery plants be set back at least a mile from residential areas.
Vatterott noted communities, like Fredericktown, have seen adverse health effects from mining in the past.
'We should not be allowing more mining of a mineral for which the federal government has no standards for safe mining and make these same communities susceptible again to health harms,' she said.
The legislation would also require a permit for subsurface cobalt mining. The state currently requires land reclamation permits to mine minerals at the surface, but according to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the state doesn't require a land reclamation permit for underground mining.
U.S. Strategic Metals mine has permits to govern wastewater discharges and mine waste.
'We want to make sure that if we're going to be doing mining of some of these minerals, which we need to be doing, that we're doing it responsibly,' said Democratic Rep. Eric Woods of Kansas City, the bill's sponsor.
State Sen. Jamie Burger, a Republican who represents the communities near the mine and battery plant, is among the lawmakers who have heard concerns from the community about their safety.
'People were displaced from their homes, which is not good — ever,' Burger said. '…Then I also heard from people that want that to be rebuilt for job creation.'
Burger said he wanted to see what a one-mile setback would look like for the mine and battery plant. He said he thought the mining could be done in a safe manner and provide quality jobs for the area.
For decades, lead mining was a pivotal industry for southeast Missouri. But it came at a high price.
Workers at mines across Madison County produced lead for more than 200 years, resulting in more than a dozen stacks of waste that has eroded and left lead in soil and water around the county. Contaminated soil was used for foundation bases, fill and topsoil, contaminating residents' properties.
The entirety of Madison County is a Superfund site under cleanup by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Now, U.S. Strategic Metals hopes to mine cobalt at one of the old lead mine sites.
The mine, situated at the edge of Fredericktown, sits on what U.S. Strategic Metals says is one of the largest reserves of cobalt in North America. Cobalt, an essential component of lithium-ion batteries, can be detrimental to human health.
The EPA is reviewing whether cobalt and cobalt compounds might cause cancer. But inhaling cobalt particles can cause damage to the respiratory system, blood and the thyroid.
Aside from the impacts of cobalt, Fredericktown residents are worried about potential health impacts from stirring up the lead and other contaminants at the site.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'When something is in a Superfund, you don't come in and dirty it up even more,' said Walter Schwartz, who lives near the mine, adding that he's worried the mine will bring groundwater, soil and air pollution.
According to a request for a permit filed with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Strategic Metals hopes to build a plant to process materials from mining tailings, the leftover material from lead mining. Then, the company plans to mine fresh material from underground.
The Department of Natural Resources said it's still waiting for further air quality information regarding cobalt from the company necessary to process the permit application.
The company did not return multiple requests for comment.
Residents near the mine have complained that following U.S. Strategic Metals' takeover in 2018, blasts from the mine shook their homes, causing drywall and foundation damage.
Schwartz moved to the area in 2022 from Michigan and is turning it into his 'sanctuary,' planting fruit trees and raising chickens in his backyard. When blasts from the mine started shaking his house, causing a shelf to fall from the wall, he became worried about his investment.
'I'm looking at a bleak future of pollution and property value running down,' he said.
The Department of Natural Resources said it had received complaints from area residents and referred them to the Missouri Department of Public Safety.
While U.S. Strategic Metals seeks a permit to expand, it's facing accusations from the EPA of violating the Clean Water Act.
The agency sued in early 2024, accusing operators of the mine of allowing pollutants — including cobalt, copper, lead and nickel — to leave the site. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri also accuses mine operators Environmental Operations Inc.; Missouri Cobalt LLC; and Missouri Mining Investments LLC, of allowing stormwater runoff to discharge through a channel not authorized by the site permit and into a nearby creek.
During an inspection by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the lawsuit says, officials saw muddy red water leaving the site and entering Goose Creek.
Lawyers for the mine did not return a request for comment.
Jonathan Klusmeyer, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, said the agency has identified metals contamination downstream of several mine waste sites in Madison County and is assessing potential cleanup strategies. He said the agency conducts free domestic well water testing for related contamination and provides alternate drinking water for affected residents.
The EPA, Klusmeyer said, does expect the return of mining operations to have an effect on the Superfund site because the operator will be required to work with the EPA and state on plans to recover critical minerals from capped mine waste. That will 'prevent recontamination of the site, protect workers during the process, restore the caps and site drainage, test and verify the effectiveness of decontamination efforts and manage any generated residues,' Klusmeyer said.
Critical Mineral Recovery was only open a year before it caught fire in October.
In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it 'anticipates rebuilding the facility with a significant expansion at the same location as the previously recycling facility on 32 acres of land in Fredericktown.'
But Critical Mineral Recovery's attorney, Albert Watkins, said in an email that the 'property at which the fire occurred will be rebuilt, but not for the same purpose as originally intended.'
'The significant expansion refers to the Fredericktown area, for which evaluation of options is under way,' Watkins said.
Wakins said the company shares residents' concerns about the impact of the fire on their health and wants to rebuild 'in a more remote location away from residences and schools and more densely populated areas.'
Following the fire, he said the company provided financial support to displaced families, but declined to say how much.
Royer has led efforts to get community members to urge county or state officials to adopt legislation to insulate Frederickstown from the effects of the mine and battery plant. She traveled to Jefferson City earlier this month to present a stack of signatures on a petition asking lawmakers to support legislation that would prohibit mining, refining, manufacturing or recycling certain minerals, including cobalt and lead, within one mile of residences, schools, wildlife refuges, surface water, state or federal parks or conservation areas.
Lawmakers from the area told The Independent they're evaluating the community's concerns.
Wright, the Republican state legislator from Farmington, said he thought a one-mile setback sounded 'pretty reasonable.' He was seeking more information from the state on mining regulations and planned to speak with Woods, the bill's sponsor, before committing to support it.
'We want to make sure that people are kept safe,' said state Sen. Mike Henderson, a Republican whose district reaches close to Fredericktown. 'We also want to make sure we keep jobs in the community.'
Henderson said residents came to him concerned about safety and the air quality. He noted one resident had to evacuate with three small children.
'It's not a good situation,' Henderson said. 'No one's trying to say it is. I think right now, we're just trying to work our way through it to see what takes place from here.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Trump ropes Fed into debt fight as GOP faces fiscal mess

President Trump is pushing the Federal Reserve to go beyond its legal mandate and help him manage the national debt as Republicans face growing pressure over the nation's finances. In a series of remarks and social media posts, Trump has ripped Fed Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to lower interest rates, insisting he should help the White House manage the costs of servicing more than $36 trillion in national debt. ''Too Late' Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government, and the Fed Board is complicit,' Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social, a day after the Fed held rates steady. While Trump has spent most of his two White House stints berating Powell to cut rates, only recently has he tied those demands to the country's deteriorating fiscal health. 'We're beginning to see what I think are the early warning signs that the Fed is going to be increasingly called upon to keep the government solvent,' said David Beckworth, senior research fellow and monetary policy director at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank at George Mason University. 'When you begin to see this type of rhetoric, it's a clear sign that people are beginning to get nervous,' Beckworth explained. 'And how else can we save money? Well, let's turn into the Fed and put pressure on them.' Trump's escalating pressure on Powell over the national debt comes as he and Republicans stand to add trillions of dollars to it through a major tax-cut bill. Republican lawmakers are attempting to find common ground on what Trump has called his 'big, beautiful bill.' The legislation features an extension of his 2017 tax cuts, additional cuts the president proposed during the 2024 campaign, and steep cuts to social safety net programs. While GOP lawmakers claim the bill would help solve the country's fiscal woes, a range of ideologically diverse analysts forecast the bill to add anywhere between $2 trillion to nearly $4 trillion to the national debt. At the same time, Trump is attempting to secure GOP support to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury Department runs out of ways to avoid a default — a deadline that could come as soon as August. Trump is 'kind of speaking out of both sides of his mouth,' said Dan Alpert, managing partner at investment firm Westwood Capital 'He's got this enormous, $3.5 trillion dollar continuation of a tax cut from his first term that he wants to get across the line,' Alpert added. Republican lawmakers have argued that such estimates don't take into account the economic growth unlocked by lower tax rates, which they say would help narrow deficits over time. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that even when accounting for growth impacts, the bill would still add $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next ten years — more than the CBO projected without considering the preferred GOP scoring. 'The fundamental issue is we have a Congress and a president who cannot bring the budget deficit under control,' Beckworth said. While both Republicans and Democrats are to blame, he added, 'for a party that has claimed historically it is concerned about their debt burden, it is going to blow things up even more.' Trump's efforts to push the Fed into managing the debt mark a significant break from more than 70 years of federal economic policy. During World War I and II, the Fed yielded to pressure from presidential administrations to keep interest rates low and ease the burden of the rising debt. While that practice extended for nearly a decade after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Fed and Treasury eventually reached an agreement in 1951, setting the stage for the next seven decades of economic management. 'The purpose of the 'accord' was to make Treasury manage its debt, rather than expecting the Fed to 'monetize' it. In turn, the Fed asserted its control of monetary policy via the setting of interest rates to meet congressional mandates for price stability and maximizing employment,' said Sarah Binder, political science professor at George Washington University and co-author of 'The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.' The Fed has since avoided anything that could be considered financing the federal debt while sticking to its 'dual mandate' of balancing unemployment and inflation. And while several presidents have verbally pressured the Fed to keep rates low since 1951, none has made a formal move to limit its legal authority over monetary policy. 'Based on most concepts of 'independent' monetary policy, the central bank shouldn't be monetizing the debt. That is, it shouldn't be taking the administration's financing needs into account when it aims to meet its mandates,' Binder said. 'Those mandates are price stability and strong labor markets,' she added. 'Congress has not given the Fed an additional mandate to make it easier for the Treasury to finance its debt.' But Trump could be laying the groundwork for a shift toward a 'fiscal dominance' regime, Beckworth warned, in which the Fed would be forced to clean up the government's fiscal mess and abandon the bank's legal obligation to keep prices stable and unemployment low. 'Maybe we're not there yet, but we're getting close,' Beckworth said. 'If they push, push, push, and then at some point, the Fed loses independence … and it's no longer able to control inflation.' Trump griped Wednesday, hours before the Fed's latest hold, that he was unable to sway Powell into making major interest rate reductions. 'He's not a smart person,' Trump said of Powell. 'I think he hates me, but that's OK, you know, he should. He should. I call him every name in the book to get him to do something.' Powell brushed off several questions Wednesday about Trump's attacks and the potential debt impact of the president's agenda, but has implored the White House and Congress throughout his time as Fed chief to get the nation's finances on a sustainable track. Trump will be able to add 'former Chair' to his list of names for Powell come 2026, when his four-year term leading the Fed board lapses. Whomever Trump nominates to succeed Powell will almost certainly be more aligned with the president's thinking and face an easy path to confirmation in a GOP-controlled Senate. Even so, Powell is but one of 12 Fed officials on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) who vote to set interest rates — all of whom voted to keep borrowing costs steady Wednesday. 'Even if you got rid of Powell, you'd have to remake the FOMC with yes-men,' Beckworth said. Powell could also choose to stay on as a member of the Fed board through 2028. That would be an usual move for a former Fed chair, but Powell has not ruled it out. 'Powell has not budged, and the FOMC has not budged despite Trump's incessant ranting and pressure and whatever else he can throw at them,' Beckworth said. 'They're still sticking to their guns.'

Atlantic

2 hours ago

• Atlantic

Trump Got This One Right

'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.

Buzz Feed

2 hours ago

• Buzz Feed

US Bombs Iran And MAGA Weighs In

Last night, President Donald Trump announced that the US military had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran in a planned attack. Trump also took to Truth Social to congratulate the US military on the strike and announced that "now is the time for peace." Well, MAGA supporters are not holding back their frustrations and voting regrets about Trump's decision to involve the US in another war in the Middle East. Here's what they're saying over on the r/LeopardsAteMyFace subreddit. Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X, stating, "This is not our fight." "I trusted you. I'm done with MAGA and all your bullshit." "I fully regret voting for this shit." "You betrayed us, your MAGA base. I voted for you THREE TIMES." "Trump needs to be impeached." "Donald Trump has completely failed us." "NO MORE WARS!!!" "I regret my vote and I couldn't apologize more for voting for this." "More than disappointed with this action." "He's betrayed the vast majority of his voter base." Latino for Trump voter: "You promised us NO War, and you just started one!!!" "If the United States enters war with Iran, as appears to be the case, I will regret my vote." "Very disappointed in President Trump." "I wish I never voted for @realDonaldTrump." And finally, "I trusted Trump to put America first... We have been betrayed." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.