Is GM's $1.1 Billion Closed Factory Cleanup Fund Enough? Hidden Bailout On Its Way?

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

We sounded the alarm on the cost of cleaning-up abandoned automotive manufacturing sites before the bailout began. We sounded the alarm after the feds instructed GM set aside $1.1 billion to clean its 14 closed plants (so far). Although $78,571,428.60 per plant seems more than merely adequate, it may not be so. Reporting on the clean-up of GM’s Mansfield-Ontario Stamping Center, The Mansfield NewsJournal does a little comparative analysis. “At Ohio Brass, which, at 10 acres, was a small fraction of the size of the 270-acre stamping plant, that number [for the cost of the cleanup] was $2 million.” Extrapolating, that would be a $54 million laundry bill. BUT, it’s dwarf apples to “Rainy with a Chance of Meatballs” sized oranges. Many of GM factories stretch back decades, before there was anything remotely resembling environmental awareness or, more to the point, an EPA. Of course, a description of the pollutants at the plant would be very helpful in making a cost assessment. New “transparent” GM says uh-uh.

Local officials hold out hope they can persuade a buyer to purchase the site and assume many of the risks and costs. If they can’t, it’s difficult to know what environmental dangers may be uncovered. GM representatives won’t comment other than to direct reporters to bankruptcy filings, which don’t contain the records the state EPA will seek when GM officially announces the closure.

GM says don’t worry, be happy.

“I will make certain (GM chief restructuring officer Al Koch) reaches out when we wind down the operations,” Tim Lee, GM’s vice president for global manufacturing, said Friday.

Then again, why wouldn’t he?

According to state EPA guidelines issued in 1998, GM must do an environmental survey when it officially sets a closure date: completely fencing in the site, listing all known hazardous substances and disposing of those within three months. But the EPA directives don’t have the force of law, and while the worst sites are given Superfund money, a federally-financed program to mediate environmental disasters, many cases end up in the hands of local taxpayers.

In other words, if the costs of GM’s cleanup efforts top $1.1 billion, the rest will come from the taxpayers’ pockets from another funding source. How great is that? And what of Chrysler and Ford’s extraneous plants?

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 5 comments
  • 50merc 50merc on Aug 03, 2009

    In all fairness, it should be mentioned that the city of Mansfield and the state of Ohio were the main beneficiaries of the prosperity generated by those plants for many years. Also, ranchers in Montana sold beef and farmers in Mississippi sold cotton at whatever prices the commodity markets yielded, but GM, Ford, Chrysler and the UAW enjoyed the advantages of having the pricing power of an oligopoly and monopoly, respectively. That boosted the the net transfer of wealth from other regions. But things changed, leaving wreckage behind.

  • AWD-03 AWD-03 on Aug 03, 2009
    tooling designer : This is what you wanted. So this is what you get. Enjoy the mess! You aren't going down that tired road of, "TTAC hates domestics!" are you? This site isn't about hating domestics, they are the cars most of us fell in love with back in the day. This site just points out mis-management and missed opportunities as well as what they get right. Which for GM has been about 90% f-up 10% ok to good. This mess here isn't a surprise and doesn't really represent anything different than any other large manufacturing company that has existed this long. It doesn't even matter that they went through bankruptcy, these messes always get paid for by the taxpayer.
  • Zerocred I highly recommend a Mini Cooper. They are fun to drive, very reliable, get great gas mileage, and everyone likes the way they look.Just as an aside I have one that I’d be willing to part with just as soon as I get the engine back in after its annual rebuild.
  • NJRide Any new Infinitis in these plans? I feel like they might as well replace the QX50 with a Murano upgrade
  • CaddyDaddy Start with a good vehicle (avoid anything FCA / European and most GM, they are all Junk). Buy from a private party which allows you to know the former owner. Have the vehicle checked out by a reputable mechanic. Go into the situation with the upper hand of the trade in value of the car. Have the ability to pay on the spot or at you bank immediately with cash or ability to draw on a loan. Millions of cars are out there, the one you are looking at is not a limited commodity. Dealers are a government protected monopoly that only add an unnecessary cost to those too intellectually lazy to do research for a good used car.
  • Redapple2 I gave up on Honda. My 09 Accord Vs my 03. The 09s- V 6 had a slight shudder when deactivating cylinders. And the 09 did not have the 03 's electro luminescent gages. And the 09 had the most uncomfortable seats. My brother bought his 3rd and last Honda CRV. Brutal seats after 25 minutes. NOW, We are forever Toyota, Lexus, Subaru people now despite HAVING ACCESS TO gm EMPLOYEE DISCOUNT. Despite having access to the gm employee discount. Man, that is a massive statement. Wow that s bad - Under no circumstances will I have that govna crap.
  • Redapple2 Front tag obscured. Rear tag - clear and sharp. Huh?
Next