As Dow dioxin negotiations wrap up, EPA doesn’t anticipate relocations

It’s been four months since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated new dealings with Dow Chemical over the handling of dioxin contamination in Michigan’s Saginaw River watershed and the agency says it expects its closed-door cleanup framework negotiations with the company to conclude by Friday.

Dioxin, an intensely toxic and cancer-causing byproduct of chemical manufacturing operations at Dow’s Midland complex has contaminated the downstream ecosystem, binding with sediments in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers and Lake Huron’s Saginaw Bay.

The river contamination has special meaning for people living in the Tittabawassee’s floodplain because periodic flooding can deposit toxic sediments in and around their homes. In many cases the dioxin levels in the soil around these homes is hundreds of times higher than state allowable limits.

In 2005, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality identified 103 properties near the Dow plant in Midland and 351 along the Tittabawassee River where flooding inundates or comes within 20 feet of a residence. These were deemed “Priority 1″ — areas that required immediate cleanup. State agencies issued advisories warning residents to reduce dioxin exposure by wearing masks while gardening and keeping children from playing in yards that had been flooded.

EPA has acknowledged the health risks posed by dioxin in the watershed. In a statement this spring, EPA Director Lisa Jackson called the contamination a public health threat and promised swift action.

Yet, at a public meeting held by EPA in Saginaw in June, the agency proposed a phased cleanup plan that stretches into 2018 and the director of the national Superfund program, Mathy Stanislaus, said the agency does not intend to relocate people who live in the contaminated zone.

In follow-up e-mail conversations with Michigan Messenger, EPA Superfund program spokeswoman Latisha Petteway explained the agency’s position this way:

The overwhelming majority of Superfund sites located in or affecting residential areas are cleaned up to protective levels, therefore it is unnecessary to permanently relocate residents.

To date, several residents have had contaminated soils removed from around their homes through removal cleanup actions, and based on currently available data, it does not appear that permanent relocations will be necessary to protect human health in the Tittabawassee floodplain.

The tone of EPA’s statement raises some concerns by those who have been watching the process.

Although dioxin levels that far exceed safe levels have been documented around homes in the floodplain, little lasting cleanup has been done.

According to Dow Chemical, since agreeing to a work plan with the state of Michigan in 2005, the company has provided “mitigation options” to 181 households, mostly in the form of floor and ductwork cleaning. Landscaping has been done at 77 residences.

Former floodplain resident Kathy Henry said this approach to controlling exposure is “grossly inadequate”.

“Riverside [Boulevard] is the prime example,” Henry said, referring to one impacted neighborhood near where the Tittabawassee meets the Saginaw River. “Dow came in and did their magic and then EPA came in years later and found high levels. Dow’s stuff is not working. It keeps flooding.”

Before EPA took the lead role on the dioxin pollution this spring, the 52 mile long contaminated area was being handled by the state under authority delegated by the federal government under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Under this process EPA was to play a supportive role in state actions to pursue cleanup with Dow. EPA had authority to issue emergency removal orders and compel immediate action by Dow in cases where contamination posed an imminent threat to human health.

In 2007 and 2008, Mary Gade, then the EPA’s Region 5 administrator, used this authority to force cleanup on some of Dow’s dioxin hot spots.

The removal of contamination at Riverside Boulevard, ordered in 2008, was the first EPA-ordered cleanup of a residential area in the contaminated zone, and Michelle Hurd Riddick of the Lone Tree Council says that she believes that this action was seen by Dow as emboldening a class-action lawsuit where Tittabawassee floodplain residents are seeking compensation for for damages to their property.

Riddick pointed out that shortly after the EPA focused on addressing this contamination, Region 5 administrator Mary Gade left her position, stating at the time that it was clear she was being forced out because of her actions to hold Dow responsible for cleanup. 

EPA now says that it is treating the dioxin-contaminated watershed as a Superfund site though it has declined to place the site on the National Priorities List of Superfund sites.

With recontamination expected, some ask about relocation options

A recent Michigan Department of Community Health analysis of EPA’s removal action in the Riverside Boulevard neighborhood found that while soil excavation, road paving and home cleaning did reduce dioxin exposure risk for residents in that neighborhood, those residents were likely exposed to health-damaging levels of pollution before the cleanup, and the area is likely to be recontaminated by future flooding of the Tittabawassee.

So far this year, locals say, the river has flooded four times into the low-lying neighborhood.

With cleanup projections into 2018, the river’s regular flooding, and outdoor activities limited for floodplain residents, some believe relocation should be an option.

And, according to EPA guidance on relocation factors such as the feasibility of cleanup and limits on use of the property should be factors in determining whether relocation is necessary.

In an April 2008 correspondence with floodplain residents — before EPA took over at the site — Region 5 Superfund Director Richard Karl referred to that framework as he discussed the agency’s attitude toward relocation and described some conditions under which EPA might relocate people:

Permanent relocation may be considered in situations where EPA has determined that structures cannot be decontaminated to levels that are protective of human health for their intended use, thus the decontaminate alternative may not be implementable.

Permanent relocation may be considered when EPA determines that potential treatment or other response options would require the imposition or unreasonable use restrictions to maintain protectiveness (e.g., typical activities such as children playing in their yards, would have to be prohibited or severely limited). Such options may not be effective in the long-term, nor is it likely that those options would be acceptable to the community.

Permanent relocation may be considered when an alternative under evaluation includes a temporary relocation expected to last longer than one year.

When one resident pointed out that state officials had advised residents to wear face masks while working in their yards, Karl acknowledged the state advisories but distanced EPA from discussion of local health risks.

“It is the understanding of U.S. EPA that specific risk reduction activities/techniques have been recommended by the [Michigan Department of Environmental Quality], the Michigan Department of Community Health and the Michigan Department of Agriculture,” Karl wrote. “U.S. EPA has not issued any such recommendations.”

Now that EPA is negotiating cleanup plans with Dow, locals and environmental groups are watching to see how the agency will recognize the hardships and risks suffered by floodplain residents and whether EPA’s promised swift action includes immediate moves to help them reduce the risks associated with living next to a Superfund area.

EPA officials, still busy this week with negotiations with Dow, were not available to confirm whether they support Michigan’s recommendations on reducing exposure.

The agency says it expects to issue a report on the outcome of its talks with Dow by Sept. 28.