Fresh off a listening tour in Michigan last week, officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency laid out three options for the cleanup of dioxin in the Saginaw Bay area. They also noted that some options may be off the table without support from Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
Dioxin, a toxic and cancer-causing byproduct of the chemical manufacturing process, has spread 50 miles downstream from the Dow Chemical Co.’s Midland plant, contaminating the Tittabawassee River, the Saginaw River and Lake Huron’s Saginaw Bay.
Officials from EPA headquarters in Washington toured Michigan last week to view the contaminated areas and take stock of negotiations for cleanup of the watershed. The visit was a response to an outcry from state environmental groups that warned a federal process begun in the last days of the Bush administration could lead to inadequate cleanup.
EPA spokesman Mick Hans said that senior policy adviser Robert Sussman sees three possible routes to addressing the contamination.
One option is to continue the existing state-led process. In accordance with an agreement finalized in 2003, the state Department of Environmental Quality is the lead agency for enforcing cleanup for the entire 50-mile-long zone of contamination. Under the agreement, the EPA has authority to force cleanup in cases where contamination poses an “imminent threat to public health” and under the leadership of former regional EPA director Mary Gade — who was subsequently forced out for her actions — the Great Lakes EPA office has achieved cleanup of some toxic “hot spots” in the Saginaw River.
Resources and political will are limiting factors on the state level.
The state has sometimes been overwhelmed by the scope of the project, state officials say, and a confidential EPA memo leaked in 2007 described the state process as being politicized and slowed by the strong influence of Dow Chemical on state officials.
Hans said that having Michigan maintain responsibility for the entire area of contamination is not seen by the EPA as the best approach. “We don’t think doing only removals is the best way to clean this up,” he said.
A second approach is to add the area to the National Priorities List as a Superfund site and have the EPA take over cleanup enforcement. This has the potential to slow the cleanup because the Superfund process requires a lengthy public comment process. And there might be a larger obstacle to the Superfund route. “Typically the EPA will not list a site without concurrence from the governor,” Hans said. “That is a factor that needs to be worked through as well.”
A third route would place some of the contaminated areas within the Superfund Alternative Site process. This could allow the federal government to take responsibility for a portion of the cleanup area, Hans said, and leave the cleanup of the contamination around Dow’s Midland facility in the state’s hands. This is the same framework that caused an uproar among environmental groups when it was proposed late last year. EPA’s own inspector general’s office has found that Superfund alternative sites receive less comprehensive oversight than traditional Superfund sites.
Environmental groups, burned by federal actions in the Bush era, were particularly alarmed when the Superfund Alternative process was proposed. These groups now appear to be open to new federal participation in the dioxin cleanup.
“All of these processes have their strengths and weaknesses,” Terry Miller of the Lone Tree Council said.
Miller said that his group is now open to considering any of the three approaches described by Sussman and that the council is looking forward to the EPA’s recommendation. He added that the group has also retained legal and other expert counsel.
“We want to begin a dialogue that doesn’t miss any opportunities for cleanup in the spring,” he said.
Granholm spokeswoman Megan Brown said the governor favors the Superfund Alternative Site process.
“[Granholm] has indicated to EPA Director Jackson her support for utilizing the Alternative Site Remediation Process,” Brown said. “The work can continue immediately. It builds upon the excellent working relationship between EPA and the state and allows for transparency for the public in understanding the process and clean-up milestones.”