|
Lone Tree Council P.O. 1251, Bay City, Michigan
48706 (Fighting for environmental
justice since 1978) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Terry Miller (989) 686-6386
(989) 450-8097 cell
December 18, 2008
Michelle Hurd Riddick (989)
793-3313
(989- 327-0854 cell
Scott Edwards Waterkeeper
Alliance
(914) 356-6909
Groups Charge EPA is Poised to Cut Deal With
Dow Chemical In Waning Days of Bush Administration National and regional environmental organizations
strongly objected today to closed door negotiations to reach an agreement on the
largest dioxin contaminated site in the country. Dow Chemical, the world's
largest chemical company, has contaminated more than 50 miles of river
downstream from the company's global headquarters in Michigan. In a letter
sent to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, groups including Waterkeeper
Alliance, the Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan’s Sierra Club, Clean
Water Action and the League of Conservation Voters allege the proposed process
could result in an agreement that reduces
the protectiveness of the cleanup, weakens the government's hand in requiring
timely action, curtails public input and reduces government transparency and
accountability. "Every
single one of our nation's environmental laws was built on a foundation of
transparency and public participation," stated Waterkeeper Alliance Chairman,
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. "EPA's attempt to circumvent that fundamental
approach is an attack on the very cornerstone of our The EPA and the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) launched the private negotiating session with Dow with the intent
of negotiating an agreement under the non-regulatory Superfund Alternatives Sites (SAS)
program. This would change the way the cleanup would be
administered. Currently the site is administered through requirements
in an existing State hazardous waste permit. "The best disinfectant is always
sunlight," said Lana Pollack, Director of the Michigan Environmental Council"The
best disinfectant is always sunlight," said Lana Pollack, Director of the
Michigan Environmental Council. This is public health issue and the public has a
right to be at the table. More than a
year ago, the EPA rejected an agreement negotiated using the same proposed
framework. At the time, the EPA stepped away from those negotiations.
The Agency said at the time, "EPA does
not believe that the deal Dow is offering goes far enough," and "Key issues that
are paramount for protecting human health and the environment remain unresolved.
EPA simply will not accept any deal that is not comprehensive." After
rejection of the proposal by then Region V EPA Administrator Mary Gade and other
actions related to the cleanup, Mary Gade was terminated from her
job. "We are concerned that an agreement negotiated
behind closed doors, with an Administration who's regulatory philosophy has been
notably pro-polluter, does not bode well for the protection of our the Great
Lakes," said Michelle Hurd Riddick of the Lone Tree Council. "We
fear they are picking up where they left off now that Mary Gade is
gone." The SAS is a
non-regulatory program that has never gone through a public process of
rulemaking, nor has the program been evaluated for effectiveness in achieving
cleanup. Many SAS sites are languishing without action. The SAS
process circumvents some of the requirements of the federal Administrative
Procedures Act, and other public input provisions of the Superfund law, thereby
essentially eliminating a public role in a major cleanup impacting the commons
in the region. This spring, EPA Region V
and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality lauded the accomplishments
made in 2007 as the most progress made in 30 years. Yet the SAS proposal would derail the existing process,
replacing it with yet another process. EPA has not made a compelling
case for the SAS process. In their comments ( letter attached)
to EPA Administrator Johnson, the signatories state:
" There is no
need for this mid-stream switch from an existing, clean up process under a
workable, enforceable RCRA corrective action permit to an unnecessary,
potentially detrimental SAS approach that could lead to time delays and less
extensive and less protective clean up" |