You are on page 1of 2

Barry BreenlDC/USEPAIUS To Bodine.susan@epa.

gov
01/08/200809:28 AM cc
bcc
Subject Midland newspaper editorial

This is from the clips circulated this morning.

01/07/2008
Our View:

Why bother? (Midland Daily News )

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday issued a press release indicating it no


longer would be negotiating with The Dow Chemical Co. over its study or cleanup of
dioxin contamination in the Tittabawassee River system. -
Even by governmental standards, the press release was far from clear.
It said, "key issues that are paramount for protecting human health and the
environment remain unresolved." It said the deal "is not comprehensive."
.One .of its officials noted the EPA "approached negotiations with high hopes and
realistic expectatiolJs."

So we called the EPA, asking what the "key issues" to public health in the Saginaw
Valley were, what is meant by "comprehensive" and what were those "realistic
expectat.ions" with which the EPA entered the negotiation process.

We were stonewalled. EPA spokeswoman Anne Rowan said, in a nutshell, that if the
EPA were forced to explain its generic terminology it would be violating confidentiality
agreements.

So we pose this question: If the public cannot understand the reasons why the EPA
is terminating negotiations with Dow, then why bother with the press release? Why not
just walk away from the table?

Absent an explanation, we have to assume that the intent of the press release was
public relations, an attempt to paint Dow once again in a bad light. .

Whether Dow is forthcoming or not we might never know. In its defense, an official
for the company said, "We were prepared to commit immense human and financial
resources on early, comprehensive actions, all in full compliance with EPA guidance
and regulations." Here again, "immense" and "comprehensive" are unclear. All we know
is there is no deal.

Certainly, the residents of this community would like to see the cleanup of the river
accomplished in a sensible, way. The contamination has been present in the soils for
decades.

When the EPA took over regulatory'oversight from the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality in June, it urged Dow to speed up its process. Yet in September
it pulled out of a process involving Dow, the State of Michigan; the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe and the Federal Natural Resource Trustees.

At the time, the EPA said the process was not open enough.

"EPA believes a more open and transparent process is the best way to make
important decisions that will affect the future health and vitality of the watershed for the
people of Michigan and the United States," EPA Region 5 Administrator Mary A. Gade
said at the time.
If the EPA believes that, why is the agency now muddying the waters?

You might also like