I am writing to provide clarifying information concerning issues raised in Elizabeth Bluemink’s Jan. 11th article headlined, “Activists want Congress to determine why EPA ‘failed to act’ on PCBs” and the Jan. 14th editorial headlined “PCBs — Monsanto, the EPA and ADEM.” As we have previously advised in letters to the editor, these statements are inaccurate and unfair and I would again like to respond.The January 11th Bluemink article stated that remediation of the Solutia (formerly Monsanto) site, Choccolocco Creek, and Coosa River is “being handled by Solutia under the authority of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) which had earlier fought against a federal cleanup program.”
Likewise, the January 14th editorial stated that “ADEM was fighting like mad to keep the agency (EPA) away” and “EPA should have long ago shoved the state agency out of the way” since state agencies “can be overruled by EPA.” Furthermore, the editorial stated that “EPA’s arrival in Anniston in 1999 marked the first real progress in our efforts to assess the overall problem and get a plan in place for a major clean up operation.”
These type comments indicate a continuing misconception concerning federal and state cleanup programs which are administered pursuant to two different federal laws. ADEM has been authorized by EPA to manage cleanups conducted pursuant to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) since approximately 1993. Prior to 1993, EPA managed such cleanups within the state, to include the Solutia site.
Initially, the Department worked to remediate the Solutia facility by preventing any further introduction of contamination into the environment and later shifted its efforts to include the downstream waterway. During all these activities, EPA’s RCRA Program has continued to oversee the project and provide guidance.
In short, EPA has been there with the Department every step of the way. In addition to EPA, other state and federal agencies such as the Alabama Department of Public Health, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and local community groups have provided and continue to provide their resources and insight to ensure that scientifically responsible and legally consistent decisions are being made.
Unlike the RCRA program, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities (CERCLA) program does not require that a direct known pathway for contamination be known. Also, the CERCLA program provides the ability to quickly gain access and to collect samples at residential properties and has its own source of manpower and funding.
In early 1999, EPA received information suggesting that PCB contamination existed in residential areas that were not downstream of the Solutia facility. After review of the information, ADEM requested that EPA begin investigating PCB impacts in residential property areas under the broad provisions of CERCLA.
Again, as stated in a previous letter to the editor, “ADEM has supported, and continues to support, this effort.” However, both the Department and EPA continue to maintain that the RCRA program is more appropriate to manage the Solutia site, Choccolocco Creek and downstream areas, including Lake Logan Martin.
The Bluemink article also stated that activists allege the PCB contamination in Anniston is at least 10 times greater than the contamination in the Hudson River, where the EPA has mandated a $450 million PCB dredging program.
The article further stated that “Monsanto’s ‘voluntary’ agreement with EPA has resulted in only a $40 million remediation program that does not adequately address the cleanup and public health concerns in the Anniston community.” EPA’s voluntary agreement with the facility only addresses the areas covered under the CERCLA program, which include Snow Creek and its floodplain.
As indicated above, the Solutia site, and Choccolocco Creek, to include downstream areas to Lake Logan Martin, are being addressed by ADEM’s RCRA program with oversight from EPA. The vast majority of cleanup activities to date have been mandated and accomplished under the RCRA program, and the facility directly bears any expenses required in the investigation and remediation process.
The referenced investigation and remediation process under RCRA is still ongoing and, until all investigations are complete and all remedies selected and implemented, the final costs cannot be determined.
However, it is fair to expect that these costs, all of which will be borne by Solutia, will be considerable.
We appreciate this opportunity to again offer clarification and I hope this information is useful to your readers.
James W. Warr
Director
