Solution for Superfund site should be nothing less than a full cleanup of river
THE Environmental Protection Agency recently made a recommendation for a final cleanup of what has been called the “worst Superfund site in Texas.” The San Jacinto Waste Pits lie under and along the banks of the San Jacinto River, east of Houston and just north of Interstate 10. The EPA’s recommended solution is the one that the Galveston Bay Foundation has been urging for years: complete removal of the waste and disposal in an off-site, permitted disposal facility. The recommendation is going through a 60-day comment period and will be discussed at a public meeting in the Highlands area of Harris County on Oct. 20. It is imperative that we support this recommendation and finalize the cleanup of a problem that has been studied and debated for years.
In the late 1960s, a waste hauling company called McGinnes Industrial Management Co. (“MIMC”) deposited pulp paper waste from the Champion Paper mill in Pasadena into pits it had created along the San Jacinto River. MIMC is now a subsidiary of Houston-based Waste Management. Champion Paper was later acquired by International Paper (“IP”).
The paper and pulp waste contained high levels of dioxin, a highly toxic, cancer-causing substance. Much of the dioxin was washed into the river in the 1970s when the river altered its course, although much of it remains behind in the pits. It caused significant contamination of seafood in the area, and the impacts arguably have been felt throughout Galveston Bay.
It wasn’t until 2005 that a Texas Parks & Wildlife employee was able to find and connect these pits to high dioxin levels in the area. The site was proposed for listing and cleanup under the Federal Superfund program in 2007 and was officially added to the program in 2008.
In July 2009, the EPA began to negotiate temporary cleanup steps with MIMC and IP, which ultimately led to the construction of a temporary armored cap
over much of the site that was completed in July 2011. Since then, the armored cap generally has kept the waste in place, but has required many repairs and extensive maintenance.
Between 2012 and 2016, flooding events and/ or barge strikes appear to have caused damage to the temporary cap on multiple occasions, potentially exposing the river to additional waste. Despite the cap being designed to withstand a 100-year flood, damage has occurred during much smaller storms.
Since construction of the temporary cap, the EPA has been studying options for a permanent cleanup. They boil down to two options, along with some potential hybrid options of the two. The first would be to leave the waste onsite by reinforcing the cap and leaving it onsite forever. The second would be to dig up and remove the waste and dispose of it offsite. The approximate cost to strengthen the cap and leave it onsite would be $10 million; the cost to dig it up and dispose of it elsewhere is approximately $100 million. Not surprisingly, MIMC and IP have advocated for the cheaper cleanup.
It is fair to note that neither cleanup plan is without risk. The concern with digging up the waste and removing it is the risk that some waste will be re-suspended in the process and deposited back into the river. It is a legitimate concern. But the concern with leaving the waste in place is that there is no guarantee that it will stay there; the pits are in an area that is highly susceptible to flooding and storm surge from a hurricane. Flooding has impacted the cap, and we know our area will be hit by a hurricane at some point. And the waste will remain toxic and hazardous to the environment and public health for over 700 years.
How can we ensure the waste stays under the cap for 700 years? We simply can’t. And for this reason, the EPA has concluded that removing the waste provides greater permanence and offers less risk than capping the waste in place forever.
MIMC and IP disagree with that assessment and suggest the EPA is ignoring science and technical data. However, the EPA reviewed the full record in this case and came to a conclusion based upon good science supported by the record. The EPA is our country’s expert agency on Superfund cleanups and it conducts these cleanups across the country. It reviewed over 900 documents and studies before making its decision. It relied on multiple experts who pointed out that there simply is no way to ensure the waste will remain capped during future flooding events.
MIMC and IP experts may truly believe that it is safer to leave the waste in place. But with the cost difference for capping the site and removing the waste at $90 million, can any company really view the cleanup options objectively? Let’s stop arguing about the right cleanup solution and support the EPA’s decision to remove the waste and ensure that all modern cleanup and engineering technologies are used to minimize or eliminate any resuspension of waste during the removal process. And let’s provide certainty to those who live and fish near the site that this site will finally be cleaned up once and for all. Stokes is president of the Galveston Bay Foundation. Byers is executive director of the Coastal Conservation Association Texas.