Inside The EPA’s Decision on The San Jac River Superfund Site

There has been some confusion in the public and the media over the EPA's actions at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site. It is a complex process that is often hard to fully understand, so we wanted to explain what actions the EPA is taking.  

The EPA recently released a letter saying that it did not want to delay the remediation by further negotiating an independent review of the companies’ proposed remediation plan. The EPA said it will consider next steps for the cleanup and inform the responsible parties, International Paper and Waste Management/McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corporation, accordingly. 

Background In 2017, the EPA issued its Record of Decision or ROD, the official document that guides the remediation plans and eventual cleanup. In this case, the EPA specified that the contaminated material in the site had to be fully removed. Importantly, the two companies agreed to design a cleanup plan for the EPA’s designated remedy. 

Under the Superfund process, the companies are responsible for producing the engineering and design plan for the EPA to review. That is called the Remedial Design. During the design process, the responsible parties delayed by 725 days. Then, instead of presenting a plan to remove the dioxin and other contaminated waste, the companies presented a plan to leave some of the material in the river under a cap, an approach that has already failed at the site. The EPA disagreed with the responsible party's design and asked the companies to bring in an independent third party to perform a review of the design challenges, called an Independent Design Review or IDR. 

Enough is Enough  On September 8, John Meyer, the Remedial Branch Manager for the EPA Superfund Emergency Management Division sent the responsible parties a letter that said, “nine months later, however, the IDR has not started, and the parties have not even agreed on a protocol on how to conduct it.”  The EPA states that continuing the negotiations would just delay the development of the final plan. The letter concludes by saying the EPA is pulling the plug on the negotiations:

For the reasons stated in this letter and the attached detailed response, EPA withdraws its December 8, 2022, proposal to Respondents to conduct and finance an independent third-party technical review of the RD. The EPA will determine its next steps for the RD and inform Respondents accordingly.

What does that mean?  That last sentence has resulted in some confusion with the public and the media. It is carefully worded legalese because of the way the Superfund Law works. The letter doesn’t mean the agency is “taking over” the project, rather they are done negotiating for an IDR and will focus on a path forward. A step that is overdue and welcomed by surrounding community members. Despite the insurmountable delays, the EPA has continued to express their commitment to full removal of the contaminated material at the site.