Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:09:49.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflicting Goals: Superfund, Risk Assessment, and Community Participation in Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Hugh S. Gorman
Hugh S. Gorman*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan
*
Hugh S. Gorman, Assistant Professor of Environmental History and Policy, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931 (fax) 906-487-2468; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Extract

This article uses the history of a Superfund site—the Torch Lake site in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan—to suggest that the risk-based decision-making process of Superfund sends mixed messages, frustrating public participation even when some level of involvement is appropriate and desirable. In this case, Superfund-related conflicts in the community remained unresolved even after the USEPA issued its Superfund Record of Decision. Only after a public advisory council reviewed the beneficial uses of the waterway as part of a decision-making process required by the joint US-Canadian Area of Concern program did the community have a mechanism to reach some consensus on these issues. Rather than reducing a complex problem to a set of numbers that discouraged discussion, the review of beneficial uses facilitated discussions that allowed non-experts to place the various impairments in perspective. The implication for regulators who are required to make risk-based decisions is that, where public involvement in the decision-making process is appropriate, indicator-based discussions of beneficial uses are likely to be more productive than discussions centered around risk.

Type
Features & Reviews
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 27 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. PL 96–510, with major amendments made by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (PL 99–499).

2. Mazur, A., 1998, A Hazardous Inquiry: The Rashomon Effect at Love Canal, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 255 pp.Google Scholar

3. Hird, J. A., 1992, Superfund: The Political Economy of Environmental Risk. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 315 pp.Google Scholar; Mazmanian, D., and Morell, D., 1992, Beyond Superfailure: American Toxic Policy for the 1990s. Westview Press, Boulder, 278 pp.Google Scholar

4. Much of my knowledge of the details of the Torch Lake case stems from being an advisory member of the Torch Lake Public Action Committee and in using my graduate-level environmental decision making class to facilitate a review of the fourteen indicators associated with the Area of Concern process.

5. For a history of the area, see: Lankton, L. D., 1991. Cradle to Grave: Life, Work, and Death at the Lake Superior Copper Mines, Oxford University Press, New York, 319 ppGoogle Scholar; Lankton, L. D., 1997. Beyond the Boundaries: Life and Landscape at the Lake Superior Copper Mines, 1840–1875, Oxford University Press, New York, 247 pp.Google Scholar

6. Quirk, D., 1998, Copper From Sand: A History of Copper Reclamation on Torch Lake, Houghton County, Michigan, (Master's Thesis). Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, 105 pp.Google Scholar

7. USEPA, Region V, 1993, Record of Decision Summary, Torch Lake Super-fund Site, Operable Unit II, Chicago, 28 pp.Google Scholar

8. USEPA, Record of Decision, Operable Unit II, p. 9.Google Scholar

9. Tomljanovich, D. A., 1974, Growth Phenomena and Abnormalities of the Sauger of the Keweenaw Waterway, (Master's Thesis). Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, 102 pp.Google Scholar

10. Black, J. J., 1982, “Epizootic Neoplasms in Fishes From a Lake Polluted by Copper Mining Wastes,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 69(4).Google ScholarPubMed

11. International Joint Commission, 1987, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as revised by 1987 Protocol, Ottawa, 64 pp.Google Scholar

12. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1990, Fish Growth Abnormalities in Torch and Portage Lakes, 1974–1988, 48 pp.Google Scholar

13. Albee, S. I., 1997. “Torch Lake Area of Concern: An Overview” (draft document). Houghton-Keweenaw Soil Conservation District, Hancock, Michigan, 10 pp.Google Scholar

14. USEPA, 1993Google Scholar, National Priorities List Under the Original Hazard Ranking System. EPA/540/R–93/079, Washington, DC, 72 pp; National Research Council, 1994, Ranking Hazardous-Waste Sites for Remedial Action, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 294 pp.Google Scholar

15. USEPA, 1989Google Scholar, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (volume 1) Human Health Evaluation Manual. EPA/540/1–89–002, Washington, DC, 221 pp.; Doty, C. B., and Travis, C. C., 1989, “The Superfund Remedial Action Decision Making Process: A Review of Fifty Records of Decision.” JAPCA Journal 39 (12 1989):1535–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Mazmanian and Morell. Beyond Superfailure.

17. Barnett, H. C., 1994, Toxic Debts and the Superfund Dilemma, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 334 pp.Google Scholar

18. Tonn, B. E., and Perez, J. H., 1999. “Institutional Problems Facing Environmental Decision Makers in Local, State, and Other Subnational Governments,” Environmental Practice 1(1):25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. International Joint Commission, 1996, Pathways to Sustainability: Strategies for Sustaining RAP Public Advisory Committees, Working draft, 67 pp.Google Scholar

20. International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978.Google Scholar

21. USEPA, HRS worksheets, 1984, Torch Lake Site Administrative Record, Houghton, Michigan, 25 pp.Google Scholar

22. USEPA, Region V, 1992, Record of Decision Summary, Torch Lake Site, Operable Unit I and III, Chicago, 51 pp.Google Scholar

23. USEPA, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund.

24. USEPA, Record of Decision Summary, Operable Unit II, p. 11.Google Scholar

25. USEPA, Record of Decision Summary, Operable Unit I and III, p. 25.Google Scholar

26. USEPA, Region 5,1992, Responsiveness Summary, Torch Lake Superfund Site, Operable Units I and III, Chicago, 145 pp.Google Scholar

27. USEPA, Record of Decision Summary, Operable Unit II, p. 11Google Scholar

28. USEPA, Responsiveness Summary, Operable Units I and III, RS-8.Google Scholar

29. USEPA, Responsiveness Summary, Operable Units I and III, RS-12.Google Scholar

30. USEPA, Record of Decision Summary, Operable Unit II, 11–12.Google Scholar

31. USEPA, Record of Decision Summary, Operable Units I and II, 8, 21–54Google Scholar; Hermanson, D., and Aho, G., 1995, A Mining Legacy Torch Lake: An Area of Concern, (video), Keweenaw Video Production Services, Houghton, Michigan, 18 minutes.Google Scholar

32. Grasseschi, R., and Lorenzett, D., 1998Google Scholar, Meeting with Environmental Decision Making class, February 23. Torch Lake PAC members, Houghton, Michigan. Both Grasseschi and Lorenzetti had been engaged in the Super-fund process from the start and had strong feelings both about the site being declared a Superfund site, about proposals to conduct further investigations, and about proposals to give the “hotspot” special attention.

33. Spence, J. A., 1988, “The Keweenaw Waterway: A Status Report with Suggested Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Options For Developing a Comprehensive Remedial Action Plan” (unpublished report). Houghton, Michigan, 45 pp.Google Scholar; Spence, J. A., 1998, Meeting with Environmental Decision Making class, 02 2Google Scholar. Torch Lake Representative to the Statewide PAC, Houghton, Michigan. Spence had been involved in the Superfund process from the beginning, was a key organizer of the Torch Lake advisory council, and has strong feelings about the need to take stronger action than that recommended by the USEPA.

34. Padovoni, S., 1998, Comments, Torch Lake Area PAC meeting, January 14, USEPA Superfund Torch Lake Project Manager, USEPA Region V, Chicago.Google Scholar

35. USEPA, Region V, 1993, Responsiveness Summary, Torch Lake Superfund Site, Operable Units II, Chicago, 8 pp.Google Scholar

36. The debate can be followed in local newspaper articles: clippings file, Torch Lake Superfund Site, Michigan Technological University Archives, Houghton, Michigan.

37. Houghton-Keweenaw County Soil Conservation District, 1997, “Call for Nominations to the Torch Lake Area of Concern Public Action Council.” Hancock, Michigan, 4 pp.Google Scholar

38. The position of most members is reflected in the minutes of the Torch Lake Area Public Action Committee's first series of monthly meetings and by comments made at the Michigan Statewide PAC meeting, August 16, 1997, Houghton, Michigan.

39. Michigan Department of Community Health, 1997, Michigan Fish Advisory, Lansing, Michigan. 51 pp.Google Scholar

40. Great Lakes Water Quality Board of the International Joint Commission, 1998, If You Don't Measure It, You Won't Manage It, Thunder Bay, Ontario, 34 pp.Google Scholar

41. Torch Lake Area Public Action Committee, 1998, Minutes of monthly meetings, Lake Linden, Michigan.Google Scholar

42. Haugle, K., 1998, “Copper Country Marks Start of Superfund Site Cleanup,” Daily Mining Gazette, 10 23, p. 1.Google Scholar