History of Legacy Toxic Sites

There has been a decades-long effort to achieve meaningful clean-up of the 6 toxic legacy sites, and a number of studies have been done -- including an assessment of PCB and PAH contaminated sediment in the river.   Unfortunately, although the problems at these sites are well studied, little meaningful clean-up has happened to date.

Fortunately, the US EPA under President Obama has taken an interest in addressing these sites, after years of local officials begging for federal involvement.   On February 25, 2010, US EPA presented to the Anacostia Watershed Steering Committee a summary document on six toxic sites along the Anacostia.  After this presentation, District government expressed concern about the toxic clean-up issue being raised publicly while US EPA and District government were involved in ongoing discussions.  At this point, Anacostia River advocacy groups determined to get involved in the toxics issue so that some community perspective was included while US EPA and District government were working behind closed doors.

Throughout the summer of 2010, the Anacostia Watershed Steering Committee continued to press US EPA and District government about the status of the toxics clean-up.  The Toxics Team met with stakeholders and engaged in focused advocacy during this time period.  On August 16, 2010, US EPA sent a letter to the Anacostia Watershed Steering Committee outlining expectations for remediation of three of the toxic sites.

In this letter, signed by US EPA Region 3 Administrator Shawn Garvin, EPA explained that clean-up frameworks were in place at three of the six toxic sites.  The letter continued that "EPA is working with DDOE to ensure that work is progressing in a transparent manner that provides for appropriate public participation under legally enforceable instruments at the three remaining sites: Kenilworth Landfill, Washington Gas Light and PEPCO Benning Road."  The letter goes on to say that "If measures to comprehensively address these sites in a transparent and legally enforceable manner are not in effect by mid-December 2010, EPA intends to address these sites using appropriate Federal authorities."  The implied threat is addition of the sites the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).

District government has consistently opposed Superfund listing for these sites, citing the length of the process, lack of local control, and the "stigma" of designating a Superfund site.  The Toxics Team disagrees with these premises.  The Superfund process can sometimes be lengthy, but the steps are known and they will continue to grind on to conclusion.  Further, the Superfund process would provide federal resources and expertise, and, most importantly, a clear process with opportunities for public input.  Voluntary agreements of the type proposed by District government are prone to bogging down.   One need look no further for an example than the Washington Navy Yard, one of the six known toxic sites along the Anacostia River and the only one of the sites on the Superfund National Priorities List.  This clean-up is the furthest along and also has the most nearby redevelopment.  Meanwhile, the District government and the National Park Service have had an agreement in place since 2008 regarding the assessment of toxics on the Poplar Point site.  We are now well into 2011 and the District and National Park Service have not been able to agree on a way forward at Poplar Point.  This is not the model advocates want to see at Kenilworth Landfill, Washington Gas Light, and PEPCO Benning Road.

Unfortunately, the mid-December 2010 deadline was allowed to pass without EPA action.   The incoming Gray Administration requested that EPA hold off and let them weigh in on the toxics issue, as Mayor Gray would be taking office just a few weeks after the deadline.  Although this was understandable on one level, it has removed much of the pressure on polluters and the District to keep moving forward.  We can’t afford to lose momentum on cleaning these toxics sites!   More happened to move the toxic cleanups forward in the last six months than in the previous several years.

Early in February 2011 DDOE announced that a consent decree had been reached with PEPCO regarding the Benning Road plant.   A notice was published in the DC Register announcing the agreement and providing for a public comment period lasting until March 7, 2011.  One of the consistent concerns of Anacostia River advocates has been the capacity of DDOE to build a robust public process.  As far as we know, no public meetings have been scheduled in the communities near PEPCO Benning Road to gather community input on the pending consent decree.  A DC Register notice and 30-day comment period may be minimally adequate to reach professional advocates, but is not the best way to reach the community on an issue of such great impact.  In response to our concerns about DDOE’s capacity to manage clean-ups of such great expense and complexity, DDOE officials have always maintained that running the cleanup themselves affords them greater opportunities to engage the public than Superfund provides.  It is unfortunate that at this early date DDOE is not meeting the spirit of that promise.

In March 2011 the Toxics Team met with DDOE and shared our concerns with the Pepco consent decree, including in particular the lack of public outreach and the lack of a public meeting in the affected communities.  At that time DDOE indicated that it would hold a public meeting, in the community, before Memorial Day.  This meeting has never happened.  The Toxics Team organized two public meetings of our own to advise the public about the issue, and we are building alliances with community members to keep them informed of our work and to engage them directly with their concerns.

AWS filed formal comments on the Pepco consent decree in accordance with the DC Register deadline.  These comments included several serious concerns with the legality of the consent decree and again highlighted the issue of public engagement.  The legal shortcomings in the consent decree were so serious that eventually AWS, Anacostia Riverkeeper, and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a legal motion to intervene in the consent decree lawsuit between DDOE and Pepco.  Essentially, DC and Pepco are having a conversation about how to clean up the Benning Road site, and the motion to intervene represents our attempt to become part of that conversation in order to represent the public interest.  As of August 2011, we are still waiting for the judge to rule on our motion.  In the meantime, we continue to engage the affected communities in the resolution of this issue that is so close to home for them.