Pollution Proposal C Shouldn't Be Hostage To Clarification Of DNR Rules

POLLUTION

Proposal C shouldn't be hostage to clarification of DNR rules

The state Department of Natural Resources should be embarrassed that it’s taken a threatened court action to speed it toward clarifying rules on ranking environmental contamination sites.

For years, the DNR has been told, both inside the department and from other state sources, that the rules are fuzzy. It puts the department in a weak position when it cannot answer precisely how a ranking is made nor what a business can do, in terms of clean up, to get off the contamination list.

The threatened legal action comes from Gelman Sciences Inc., of Scio Township, which is seeking in court to prevent the DNR from spending voted-approved Proposal C funds on toxic waste cleanups until the agency formalizes the process it uses to rank contamination sites.

Gelman, which is currently ranked second by the DNR on its contamination priority list, is charged with polluting underground waters with toxic solvents from its plant on Wagner Road, north of Liberty. It has been in legal battles with state since 1967 over the extent of its obligation to clean up the site.

The DNR said it has sued Gelman for “gross contamination” of environmental resources only after repeated attempts to negotiate a cleanup agreement with the company failed.

Gelman has sued the DNR over what it contends is a process that lacks clear direction and disregards the rights of the businesses. Charles Gelman, chairman of the board, says that the DNR has “nitpicked” all three of the cleanup plans the firm has filed with the department.

In October, Gelman won a partial victory in a suit it brought against the DNR. Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Conlin ordered the department to formalize its rules on how it sets priorities for determining which contamination sites are the most dangerous.

Last week, Gelman filed legal action asking Judge Conlin to append the order to block the state from spending any money on cleanup until the rules are formalized. That means that the DNR must formally write out the rules, subject them to public hearings and have those administrative rules approved by the state Legislature.

While there is no question that this process has been inexcusably delayed, attempting to stop ail cleanup is foolish. There is no reason why both can’t take place at the same time. Whatever Gelman’s motives, its legal action against Proposal C makes it appear that the firm is acting vindictively.

The DNR claims it has been too short-staffed to complete its work. True, it does lack staff, but if it is going to use these rules as basis for court action, it ought to put high priority on putting those rules in reasonable working order.

Processing of the DNR administrative rules now has been given the attention is needs, and is expected to be completed by the end of the year. But why should it have taken threatened court action?

When the Legislature considers the DNR rules, likely in January, it also needs to look at the fact that Michigan law, unlike the federal Superfund, does not include provisions for the DNR to make polluters pay their full share of cleanup costs. Instead, the DNR must go through awkward legal maneuvers to find polluters liable under other environmental laws.

The state needs laws that make pollution liability standards clear and that sets up a specific system that makes the polluter pay.

THE ANN ARBOR NEWS