My story today is about how EPA is now reexamining a Superfund cleanup plan after enviros said it would create a “toxic merry-go-round” by spreading dioxin-contaminated waste to more communities. https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2020/10/22/stories/1063716853

But this thread is about how EPA makes it difficult for people to trust and understand how toxic waste cleanups work.

I lived at and reported on the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site for three years. Trying to read around the jargon and figure out what EPA is actually going to do to get rid of carcinogens is not new to me. But, ho boy, San Jacinto was a whole other level.

Ironically, this Superfund site was, until now, a really good example of how to do Superfund right. Trump EPA listened to the community, they got the polluters to pay to remove all of the waste from the site.

But if you look at the initial cleanup plan, you'll see that the polluters want to remove dioxin-contaminated waste from a *Superfund* site and then dispose of it as non-hazardous.

I.e. sediment laced with the main ingredient in Agent Orange could be disposed of in the same landfill as leftovers from your dinner. This plan would save the polluters millions.

That sounded … odd… to me. The polluters say something called a TCLP test justifies the plan. But how can a test suddenly show waste so toxic it needs to be removed is actually waste that can be disposed of any which way?