Opinion ID: 3011603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 0 mg/l (plus/minus 0.2 mg/l).

Text: 18 The discussion of Approaches 1 and 2 in the final report remained largely the same as in the draft report except for two conclusory statements concerning Approach 2. The first was that, [i]n order to avoid . . . complicated control requirements [under Approach 2], cleanup of[the] aquifer [under Approach 1] is essential. The second stated that [r]emoval of ammonia from the well field before it impacts any production wells, as discussed in Approach 1, may be preferable to the complex operational changes required to manage incoming ammonia concentrations [under Approach 2]. SATET provided no reasons for reaching these conclusions in the final report that were not made in the draft report, and we can find no additional findings of fact to back up this change in course. Moreover, we note that the complicated control requirements and complex operational changes referred to are problems the draft SATET report attributed to the blending technique under Approach 2. SATET's final report failed to explain how the problems associated with blending would undermine the value of the mothballing/well-replacement technique that the draft report previously recommended as an effective solution. If mothballing and well-replacement under Approach 2 would be effective, it can hardly be said that removal as provided in Approach 1 is essential. The only explanation for SATET's change in recommendation between the draft and final report appears to be the Lansing Board's opposition to anything other than Approach 1. In its discussion of Approach 2, the final report explains that a blending approach would allow contaminants to enter a drinking water system. The very next sentence explains that [d]uring SATET meetings, LBW&L staff stated that the knowing acceptance of contaminants, however diluted, in the drinking water transmission system, would be unacceptable, and would not be recommended to LBW&L top management or Board of Commissioners. The inference is that the Lansing Board's staff pushed SATET not to recommend a blending process under Approach 2 because blending would allow some contaminants to enter the drinking water system. The Lansing Board's staff also stated at SATET meetings that Approaches 3 and 4 will likely not be acceptable to 19 the LBW&L for reasons such as adverse public perceptions about the quality of source water, the precedent of use of formerly contaminated water for drinking water supply, and the precedent of using drinking water supply wells as pollutant extraction wells. They explained, however, that mothballing with replacement wells, in conjunction with Approach 1 (plume containment and capture and treatment of contaminated water from extraction wells) would likely be recommended to LBW&L top management and Board of Commissioners. Not surprisingly, the final report recommends complete remediation under Approach 1 as the ultimate resolution of the Cooperating Parties['] concerns regarding the Saginaw acquifer and LBW&L operations. The report recommends Approaches 2, 3, and 4 only as supplements to the treatment options discussed in Approach 1. We are left with the firm impression that SATET's support for Approach 1 in the final report is primarily based on the Lansing Board's opposition to any of the other approaches. Such a recommendation is not rationally based on the facts SATET found concerning ammonia contamination in the Saginaw aquifer and the availability of remedies to protect the public's health. We therefore vacate the July 29 Order because it fails to provide a rational explanation for concluding that remediation of the Saginaw aquifer through Approach 1 is necessary to protect the Lansing public's health.5 _________________________________________________________________ 5. Grace has argued that SATET changed its recommendation in the final report in response to pressure from the Safe Drinking Water Branch of the EPA. It appears that the Chief of the Safe Drinking Water Branch, Charlene J. Denys, sent an e-mail to her staff on May 12, 1999 expressing concern that the SATET group was concentrating more on the short-term capacity/treatment of the Lansing public water system as opposed to the long-term remediation of the Saginaw aquifer. She indicated that she would expect any proposal from SATET to include the long-term remediation of the Saginaw aquifer in addition to the shortterm capacity issue and the effect of ammonia on the Dye Plant and its distribution system. We note, however, that the Denys e-mail was sent prior to SATET's completion of even the draft report. We therefore cannot be certain that SATET's change in recommendation between the draft report and the final report was influenced by her e-mail. Instead we observe that SATET's final report itself does not provide a rational explanation for its change in recommendation and conclude that the EPA's decision in reliance upon that report is therefore arbitrary and capricious. 20