03/26/2006

Questions aplenty at Bay Harbor cleanup forum

Officials try to reassure a skeptical public

By craig mccool

mccoolrecordeagle@sbcglobal.net

BAY HARBOR — Officials wanted their message to be clear: When it comes to pollution plaguing Bay Harbor, all share the same goals — to clean it up quickly and thoroughly.

Or so they told a packed house Thursday at a public forum about the ongoing $85 million cleanup to keep contamination from a former cement plant out of Little Traverse Bay.

Some in the audience remained skeptical.

"All of the speakers are nice to each other. Doesn't any speaker disagree with anything any other speaker said?"

The question came from Ellis Boal, a green party activist. The way officials from both CMS Energy — responsible for the cleanup — and state and federal overseers concurred on nearly every point didn't sit well with Boal.

"There was a veneer of (public relations)," the Charlevoix County resident said after the two hour-plus presentation. "They're all agreeing with each other about every jot and tittle. I was uncomfortable."

Organized by the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, the presentation at Bay Harbor put panelists from CMS, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in front of the public for the first time. Prior to questioning, audience members were asked to "refrain from clapping or booing — anything that might take away from time we have to answer questions."

About 125 people attended. After an introduction and a presentation about the history of the resort site, formerly the Penn-Dixie cement operation, the questions began. Most had been submitted in advance by those who pre-registered for the event.

The hottest seat of the night arguably belonged to Bob Wagner, head of the Gaylord DEQ office. Wagner was asked why the state didn't force a cleanup in 1989, when testing first revealed that piles kiln dust, which had been deemed "inert," might not be so inert after all.

Wagner said testing methods were crude in 1989. Prior tests had shown kiln dust piles to be stable, with little apparent danger that contamination would seep into the surrounding area, he said.

Thus, when subsequent tests revealed heavy metals along the shore near the base of the piles, officials had reason to doubt the results.

"The knowledge we had in our hands was, it did not leach," Wagner said. "It was not clear what we saw in the water was for certain from the piles, because we had (prior) tests results that showed (the piles) did not leach."

A wealth of information was presented, but anyone who attended hoping blame to be cast or apologies made left disappointed.

"I thought it was a good presentation," said Emmet County resident Jeannie Stephenson. "But my concern is, who's watching the watchers? This was a failure on the part of the agencies."