Readers are contacting EnviroHumanImpact, curious about what has happened in the firing/forced resignation of Mary Gade, who until recently was head of the U.S. EPA’s Region 5 office in Chicago. She contends that this is about a dispute regarding dioxin cleanup between the EPA, specifically her office, and Dow Chemical.

You can read our original article on the matter, here. Our continuing coverage from May 4 is also a good read.

Yesterday, we mentioned a Wall Street Journal article that gave some more insight into the Gade matter. It does offer a little more than the original Chicago Tribune story that broke this news last Friday. Because just as yesterday, the mainstream media seems to be shirking away from this story, we’ll pull some excerpts from the Journal’s piece to help give our readers a better sense of what’s going on.

Yes, it’s from a couple of days ago, May 3, and the continued question is, “where is the mainstream media on this one?” Is what was front page controversy on Friday not newsworthy on Monday?

From the Journal Article:

The departure of Mary Gade is the latest in a series of unusually public conflicts between the EPA’s chief, Stephen Johnson, and his subordinates, and comes at a time when Mr. Johnson is under criticism from congressional Democrats for some of his decisions.

To be clear, we cannot be sure at this point that there is a smoking gun on this matter. According to the Wall Street Journal article, here are how the three sides in this matter, Gade, the EPA, and Dow are framing the issues:

Mary Gade says:

“It’s related to the ongoing discussion between me, my region and [EPA] headquarters about Dow,” Ms. Gade said. She declined to specify what she and her superiors had disagreed about but added that ordinary citizens “should be concerned” because “this may be some of the worst dioxin contamination” in the U.S.

The EPA sasys:

An EPA spokesman confirmed Ms. Gade had been placed on administrative leave and that she has submitted her resignation. He declined to respond to her other comments, or to specify why she had been placed on administrative leave. The EPA’s regional administrator in Chicago oversees federal environmental programs in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Finally, Dow Chemical weighs in:

John Musser, a Dow Chemical spokesman, said the company never asked the EPA to relieve Ms. Gade from her duties. He added that the company found out about her placement on leave from the media. He said the company doesn’t know what led the EPA to do that.

But from further information in the article, it seems as if Dow might know more than they let on:

In January, Ms. Gade’s office announced that it had stopped negotiations with Dow Chemical aimed at reaching a settlement over cleanup actions related to dioxin contamination in the Tittabawassee River system. The agency said that “key issues that are paramount for protecting human health and the environment remain unresolved,” and quoted Ms. Gade as saying she was “extremely disappointed with” the outcome of the talks. In the interview, she declined to specify what her office and Dow had disagreed about.

And:

Dow’s Mr. Musser said that Ms. Gade’s office asked Dow “to do things that were not consistent with national guidelines or national policy.” He declined to elaborate, saying discussions with the EPA were confidential.

But yet, “the company doesn’t know what led the EPA to do that”:

After the negotiations fell through, Dow met with EPA officials in Washington to discuss what the company perceived as unfair treatment by the local office, said Mr. Musser. Ms. Gade was present at the meeting, Mr. Musser added.

As we noted in past articles, it seems as if Ms. Gade was attempting to hold Dow Chemical to the laws regarding dioxin contamination/pollution. If the Federal standard for dioxin cleanup is 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt), Dow’s pollution has lead to measurements of 1.6 million ppt, then why is there any dispute about whether or not they should have to abide by that law?

Money. It comes down to Dow wishing to spread wood chips to cover the areas instead of dredging and digging to stop contaminating food supplies. Dioxin eventually contaminates not only soil and sediment, but also river water, lakes, and foods that humans consume. It’s much more costly to clean up the mess they made, but it should be looked at as a cost that Dow was mistakenly allowed to differ and one for which they should have to pay.

What can we do? Continue to get the word out. Read and share information. Let your representatives and local media outlets know that this is important to you, especially if you’re in the Midwest region.

Perhaps a spotlight should be shined ever brighter on Mr. Johnson over at the EPA:

Ms. Gade’s resignation comes as Mr. Johnson is under fire from congressional Democrats for overruling his staff in disputes affecting major industries.

In December, against the recommendations of many senior EPA staffers, Mr. Johnson denied California permission to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles. Mr. Johnson also has resisted pressure from Democrats and many states to formally declare greenhouse-gas emissions a threat to public welfare — the legal prerequisite to regulating them — despite a tentative conclusion from agency staffers last year that they do.

Related posts:

1. Commentary: Why Gade’s Resignation Matters If you have been following the controversy over why Mary...
2. EPA Ousts Mary Gade Seemingly underreported, but what made front-page news on Friday’s (May...
3. Continuing Coverage and Commentary: EPA Gade Controversy We originally brought you the story yesterday of Mary Gade,...