Dingell Requests Review of Environmental Status of Proposed Site of Los Alamos Project

U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) is requesting the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a formal review of the environmental status of the Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township, which has been selected for the proposed University of Michigan-Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) research computing center. “The selection of this site, despite ongoing environmental concerns, warrants additional scrutiny. The proposed facility is a major development that should not move forward without a clear understanding of the site’s environmental history, remaining contamination, applicable restrictions, and the protections necessary to safeguard public health and the surrounding community,” Congresswoman Dingell wrote. The letter follows several oversight efforts led by Congresswoman Dingell demanding answers and transparency on the project for her constituents. This month, Congresswoman Dingell expressed her opposition to the Los Alamos Project and called on congress to enact comprehensive guardrails for large scale AI and data-center development. In June 2026, the congresswoman urged leaders at U-M and Los Alamos National Laboratory to respond to Ypsilanti Township community concerns directly and decisively regarding the proposed project. In August 2026, Congresswoman Dingell released a statement criticizing the selection of Ypsilanti Township as the site for the controversial project and called on U-M leadership to fully address the long-standing concerns of residents at its September town hall. A copy of the letter can be found HERE and below: Dear Administrator Zeldin and Director Roos: This letter is to request a formal review of the environmental status of the Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township, which has been selected for the proposed University of Michigan-Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) research computing center. The selection of this site, despite ongoing environmental concerns, warrants additional scrutiny. The proposed facility is a major development that should not move forward without a clear understanding of the site’s environmental history, remaining contamination, applicable restrictions, and the protections necessary to safeguard public health and the surrounding community. As you know, federal cleanup of the site was conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a CERCLA record for the Textile Road Site [EPA ID MID980825558], which is located near the former General Motors (GM) Willow Run Plant. EPA records indicate that removal and cleanup work has been completed and that the site is now in an oversight and management phase. The completion of cleanup activities does not resolve all questions about a site’s environmental status or the protections that may remain necessary. The public deserves a clear understanding of what contamination remains, what monitoring is required, and whether future construction activities could disturb contaminated soil or groundwater. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) also has an important role in maintaining information about contaminated properties and environmental restrictions in Michigan. EGLE’s RIDE Mapper identifies federally regulated Superfund sites and Michigan-regulated contaminated properties, including sites subject to environmental restrictions. EGLE also has responsibilities under Michigan’s environmental remediation laws, including Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. The need for clarity is particularly important as data center development accelerates nationwide. Recent reporting has described federal efforts to streamline environmental permitting for data centers, including potential changes affecting pollution permitting and public participation. Accelerating development must not come at the expense of careful environmental review, meaningful public participation, or the enforcement of protections designed to prevent exposure to contamination. For a project proposed on a site with a documented environmental history, those safeguards are vital. Given the joint responsibilities of EPA and EGLE in evaluating environmental risks and overseeing remediation, I request that both agencies formally review the current environmental status of the Textile Road Site and identify what environmental protections, monitoring requirements, and restrictions remain in effect, while responding to the following questions: What contamination remains at or near this proposed site? What soil and groundwater monitoring requirements currently apply to this site, including any requirements established through CERCLA, state remediation programs, or other applicable authorities? Who is responsible for conducting the required monitoring, and who is responsible for overseeing compliance? How frequently are soil and groundwater samples collected, and what contaminants are included in the required testing? Where are this site’s monitoring wells located, and can EPA and EGLE provide a map identifying their locations relative to this site? What are the most recent soil and groundwater monitoring results, and do those results identify any ongoing contamination, environmental risks, or additional monitoring needs? Are there any existing land-use restrictions, institutional controls, environmental covenants, or other restrictions applicable to this property? Could anticipated construction activities, including excavation, grading, foundation construction, utility installation, or dewatering, disturb contaminated soil or groundwater, interfere with existing environmental protections, or otherwise create additional environmental risks? What environmental reviews, permits, approvals, or other requirements must be completed before construction may begin, including any additional investigation or remediation that may be necessary given the site’s environmental history? What agency has the legal authority to require construction to stop, impose additional protective measures, or otherwise intervene if contamination is discovered, disturbed, or presents an environmental risk during construction? Who would be responsible for paying for any additional environmental testing, monitoring, remediation, or environmental response necessitated by this project? EPA and EGLE should coordinate, as appropriate, to clearly establish which entity is responsible for each aspect of environmental monitoring, remediation, and construction oversight. Additionally, copies of any relevant environmental assessments, monitoring reports, institutional controls, environmental covenants, or other documents necessary to understand the site’s current environmental status should be made public and easily accessible. The community deserves clear answers about the conditions of a site that may host a massive research computing facility. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your timely response. What contamination remains at or near this proposed site? What soil and groundwater monitoring requirements currently apply to this site, including any requirements established through CERCLA, state remediation programs, or other applicable authorities? Who is responsible for conducting the required monitoring, and who is responsible for overseeing compliance? How frequently are soil and groundwater samples collected, and what contaminants are included in the required testing? Where are this site’s monitoring wells located, and can EPA and EGLE provide a map identifying their locations relative to this site? What are the most recent soil and groundwater monitoring results, and do those results identify any ongoing contamination, environmental risks, or additional monitoring needs? Are there any existing land-use restrictions, institutional controls, environmental covenants, or other restrictions applicable to this property? Could anticipated construction activities, including excavation, grading, foundation construction, utility installation, or dewatering, disturb contaminated soil or groundwater, interfere with existing environmental protections, or otherwise create additional environmental risks? What environmental reviews, permits, approvals, or other requirements must be completed before construction may begin, including any additional investigation or remediation that may be necessary given the site’s environmental history? What agency has the legal authority to require construction to stop, impose additional protective measures, or otherwise intervene if contamination is discovered, disturbed, or presents an environmental risk during construction? Who would be responsible for paying for any additional environmental testing, monitoring, remediation, or environmental response necessitated by this project?