The Detroit Free Press today released a revealing story concerning an inadvertent release of a secret EPA memorandum on how Dow Chemical delayed cleanup of highly toxic chlorinated dibenzo-dioxin/furan contamination of Michigan's Tittabawassee River and Saginaw River watersheds from Dow's Midland, MI facility.
The Detroit Free Press story is at:
http://www.freep.com/...
The confidential EPA memorandum is at (warning 5 page PDF):
http://media.freep.com/...
The story follows recent news stories that one of the most dioxin contaminated sites ever found was recently identified in the Saginaw River, and news that a Dow Chemical employee responsible for validating dioxin data was demoted by the company and has now sued the chemical firm.
The confidential memorandum was inadvertently released with other material requested under the Federal Freedom of Information Act by Lonetree Council, a Bay City, MI area environmental group.
The August 2007 memorandum details how Dow was able to delay cleanup progress on the massive watershed contamination through insisting that cleanup negotiations take place with the office of Michigan's governor, Jennifer Granholm, and executive office officials of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, rather than directly with technical staff of the MDEQ.
The memo outlines improper efforts by Dow to escape hazardous waste permitting requirements for offsite cleanup requirements and to withhold offsite dioxin contamination data from public disclosure. It also highlighted how a University of Michigan study paid for by Dow attempted to downplay the health significance of watershed dioxin contamination.
The EPA confidential memo is very candid and revealing....I highly recommend looking at the full memo....but here are some highlights:
On numerous occasions, Dow has conducted unapproved studies and collected off-site corrective action data without notifying MDEQ or EPA. On a least one occasion, Dow may have benefited from such data when negotiating its compliance with off-site corrective action requirements with MDEQ (Framework Agreement).
Dow has often elevated regulatory matters (normally resolved at a staff level) to upper level management at MDEQ. Corrective action meetings are often attended by the Deputy Director of MDEQ and the Division Director of the Waste Management Division. At most other facilities in Michigan, corrective action meetings are handled directly by technical staff. This approach has significantly complicated the corrective action process by requiring the approval of the Deputy Director of MDEQ, Director of MDEQ, and sometimes the Governor of Michigan of corrective action decisions which are usually made by technical staff.
Dow has used the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process, initiated in this matter in 2005, to keep non-confidential information from the public. EPA believes the corrective action process should be an open and public process conducted pursuant to the requirements of Dow’s state operating license and that the ADR process should be reserved for Natural Resource Damage Assessment activities only.
The repeated involvement of political figures and legislators in the corrective action process has resulted in significant delays.
Legislative Activity
Significant legislative activity has occurred with respect to off-site contamination which complicates the regulatory landscape, and has required significant MDEQ staff resources for comment to the legislature.
• 5/27/04 legislation was introduced in the house and senate to change the Michigan dioxin cleanup level to 1,000 ppt. Further action on the legislation was put on hold pending negotiations between the Governor’s office, Dow, and the MDEQ on a process to address the dioxin contamination in the Midland area.
• In 2004 the House Appropriations Committee of the MI legislature approved legislation eliminating all funding for MDEQ’s Hazardous Waste Division, and cut the Director’s salary by 20 percent.
• Later in 2004, the Michigan House Appropriations Committee withdrew legislation eliminating all funding for MDEQ's Hazardous Waste Division, and instead drafted a bill reducing MDEQ’s staffing levels by 8%, and general fund support for the department by 15%. Further action on this bill was delayed until meetings between the MDEQ, the Governor's office, and Dow reached an acceptable compromise (Framework Agreement).
• On June 29, 2005 legislation was passed by the State House which would require that on-site testing show dioxin levels in excess of the state's residential contact criteria of 90 parts per trillion before the "facility" designation is applied to property, and would require consideration of a risk assessment based on bioavailability and human exposure studies.
• In 2006, a bill was introduced that would require MDEQ to "incorporate into a remedial action plan prepared or approved under this part area wide or site Specific cleanup criteria derived from peer-reviewed bioavailability studies, peer-reviewed site-specific human exposure data, and any other peer-reviewed scientifically based risk assessment studies that are available and relevant. A person who is or may be liable under section 20126 may submit to the department studies or data described in this subsection, or other relevant information, including information that has not been peer reviewed, that the person believes may assist the department in developing or approving a remedial action plan."
• Dec. 2006 – a bill was signed into law stating that MDEQ may recalculate dioxin cleanup criteria based upon the recommendations in the 2006 NAS report on EPA’s draft Dioxin Reassessment.
o This bill allows Dow to propose replacing the state’s current dioxin cancer slope factor with a more favorable value. It should be noted that the development of cancer slope factors is usually done at the national level using a consensus, peer reviewed process.
o Dow is currently discussing with the state any necessary rule changes to allow for the replacement of the state’s current dioxin cancer slope factor, since current state rules may be in conflict with the recently passed legislation.
Dow has frequently provided information to the public that contradicts Agency positions, and generally accepted scientific information. This has had the effect of confusing the public as to what information that they are hearing is correct.
Under a grant from Dow and pursuant to an unpublished contract with Dow, the University of Michigan has conducting a study of dioxin exposure in the Saginaw Bay watershed. EPA does not consider the study to be particularly relevant to the corrective action in this matter and believes the study was initiated at the request of Dow in order to downplay the risks of exposure to dioxin contaminated soils. While the University was quick to release its preliminary conclusions from the study the University has refused to share the data with MDEQ and EPA, and has not yet cooperated with numerous requests to conduct additional analyses of the data, and UM will not provide a date by which the report will be completed.
On August 15th, the University of Michigan released preliminary findings from a Dioxin Exposure Study funded by Dow. Initial results indicated that consumption of fish from the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers is associated with elevated dioxin blood levels, and to a lesser extent, high levels of dioxin contamination in soils and household dust are associated with elevated dioxin blood levels. The results of the study are consistent with current EPA/MDEQ understanding, and will not have any significant effect on corrective action activities. However, public presentations of the preliminary results have emphasized how little effect living on contaminated soils has one an individual’s dioxin blood level. This emphasis has resulted in numerous media stories, an understanding by some members of the public, that remediation of dioxin contamination is unnecessary.
Dow Chemical's extensive dioxin contamination occurred from poorly controlled manufacturing, incineration and waste disposal activities involving the Midland, MI facility's chemical process equipment. The company had an extensive history of producing chlorinated phenol compounds that contained polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins/furans as inadvertent contaminants. These included 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxy-acetic acid used in Agency Orange in Viet Nam as a defoiliant, and 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, previously widely used as a herbicide.
