Subject: Chemical Policy Alert story
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:15:21 -0500
EPA Objects To Agreement Between Dow, Michigan To Allow Weaker Dioxin
Standards
EPA is strongly criticizing a proposed agreement between the state of
Michigan and Dow Chemical Company that would ease dioxin cleanup
standards near the chemical giant's world headquarters in Midland,
MI. In written <>comments on the agreement, EPA argues that the plan
lacks sound legal backing from the state's attorney general and that
it is based on scientific data that was sponsored by industry and was
not reviewed by EPA.
If the agreement moves forward, it could set an important precedent
by establishing a "site-specific" standard for contamination from
dioxin, an industrial byproduct that EPA is reviewing for the risks
it poses to human health.
EPA's comments on the proposed agreement, which is laid out in a
legal settlement referred to as a consent order, come shortly after
environmentalists <>went to court arguing that the proposal would
violate a state law that implements federal requirements under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The activists were
handed a preliminary defeat last week when a judge declined to
prevent the order from being signed while the lawsuit is still
pending, but the groups are still able to challenge the proposal even
if it is adopted prior to a court hearing scheduled for next month.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has proposed a
<>consent order with Dow Chemical that would address the lingering
issue of dioxin contamination in residential sections of Midland
<>(see related story). The agreement would set a temporary standard
for dioxin contamination of 831 parts per trillion (ppt) in
residential soil, which is about nine times weaker than the current
level of 90 ppt that is established in state law.
The consent order gives the DEQ the option to review the temporary
standard after the submission of a wealth of new scientific data,
including a massive health study that will be funded by Dow and
conducted by university scientists. The study would examine in detail
the health of residents in the Midland area who may have been exposed
to dioxin.
EPA Region V filed comments on Dec. 6 that included a long list of
objections to the consent order, including the concern that it has
not been officially authorized by the state attorney general's
office. The agency also notes that the proposal sets up a soil
sampling plan "that will necessarily be severely limited in its
nature and scope" and does not address the much more widespread
contamination downstream from Midland.
Furthermore, EPA officials raise several concerns about the
scientific data behind the agreement. They object that the proposed
standard for dioxin cleanups may rely on evidence from a risk
assessment that was provided by Dow without EPA consultation, and
"which was derived from a probabilistic risk assessment that uses
several non-conservative assumptions not preferred by U.S. EPA."
EPA also argues that the health study may set up a scientific
advisory committee funded by Dow "which is not independent" and also
"performs tasks or functions which should necessarily be performed by
MDEQ, thereby improperly delegating regulatory responsibilities
assumed by the State of Michigan from U.S. EPA under RCRA to a third
party."
Though Michigan officials are still reviewing the comments, DEQ
Director Russ Harding said in an interview last week that state law
allows for cleanup standards based on risks at a particular site, and
that the consent order would allow DEQ to change the standard at any
time. The intent is to do a "site-specific, risk-based cleanup,"
Harding said. "You either agree with that, or you don't."
A Dow official is also confident that the agreement will hold up in
court. "Our external and our internal council who have reviewed this
find it to be a standard application of the Michigan regulatory
process," the source says. EPA officials were not available to
discuss their comments and DEQ officials could not be reached after
the comments had been filed.
But the agency's criticism is likely to provide a boost to
environmentalists in a lawsuit filed Dec. 5 in the Ingham County
Circuit Court, arguing that the proposal violates a state law that
was set up to fulfill the federal requirements of RCRA.
A judge ruled Dec. 6 that DEQ may sign the consent order before the
court hearing that has been set for Jan. 6, but that the lawsuit
could still strike down the agreement after it has been signed. The
judge also ruled that Dow has the right to intervene in the lawsuit.
DEQ officials have acknowledged that they would prefer to finalize
the consent order before the new state governor, Jennifer Granholm,
takes office on Jan. 1. Granholm is currently the state attorney
general and her office has sharply criticized earlier drafts of the
consent order.
Granholm indicated in a Sept. 3 campaign speech that she sympathized
with the concerns of environmentalists over the controversy in
Midland, and that she would "reject the assumption of the current
management of the DEQ that leveling with the public about dioxin and
other pollution problems is somehow bad for business."
Date: December 9, 2002
© Inside Washington Publishers
<>ChemicalPolicyAlert.com Daily Updates
--
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*