Tittabawassee River Watch   www.trwnews.net

TRW Archives 2006 1st quarter 01/01/06 - 03/31/06

03/29/06 Dow signs confidentiality agreement with State, Feds, Indians, NRDA

Click here to view the confidentiality agreement0 which is believed to b e the final draft signed by the trustees of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment.  The trustees are Dow Chemical, the State of Michigan, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, and the United States of America.  Click here to learn a about the NRDA process.  A few excerpts follow:

"THIS AGREEMENT is made by and among the United States of America on behalf of its agencies, departments, and instrumentalities (the “United States”), the State of Michigan (the “State”), the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan (the “Tribe”), and The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”), collectively referred to in this Agreement as “the Parties.” ....

1. Purpose: The purpose of this Confidentiality Agreement (Agreement) is to specify the conditions of confidentiality for facilitated negotiations among the undersigned Parties and the Convening Neutral in the non-binding alternative dispute mediation process (Mediation) described below. This Agreement may be superseded by a comprehensive Mediation Participation Agreement to be entered by the Parties at a later date.

03/23/06 Lawyers  clarifies questions about Priority 2 documents

Residents who own property classified as Priority 2 should receive a letter soon about the   AKT Peerless mailings sent to them a few weeks ago.  The letter clarifies a number of questions  concerning the "Residential Property Use Activity" and "License Agreement" documents and offers suggestions on how to respond.  The letter is being sent by the law firms, Stueve-Siegel-Hanson-Woody and Trogan &Trogan.  These firms have been appointed by the Saginaw County Circuit Court as counsel in the Class Action lawsuit against Dow Chemical (currently in Appeal).

A few excerpts (be sure to click on the link below to read the letter for accurate details):

TRW note: Some of the mitigation measures being offered by   AKT Peerless may temporary reduce dioxin exposure risk IF performed properly, the decision to sign or not sign is entirely up to the resident.  See the 3/10/06 story below for more information on the lessons learned from the Priority 1 residents.

03/19/06 Property appraisals of contaminated properties is a complex process

Estimating the impact of dioxin contamination on Real Estate sales and value is not a simple process as some would have us believe.  Traditional appraisal processes used to evaluate a single property are limited in their ability to accurately determine the impact on a properties value when many properties in the area are contaminated.   What homes sell for in relation to the asking price is interesting, but if the asking prices are less than they would be without the contamination, then the survey results are essentially meaningless.   A few telephone calls and selected property records combined with self-serving comments of real-estate agents do not paint a fair picture of the market along the Tittabawassee or the impact of the contamination on our property values.

All of this is especially true when you have a Fortune 50 company in your midst spending millions of PR dollars with who knows who to cloud the issue.  A local wealthy individual making false promises and throwing good money after bad combined with real-estate agents downplaying the hazards of dioxin may have created the illusion for some that home sales and property values are unaffected.

Is this why people buy homes in areas with dioxin contamination at levels that scientists of the EPA, WHO, CDC, ATSDR, MDEQ, MDCH and almost every other respected health agency in the world consider hazardous to the health of humans, especially their children?  A recent MSU study found 71% of local residents consider dioxin in the flood plain to be a moderate to high risk to their health.  The MDEQ recently announced that people who do not try to reduce their exposure to flood plain soils and fish consumption can increase their dioxin levels by up to 3,900%.

We wonder if the local reporters called on residents who attempted to sell their property but took them off the market after fruitless attempts to sell.  We wonder how many others attempted to get a representative of the local tycoon to make an offer on their property and where either ignored or never received a call back after the initial encounter.  Both are examples of actual experiences and represent the true reality "reality" in the Tittabawassee flood plain.  

Viable, science based, peer reviewed processes for contaminated property appraisals have been available for years.   The methods used by a local news paper do not appear on anyone's list of approved protocols and are misleading.  Licensed Real Estate agents should be familiar with the UNIFORM STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL PRACTICE, specifically the Advisory Opinion 9, "The Appraisal of Real Property That May Be Impacted by Environmental Contamination".  Evidently our local bunch have chosen to ignore them.  

Fortunately, experts in the field of contaminated property appraisals can be found at companies such as Greenfield Advisors.  GA has published many papers on the subject.  Visit their web site and check out the "Publications" page for all the details.  Below are a few excerpts:

03/11/06 Tittabawassee spring flood in progress

   Click here to view more pictures

03/10/06 How to increase your dioxin levels 3,900%
Answer: Live on the Tittabawassee River and ignore the MDEQ/MDCH Soil, Fish, and Wild Game advisories.

Tittabawassee River residents who are considered "Priority 2" properties in accordance to Dow's Interim Remedial Actions demanded by the state received their information packets in the mail this week.  All of it is very informative, especially on page 10 and 11. State toxicologists have created a graph comparing levels of exposure in different scenarios.  For instance, a person living in the floodplain who tries to limit exposures through dust inhalation, etc., and only eats one meal of walleye per month has a 320% increase in exposure compared to someone who doesn't live in the contaminated area.  Someone who does not try to reduce their exposure and eats 8 meals of sports fish per month have a 3,900% increase in exposure compared to a person not living in an area like ours.  Take a look, click on the graph above to enlarge.

A through explanation of the above graph can be found in the MDEQ pamphlet:

Additional pamphlets included in the priority 2 package:

03/10/06 Priority 1 lessons learned, Priority 2 residents take note

First of all, contrary to media reports, the Priority 1(P-1) and Priority 2 (P-2) Interim Response Activities (IRA) performed by Dow and AKT  Peerless are NOT a "cleanup" plan.  Their original intent was to temporarily reduce dioxin exposure to residents who live in the contaminated flood plain, the IRA's are measures that Dow may be required to repeat time and time again as the river floods redistribute the dioxin contaminated soils.   Based on comments of others who have participated in the P-1 IRA, it is our opinion that most of these activities are more of a Dow public relations campaign than anything else.  We are not saying you should not participate, some of the activities may temporarily reduce your exposure if performed properly.  Use your own judgment and consider the following when you make your decision:

03/06/06 Lone Tree/TRW Dioxin Update

 
Click here to view the entire update

03/05/06 Judge Borrello announces his retirement

Judge Borrello, Chief Judge of Saginaw County Circuit Court,  has announced he is leaving the bench.  Judge Borrello has presided over the Henry et al. Vs Dow Chemical, Case No. 03-47775-NZ since it's inception in 2003 and recently certified the case as a Class Action.  Circuit Judge Robert L. Kaczmarek will replace him until the November elections.  Former state Rep. Jim Howell has announced his intention to run for Borrello's post.   Howell is a former Dow Chemical attorney.

03/04/06 New video documentary: "Mr. Damore goes to Lansing" now on-line

Paul Damore, a Grand Valley State University student and resident of the Tittabawassee River flood plain, has created a short "opinion" documentary that is now being screened in a number of film festivals in the Grand Rapids area.    The film covers Paul's 2005 journey to Lansing in attempt to testify against the now defunct HB4617 which would have given Dow (and other sites/polluters) a free ride to escape responsibility for the extensive dioxin contamination in our backyards.  Click on the link below to view:

                                  http://www.jreedproductions.com/nowplaying.htm


03/04/06 Commentary on Dow delay tactics and misinformation campaign

Recent Letters to the Editor of the Saginaw News

For these and many more, visit our Editorial page, click here

03/03/06 DEQ issues Dow Notice of Deficiency: 60 days to respond

On March 2, 2006, the MDEQ issued Dow Chemical it's official Notice of Deficiency concerning Dows proposed Remedial Investigation Work Plans (RIWP) for the Tittabawassee River and Midland.  Dow has 60 days to resubmit work plans to correct the 26 deficiencies noted.  Many of the MDEQ demands parallel the EPA's objections (see related stories below) and are intended to force Dow to use  principals and scientific methodologies acceptable to the EPA and other regulatory agencies rather than the Corporate Science they are so fond of.  Dow is well aware of the proper way to comply with regulations, they chose to ignore them to force another 60 day delay in the process.

Click here to view the entire MDEQ NOD (43 page pdf)
 

03/1/06 Dow files Michigan Appeals Court brief

March 1, 2006  Dow submits "Brief of Defendant-Appellant the Dow Chemical Company Oral Arguments Requested" document to the Michigan Appeals court.   Plaintiffs have until sometime in early April to file a response.

Click here for other Court news

02/24/06 DEQ agrees with EPA's criticism of Dow work plan

The MDEQ issued a DRAFT Notice of Deficiency to Dow's Remedial Investigation Work Plans on 2/10/06 which basically agrees with all of the EPA's criticism (see related story 2/21/06 story  below).  The final version to be sent to Dow is expected some time in the next few weeks which will start the EPA's recommended 60 day window for Dow to resubmit amended RIWP's.

Excerpt from MDEQ email: "MDEQ “high level” review comments on the TR RIWP and the Midland RIWP submitted by Dow to MDEQ for review and approval. Please note that the MDEQ is in substantial agreement with U.S. EPA’s comments of February 10, 2006 (also attached) and that the comments below are intended to supplement the U.S. EPA comments. These comments are not intended to be all inclusive. These do represent significant deficiencies that must be addressed in order to obtain MDEQ approval and to move forward with a more detailed technical review." 

Topics Include:

Click here to review the entire Draft Notice of Deficiency

02/21/06 Lone Tree/TRW Dioxin Update

The recent work plans submitted by Dow Chemical to MDEQ which were at the center of the recent DEQ- Dow meeting on Feb. 9^th, have been reviewed by EPA Region V  and the review is highly critical of Dow’s plans (see the next story below for details and a link to the EPA document).  The work plans are of highest priority because they determine how the state proceeds with cleanup.

Failing to pass scientific scrutiny within EPA Dow once again submits plans so deficient as to be transparent. No company with the resources that Dow has can consistently submit plans so inadequate and so lacking unless it is by design. Like the Consent Order in 2002, the Risk Assessment in 2002, the Scopes of Work in 2003 and the IRA’s, Dow’s intentions are to deliberately:

It’s a legitimate question to ask if “voluntary corrective action” really works or if it’s just a burden on the taxpayers as it drains resources and tax dollars within our budget strapped DEQ. Not to mention the natural resource and public health implications associated with deliberate delays created by a corporation that has no interest in being responsible. Under the provisions of voluntary corrective action the State of Michigan has spent years working with Dow to bring them into compliance. Folks it's not working!

Click here to view the entire update

02/21/06 EPA finds Dow IR Workplans "Critically Deficient"

A few excerpts:

02/19/06 MDEQ / MDCH respond to misinformation

Steven E. Chester and Janet Olszewski, Editorial posted in Midland Daily News 02/19/2006

A recent forum piece by Dr. Richard Reitz, former toxicologist for Dow Chemical, suggested that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has failed to use science to guide our decisions concerning the cleanup of historic dioxin contamination in the Midland area. This assertion is false, and with the great deal of progress we have made over the past year to move this process forward, it is disappointing to see these misleading statements made.

The MDEQ, along with our partners at the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH), have a clear goal in mind: Protecting the environment and the public health of those affected by dioxin contamination. Our combined efforts are the work of some of the top scientists and health experts in the state, all of whom have dedicated their careers to serving the people of Michigan. To suggest that they have used anything but the highest degree of scientific review to guide their work simply demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how our agencies fulfill our commitment to the public.

Dr. Reitz makes a number of misstatements throughout his article, all of which have been refuted by many people time and again, but which warrant additional response here. First, he states that soil samples that have been taken throughout the area have shown inconsistent results, causing us to simply make assumptions on the area of contamination. This is simply not true.

The results from sampling done along the Tittabawassee River have consistently shown elevated levels of dioxin within the March 2004 floodplain area. Dow has acknowledged this in their recently submitted remedial investigation work plans that specifically state, "Éthese results suggest that the 8-year flood boundary may be a good predictor of whether or not TEQ (dioxin & furans concentrations) will fall below 90 parts-per-trillion." This does not suggest that there are not elevated levels of dioxin outside of the floodplain area, however, it clearly shows that existing data provides the basis to make a consistent and reasonable estimate of the scope of contamination.

Dr. Reitz states that scientific experts from around the world disagree with our cleanup criteria for dioxin. Again, this is not correct. He cites the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) level of 1,000 ppt for dioxin exposure. The ATSDR 1,000 ppt level is an action level, meaning that they have determined that levels of dioxin in soil should trigger measures to interdict or prevent exposures. The action level of 1,000 ppt is considered protective by ATSDR only when it is combined with site-specific evaluation of levels such as Michigan's 90 ppt, which is a preventative level meant to safeguard the long term health of those living in contaminated areas. A number of other states go well below Michigan's risk level. Oregon, for example, has a residential soil cleanup level for dioxin of 3.9 ppt, while Massachusetts' is 4 ppt.

Dr. Dennis Paustenbach is quoted by Dr. Reitz as concluding that persons living near concentrations of dioxin in soil containing 1,000 ppt have no greater than a 1 in 100,000 chance of contracting cancer due to their exposure. Actual risk evaluations that have been conducted by federal and state agencies for people residing on property with soil concentrations at 1,000 ppt indicate that risk to be far higher; in fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the 1,000 ppt level represents a 2.5 in 10,000 cancer risk. Those numbers certainly can not be overlooked.

As a toxicologist, Dr. Reitz should also understand that the MDEQ and MDCH have acted in accordance to common scientific practice in relying on cancer studies in rats when setting cleanup standards. In fact, we relied on a Dow Chemical Co. rodent study to derive an appropriate soil cleanup criterion for dioxin. This study has been and continues to be widely used while states and other organizations await finalization of the EPA's Dioxin Reassessment, which preliminarily estimates that the cancer potency for dioxin is approximately 10 times higher than previously estimated.

Dr. Reitz also appears to be under the impression that the U of M Dioxin Exposure Study will establish a soil cleanup level, something that it was not designed to do. The U of M study is an exposure investigation that we hope will provide valuable information, however, it is not a health study and is not designed to determine a health risk based on soil concentration.

Perhaps most troubling, however, is Dr. Reitz' claim that the work done by the MDEQ and MDCH does not undergo independent scientific review. Being public agencies, our work goes through extremely thorough public and scientific review on a regular basis. We work very closely with the U.S. EPA, ATSDR and other state and federal agencies, and our scientific processes are consistent with those of the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and others. We have in the past, and will continue to have independent scientific reviews conducted through Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), a peer review organization used by Dow Chemical, among many others in our state.

All of our work is guided by the very best scientific research, methodologies, and processes accepted by the scientific community, and we make great efforts to ensure that we are transparent in how that work is done, and that it is understood by the public.

Our ultimate goal is to develop a remediation plan that is protective of human health, the environment, and local economic needs and interests.

We are requiring Dow to perform the investigations necessary to determine what cleanup alternatives are practical, however we have not reached the point to determine what those alternatives are. The MDEQ and MDCH are making progress in this area, and will continue to work with Dow Chemical to find the answers necessary to guide us toward a reasonable, scientifically-based plan that ensures the health and well-being of those affected by dioxin contamination.

Steven E. Chester is director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Janet Olszewsk is director of the Michigan Department of Community Health.


02/17/06 Lone Tree/TRW Dioxin Update

Click here to view the entire update

2/13/06 The film, "The Long Shadow",  to be shown locally.

Wednesday, 02/15/06 6:30 pm- The Long Shadow film presentation followed by a discussion with Michelle Hurd-Riddick of the Lone Tree Council, at Butman-Fish Library, 1716 Hancock, Saginaw. Admission Free.

The Long Shadow details the dioxin controversy in 2002, from public notification by agency whistleblowers in January to the failed bailout in December. The story highlights the plight of three floodplain families concerned about their health, their property values, and the corporate and government forces that acted against them. The story is told through contemporary videography, historical photos, and interviews with floodplain residents, environmental advocates, key government officials, and state lawmakers.

02/11/06 February 9, 2006 Community Meeting Update