Back Up NextTittabawassee River Watch   www.trwnews.net
WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)

History of the Polluters Free Ride

12/6/06 HB5872 passes in senate committee.  The bill originally would have required the state to recalculate the criteria based on a report released in July by the National Research Council of the National Academies.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality suggested a substitute, which was passed, that included that the Department "may" recalculate cleanup criteria for dioxin based on the new information.

HB 5872 is a modified version of bill HB4617 vetoed by Governor Granholm in the last moments of 2005 to end another sad chapter in this continuing saga.   Former Dow employees, Representative Moolenaar and Senator Goschka, are responsible for introducing legislation that would essentially free Dow Chemical of many of it's responsibilities for the dioxin contamination of mid Michigan.

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)

12/6/06ioxin bill 5872 passes in senate committee

12/5/06 Moolenaar's dioxin bill 5872 up in the Senate

6/22/06 Dioxin bill 5872 passes in House; effect uncertain

6/21/06 Moolenaar's dioxin bill 5872 passed by committee

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)

07/25/06  Politicians Misuse Federal 1000 ppt Dioxin "Action" Level, ATSDR concurs

Lone Tree Council

P.O. 1251, Bay City, Michigan 48706

(Fighting for environmental justice since 1978)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:

July 25 th, 2006 Michelle Hurd Riddick, 989-799-3313

Terry Miller, 989-686-6386

Tracey Easthope 734-761-3186 x 109

Kathy Henry 989-695-5348

GROUPS CALL ON MID-MICHIGAN LEGISLATORS TO LIFT THE SMOKE SCREEN

Misuse of Federal 1000 ppt Dioxin Level Increases Exposure, Benefits Dow

State representatives should stop misusing a federal 'action level' not designed for setting cleanup standards for the highly toxic chemical dioxin, charged several environmental organizations. 

Groups released a letter today from Howard Frumkin, Director of the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  The letter was sent in response to a request from environmental organizations for clarification on the ATSDR number, often referenced by Midland-area legislators seeking to weaken Michigan’s dioxin cleanup number. The letter states in part: "...the concept of an ‘Action Level’ for dioxins in soils has sometimes been misunderstood."  The letter directly comments on the use of the1,000 ppt standard in proposed legislation in Michigan.  It states:

"The ‘Action Level’ was intended to trigger consideration of various public health actions.   It was not intended either to define the need for remediation or to serve as a threshold below which there is no public health concern.  The appropriate application of the policy guideline is to compare site-specific data to the 50 ppt screening level, not the 1,000 ppt Action Level, to determine the need for further evaluation."  

Representatives from the mid Michigan area have repeatedly proposed legislation referring to the federal 'Action Level' as a cleanup standard.  This should make clear that that practice is not supported by the intention of the ATSDR's 'Action Level'. The letter goes on to say,

"As you cited in your letter, we understand that certain Michigan state legislators have been referring to our Action Level in proposed legislation to modify the state cleanup for dioxins in soil. This is an example of how our guidelines have been applied in ways that we did not intend."

"What many elected officials have attempted to do is absolve Dow Chemical for contaminating an entire region with dangerous levels of dioxin.  Raising the "safe" level to a non-existent federal level is shameful," said Tittabawassee River resident Kathy Henry.  

"This should put an end to the continued misuse of the ATSDR 'Action Level' by Representative Moolenaar and other legislators who have tried to confuse the public," said Michelle Hurd Riddick of the Lone Tree Council.  "This kind of misrepresentation does not serve the public interest.  It just means more delays, more exposure, and more risk for the public while we should be moving forward with a real cleanup that is protective of public health.  We can't legislate this problem away."

Environmental and community groups that have opposed attempts to weaken that state's protective standard for dioxin in soils include the Lone Tree Council, the Ecology Center, the Michigan Environmental Council, Environment Michigan, the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, and Tittabawassee River Watch.

Documents:

bullet Environmental Groups letter to ATSDR requesting discontinuing referencing 1000 ppt"Action" level
bulletDr. Frumkin's response
bullet News article: MDN Dioxin Legislation Opposed 042506
bulletLone Tree Press Release pdf format

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)
04/23/06
  Moolenaar out of control, the ATSDR 1000 ppt is not a cleanup level

Moolenaar's new un-sound science legislation is proposing 1,000 ppt dioxin cleanup levels for Michigan is a standout for all the WRONG reasons.

The ATSDR 1000 ppt was never intended to be a "cleanup" level:
  1. Michigan’s 90 ppt RDCC soil criterion for dioxin is a level that is meant to be protective of public health in properties for unrestricted residential use.
  2. The ATSDR 1,000 ppt was based on the detection limits of science available over 20 years ago in the 1980's.  Today, scientific instrumentation is much more sensitive and can measure 10 ppt or less.  The Michigan RDCC of 90 ppt was derived using current technology.
  3. The ATSDR 1,000 ppt was calculated based on a 1984 assessment by the Centers for Disease Control that is NOT consistent with the current assessment of dioxin’s cancer hazard.
  4. The 1,000 ppt level was NOT derived as a "safe" level. It was thought to be a level that could be associated with health effects. Cleanup levels are traditionally set at levels BELOW those thought to cause health effects. Therefore, it is not accurate to suggest that levels below 1,000 ppt pose no risk.
  5. Referring to the ATSDR 1,000 ppt level as a cleanup level is not accurate. The 1,000 ppt level is NOT used by ATSDR for that purpose.
  6. The 1,000 ppt level was NOT developed to serve as a standard for cleanup for residential areas
  7. The 1,000 ppt level does NOT represent a line between safe and unsafe conditions, although it has been used in that way
  8. The EPA has been reviewing dioxin’s toxicity for more than 10 years. Their review has been repeatedly peer-reviewed, but political wrangling and the power of the chemical industry have prevented its release. The draft document concludes that dioxin is more toxic than previously thought 
  9. If the EPA reassessment were released, the state’s cleanup standard would be more stringent, not weaker, based on a new interpretation of studies on dioxin’s toxicity. The state standard would be between 12 and 53 ppt.
  10. The 1,000 ppt level does NOT consider non-cancer health effects that may occur when people are exposed to dioxin at even lower levels than those associated with cancer. The most sensitive endpoint for dioxin’s toxicity is thought to be neurobehavioral impacts.
  11. If the state were to use the 1,000 ppt standard, the issue of dioxin’s toxicity will continue to plague the state. When the Dioxin Reassessment is finalized, the EPA will again look at sites and reassess previous actions to determine if they are protective. So a cleanup to 1,000 ppt today will not guarantee that the issue will go away. It could just keep coming up unless contamination is cleaned up to a reasonable and legitimate standard.

Below are letters of support to NOT change Michigan's 90 ppt dioxin RDCC from the last time Dow's stooges tried to change it in June of 2004.

bulletTed Schettler MD, MPH, Department of Internal Medicine Boston Medical Center and Science Director SEHN
bullet"...  State and Federal criteria restrict their focus to cancer as the outcome of concern, though we now know that other health effects occur at lower levels of exposure and may affect the entire population. In fact, due to the array of low-level effects, scientists today are uncertain about the threshold amount of dioxin that may begin to cause or contribute to illness in people. Moreover, dioxin-related health effects are often "hidden" in the general burden of disease and disability in the community. Trying to identify them as "caused by dioxin" is a fruitless task. ..."
bulletClick here to view entire letter
bulletKatherine R. Silberman, JD,  Associate Director Center for Environmental Health
bullet"... .  Dioxin is known to cause cancer in minute amounts.  As an elected official, you bear a deep responsibility to protecting the public’s health.  Please stand up to Dow and instead, stand with the people of Michigan in the pursuit of healthy bodies and a healthy environment for your beautiful state. ..."
bulletClick here to view entire letter
bulletJudith Robinson, Special Projects Director, Environmental Health Fund
bullet"...As an early advocate for veterans on this issue [of dioxin exposure] I found that one of the most tragic aspects of the entire struggle was the record of deceit and cover-up practiced by the government and the chemical companies responsible for the manufacture of dioxin, including the giants Dow and Monsanto...."
bulletClick here to view entire letter
bulletJoseph DiGangi, PhD, Director, International POPs Elimination Project EHF
bullet"... The events unfolding in Michigan are being observed internationally. I direct an international NGO project on persistent organic pollutants (such as dioxin) in partnership with two UN agencies with activities planned in 40 countries. International NGOs as well as intergovernmental agencies are paying close attention to issues involving dioxin and other persistent organic pollutants due to the legal entry into force of the Stockholm Convention. Dow Chemical’s legacy in many of our project countries makes public interest NGOs throughout the world especially focused on events in Michigan to see whether the legislature will support public health by maintaining the 90 ppt standard. ..."
bulletClick here to view entire letter
bulletJames Clift,  Policy Director Michigan Environmental Council
bullet" ... The Michigan Environmental Council opposes HB 5963 and urges the committee to vote "no". The "action level" proposed as our new cleanup standard is inappropriate. As stated above, this level of exposure would cause an "urgent public health hazard" – not a level considered safe for prolonged public exposure. ..."
bulletClick here to view entire letter
bulletPaul Sutton, Chair Vietnam Veterans of America  Agent Orange/Dioxin Committee
bullet" ... Research has repeatedly shown that low levels of dioxin (30ppt – 100ppt) cause the greatest damage to humans and their offspring, from initial exposure out to 30 years and beyond the initial exposure.  Raising the floor at which human tolerance has already demonstrated adverse affect will only serve to expose far more citizens of the Wolverine State and consequently serve to drastically elevate health care costs in future years for those citizens least able to afford them. ..."
bulletClick here to view entire letter
bulletKathy Henry, Tittabawassee River floodplain resident, Freeland MI
bullet"... Were you aware that Midland has the highest level of diabetes in the
nation? There is a very strong link between dioxin exposure and diabetes. There
has never even been a study done of just the affected residents in Midland and
those who live on the highly contaminated Tittabawassee River. ..."
bulletClick here to view entire letter

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)
04/29/06
  Petition to stop the 1000 ppt cleanup level off to a great start

The kickoff of our petition drive got off to a great start with almost 100 signatures obtained from various locations around the area.

Click here for the latest Lone Tree / TRW Dioxin Update news letter.

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)
04/14/06
Not a rumor: "HB4617 like" bills are being resubmitted by Dow's legislators

"Once vetoed as a poor protection of public health, the Homeowners Fairness Act is back at the state
Capitol with designs to restrict the state's ability to label any property as contaminated." See related
4/7/06 story below.

Click here for more from the Saginaw News or here from the Midland Daily News

"Moe" Moolenaar    "Larry" Stamas   "Curley" Goschka  

"Moe" Moolenaar       "Larry" Stamas  "Curley" Goschka          

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)
04/07/06
Rumor: "HB4617 like" bills are being resubmitted by Dow's legislators

bulletGoschka:  To change facility definition
bulletMoolenaar: To change the States RDCC from 90 ppt to 1000 ppt
bulletStamas: To use the U of M study to determine cleanup levels

Click here to read all about similar efforts promoted by the three stooges last year.  Fortunately, Governor Granholm vetoed HB4617.  Men such as these lack the necessary morals, ethics, and concern for the health of Michigan's children to be in office.  So now they want to try again.  What's their motive?  Could it be re-election campaign finance?  To be continued.....

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)
 03/04/06
New video documentary: "Mr. Damore goes to Lansing" chronicles the HB4617 fight

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radio Ads against HB4617

  Terry Miller, Lone Tree Council

  Michelle Hurd Riddick, Lone Tree Council

Below, is a chronological history of their activities. This is not the end, expect more of the same
from these charlatans in 2006. Remember, this is an election year, please review the voting records
of the state and local politicians on HB4617and vote accordingly, their records are listed below.

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)

On Dec 29, 2005, at 10:20 PM, David Holtz wrote:

The House vote on this bill was politics at its very worse. Lawmakers who knew--or should have known
--better supported not only one of the worse environmental bills in 2005, but one of the most
anti-homebuyer, anti-right-to-know measures in memory. Governor Granholm did taxpayers, home
buyers and all who care about holding corporate polluters accountable for cleaning up their messes
a huge favor with her veto. Those who voted for this horrible measure will have to explain to their
constituents why corporate polluters trumped the public interest.

See the roll call vote below

bulletSenate House Bill 4617 SENATE ROLL CALL 661
bulletThese Senators supported the bill to weaken our cleanup law
bulletR Allen District 37
bulletD Barcia District 31
bulletR Bishop District 12
bulletR Brown District 16
bulletR Cassis District 15
bulletR Cropsey District 33
bulletR Garcia District 22
bulletR Gilbert District 25
bulletR Goschka District 32
bulletR Hammerstrom District 17
bulletR Hardiman District 29
bulletR Jelinek District 21
bulletR Kuipers District 30
bulletR McManus District 35
bulletR Patterson District 7
bulletR San Born District 11
bulletR Sikkema District 28
bulletR Stamas District 36
bulletR Toy District 6
bulletR VanWoerkom District 34
bulletOpposed, These Senators opposed the bill to weaken our cleanup law
bulletD Basham District 8
bulletD Bernero District 23
bulletD Birkholz District 24
bulletD Brater District 18
bulletD Cherry District 26
bulletD Clark-Coleman District 3
bulletD Clarke District 1
bulletD Emerson District 27
bulletR George District 20
bulletD Jacobs District 14
bulletD Leland District 5
bulletD Olshove District 9
bulletD Prusi District 38
bulletD Schauer District 19
bulletD Scott District 2
bulletD Switalski District 10
bulletThese Senators did not vote
bulletR Johnson District 13
bulletD Thomas District 4
bulletHouse Bill 4617 Supporting
bulletThese House members supported the bill to weaken our cleanup law
bulletD Accavitti District 42
bulletR Acciavatti District 32
bulletR Amos District 43
bulletR Ball District 85
bulletR Baxter District 64
bulletR Booher District 102
bulletR Brandenburg District 24
bulletR Casperson District 108
bulletR Caswell District 58
bulletR Caul District 99
bulletD Clemente District 14
bulletR DeRoche District 38
bulletD Dillon District 17
bulletR Drolet District 33
bulletR Elsenheimer District 105
bulletR Emmons District 70
bulletD Espinoza District 83
bulletR Farhat District 91
bulletR Gaffney District 1
bulletR Garfield District 45
bulletD Gleason District 48
bulletD Gonzales District 49
bulletR Gosselin District 41
bulletR Green District 77
bulletR Hansen District 100
bulletR Hildenbrand District 86
bulletR Hoogendyk District 61
bulletR Huizenga District 90
bulletR Hummel District 93
bulletR Hune District 47
bulletR Jones District 71
bulletR Kahn District 94
bulletR Kooiman District 75
bulletR LaJoy District 21
bulletR Law, David District 39
bulletR Marleau District 46
bulletD Mayes District 96
bulletR Meyer District 84
bulletR Moolenaar District 98
bulletR Moore District 97
bulletR Mortimer District 65
bulletR Newell District 87
bulletR Nitz District 78
bulletR Nofs District 62
bulletR Palmer District 36
bulletR Palsrok District 101
bulletR Pastor District 19
bulletR Pavlov District 81
bulletR Pearce District 73
bulletD Polidori District 15
bulletR Proos District 79
bulletR Robertson District 51
bulletR Rocca District 30
bulletD Sak District 76
bulletR Schuitmaker District 80
bulletR Shaffer District 59
bulletR Sheen District 88
bulletD Sheltrown District 103
bulletD Spade District 57
bulletR Stahl District 82
bulletR Stakoe District 44
bulletR Steil District 72
bulletR Stewart District 20
bulletR Taub District 40
bulletR Van Regenmorter District 74
bulletR VanderVeen District 89
bulletR Walker District 104
bulletR Ward District 66
bulletR Wenke District 63
bulletD Wojno District 28
bulletThese House members opposed the bill to weaken our cleanup law
Opposed
bulletD Adamini District 109
bulletD Anderson District 18
bulletD Angerer District 55
bulletD Bennett District 92
bulletD Bieda District 25
bulletD Brown District 110
bulletD Byrnes District 52
bulletD Byrum District 67
bulletD Condino District 35
bulletD Cushingberry District 8
bulletD Donigan District 26
bulletD Farrah District 13
bulletD Gillard District 106
bulletD Hood District 11
bulletD Hopgood District 22
bulletD Hunter District 9
bulletD Kolb District 53
bulletD Law, Kathleen District 23
bulletD Leland District 10
bulletD Lipsey District 60
bulletD McConico District 5
bulletD McDowell District 107
bulletD Meisner District 27
bulletD Miller District 31
bulletD Phillips District 29
bulletD Plakas District 16
bulletD Smith, Alma District 54
bulletD Tobocman District 12
bulletD Vagnozzi District 37
bulletD Waters District 4
bulletD Whitmer District 69
bulletD Zelenko District 50
bulletThese House members did not vote
bulletD Cheeks District 6
bulletD Clack District 34
bulletD Lemmons, III District 3
bulletD Lemmons, Jr. District 2
bulletD Murphy District 68
bulletD Smith, Virgil District 7
bulletD Williams District 95

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)
01/02/06
Post Mortem: Why Governor Granholm vetoed Polluter Free Ride bill HB4617

Anne Woiwode, State Director, Sierra Club Mackinac (Michigan) Chapter wrote:

"Governor Granholm has shot down one of the most outrageous bills to come out of the Legislature in a long time. HB 4617, erroneously labeled by its proponents the Homeowner Protection Act, was vetoed by the Governor on Tuesday (DEQ press release at http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135--133138--,00.html ). The bill, pushed hard by legislators from the Midland area, became worse as it moved through the Legislature, and would have gutted key portions of both the process and the standards for clean up of contaminated sites all over Michigan, both letting responsible parties off the hook for clean up AND leaving many homeowners unable to get any clean up of their contaminated property. Many communities in Michigan would have immediately seen the effect of this appalling shift of burden from the responsible parties to the victims of pollution.

An analysis of the bill provided below points out some of its worst provisions. Although many of these severe flaws were explained to the Legislature by DEQ officials at least 3 separate times in comments on the bill, they were none the less left in the bill. We can only assume, when such disturbing concerns were repeatedly raised and not addressed that the Legislative leaders and proponents of this package intended to gut Michigan’s environmental clean up law. In the press release from the DEQ, Director Steve Chester explained that the bill “would have serious implications for the state’s cleanup program, and would put property owners, the health of residents, and their environment at risk.”

The scary thing about this is that it appears that the proponents of gutting Michigan’s clean up laws are not going to simply get over the Governor doing the right thing by vetoing this bill. Already, and not surprisingly, Russ Harding, who was by far Michigan’s worst director of environmental programs ever, has weighed in with a broadside attack and a grossly distorted interpretation of the bill ( http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7501 ). Keeping up the myth perpetrated by the folks who clearly are looking to benefit from gutting Michigan’s clean up laws, Harding, now with the Mackinac Center, makes the ludicrous claim that current state law ignores property rights and sound science. As has happened throughout this debate, the proponents of HB 4617 have tried to use verbal slight of hand to distract Legislators and the people in Midland in particular from real goal of this legislative effort: to let Dow and others responsible for contaminating property get out of their responsibility to clean up these messes.

Thanks are due to Governor Granholm and the DEQ for holding firm on a crucial part of the clean up law in Michigan. Please take a moment to let them know you appreciate their stalwart defense of common sense and REAL science -- and while you’re at it, find out how your legislators voted (for House votes go to http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=168296 , for Senate votes go to

(Analysis drawn from DEQ materials)

bulletPublic Health
bulletWeakens cleanup requirements that protect Michigan’s families from contaminated soil and contamination of the food chain.
bulletBy wasting dollars on unnecessary testing, the legislation will mean less cleanup putting more citizens at risk from contamination.
bulletOur families deserve to have information on contamination that affects their lives. This bill would restrict that information flow and leave citizens unaware of contamination and how to reduce risks.
bulletEnvironment
bulletThe bill would endanger our state’s great resources by preventing the DEQ from stopping contamination polluting our lakes and streams.
bulletThe priority for any cleanup project must be placed on protecting our environment, and our citizens.
This legislation simply creates opportunities for polluters to avoid and delay cleaning up contamination, putting our environment at an even greater risk.
bulletEconomy
bulletThis legislation would waste countless dollars on unnecessary testing, disputes, and delays.
This takes away from money that could go towards clean-up and redevelopment of a contaminated property for productive use.
bulletSupporters of this legislation say that the stigma of a label hurts the economy.
They are wrong. It is the contamination itself that hurts our economy, and we must retain the tools to clean up that contamination quickly and efficiently in order to move our economy forward.

Anne Woiwode, State Director
Sierra Club Mackinac (Michigan) Chapter
109 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906
517-484-2372 fax 517-484-3108

Enjoy, Explore and Protect -  www.michigan.sierraclub.org  "

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)
01/02/06
Post Mortem: Why HB4617 guts environmental laws

The language of HB4617 intentionally left out key references to MDEQ Administrative Rules for Part 201, Environmental Remediation, of the Natural Resources and Environmental protection At, 1994.  Click here to view a copy of the rules as posted on MDEQ website 1/2/06.