ll?WO RE EN PE ACE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 1987 CONTACT: Carol van Strum 503/528-7151 Joyce McLean 416/922-3011 EPA PAPER INDUSTRY MAY HAVE SUPPRESSED DIOXIN FINDINGS, JUDGE RULES A series of secret documents leaked in September appear to suggest the existence of an agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the paper industry "to suppress, modify or delay" studies on dioxin in consumer paper products and dioxin pollution by the mills that produce them, a federal judge has ruled. The ruling came in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in January 1987 by Carol van Strum, co?author of a recent Greenpeace report on dioxin pollution by pulp and paper mills. Judge Owen M. Panner of the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon, ruled November 3 that documents leaked by an anonymous informant inside the paper industry raised a "valid concern" that two top EPA officials may have lied in affidavits denying there was a secret agreement to deflect publicity and regulation of the industry's dioxin pollution. Panner authorized Van Strum to conduct a broad investigation of the wetter in the next round of the suit. In granting Van Strum's motion for access to additional EPA records and statements, Panner wrote: "Plaintiff contends that the documents show an explicit agreement between EPA and industry officials to forestall regulation of dioxin pollution and to forestall the adverse impact of publicity on the industry by withholding and downplaying information provided by EPA, specifically including a controlled management of EPA's response to this request. The documents indicate that plaintiff may have a va]id concern regarding the credibility of some affidavit statenents threshold limit below which no toxic effects occur has never been denonstrated" for dioxin, Pannor noted. The EPA officials involved are Alexander McBride, formerly Chief of the Water Quality Analysis Branch of EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards, and James Cummings, a member of EPA's Dioxin Management Task Force. NbBride is one of the main architects of the agency's National Dioxin Study, a Congressionally mandated effort to determine the extent and severity of dioxin - - BOT-lit "Hui/aria: H: .. ., u; {-34 /r rag-Am pollution. Cunnungs was the principal author of the study's final report, which was released in September, nearly two years behind schedule. McBride has since been transferred to EPA's Office of Solid Waste. The affidavits by McBride and Cbmmings were made in support of an EPA motion to have the lawsuit dismissed. Under Panner's ruling, the suit will continue and Van Strum and her attorneys will have the right to conduct an investigation into the agency's dealings with paper industry officials and into the impact those dealings may have had on release of documents under FOIA. Van Strum said the ruling will allow her to acquire additional sworn depositions from key EPA and industry officials and provides access to a wide range of EPA correspondence, memoranda, and personal notes. 0 federal judge raising questions about the integrity of these particu? lar gentlemen raises equally serious questions about the integrity of the National Dioxin Study itself," said van Strum, an author and activist who has studied EPA's dioxin policies for years. "The appearance is that the paper industry has played a large part in EPA's evaluation of the extraordinary dioxin contamination that exists across the country. That kind of conduct taints the entire conduct of the study not only how it was released and how the data have been characterized, but all the way back to sampling and analytical procedures . "The paper industry correspondence and internal notes that were leaked painted a compelling picture of collusion with EPA to downplay the importance of the dioxin findings," van Strum said. "Panner has now given us the right to demand own correspondence and notes on the matter. That's what we've been waiting for. This ruling reiterates the need for Congress itself to investigate EPA's relationship to the pulp and paper industry." Thousands of pages of documents van Strum has already received through the lawsuit show EPA knew in 1985 that pulp and paper mills were a major source of dioxin. This information formed the basis of the report "No Margin of Safety: A Preliminary Report on Dioxin Pollution and the Need for Emergency Action in the Pulp and Paper Industry," which Van Strum wrote with Paul Merrell and which Greenpeace published in August. Greenpeace called for a Congressional investigation at that time. Several weeks later an anonymous informant inside the American Paper Institute, the industry's lobbying arm, leaked 250 pages of documents indicating that dioxin had also been discovered in many chlorine?bleached paper products - including napkins, diapers, toilet tissues, tampons, and coffee filters. These documents also outlined a massive program by paper? industry officials to ?manage" the release of this information with the help of key EPA officials. EPA and industry officials have repeatedly denied that there has been any cover-up or that dioxin contamination of paper products poses an unacceptable hazard to consumers. Full risk analyses have not yet been performed. -5- Following the SAB's recommendation that risk assessments be deleted from the report, this risk assessment work did not go forward and the documents were never made final. At the time, it did not occur to me to send the incomplete draft risk assessments to the plaintiff because they were not going to be used for the study; however, if the plaintiff desires these documents they can certainly be made available to her. 14. ngplaint paragraphs 50-52. As I have stated previously (see page 4 of Exhibit A to my affidavit of July 31, 1987), the raw data for the dioxin study do not exist in disk format. At an earlier point in responding to the plaintiff's original FOIA request, I explored the possibility of transferring the data to disk if the plaintiff preferred disk over hard copy. When the plaintiff's husband informed me by telephone that the plaintiff wanted the information in hard copy form I provided the hard copy to her. The data are also maintained on computer electromagnetic tape, but this form is not usable on personal computers. Once again, the data do not exist in the disk form now stated by the plaintiff to be of interest to her and would have to be transferred to that medium. The plaintiff has received the same information in hard copy form. 15. Complaint paragraphs 53-58. There were no modifications to the guidance to the EPA regions regarding preparation of Community Relations Plans. The plans for Tiers 1 and 2 have been provided to the plaintiff. Stephen Kroner addresses Tiers 3, 5, 6 and 7 in his present affidavit. No plans were prepared for Tier 4. Page J: -5- 16. Complaint paragraph 59. As stated in my previous affidavits, there was no written plan for interagency coordination of the dioxin study. Had there been one, I believe I would have known about it since I would almost certainly have been involved in preparing it. 17. Complaint paragraph 60. Despite the plaintiff's allegations and beliefs, no guidance documents concerning data centralization were prepared or exist. 18. Complaint paragraph 61. Any documents known to exist at the Agency reflecting communications among the agencies named by the plaintiff have been provided to her. I asked that the files of the Office of Research and Development and of Don Barnes be searched for such material, but no other responsive records were located. 19. Complaint paragraph 62. I know of no other material responsive to the plaintiff's FOIA request that exists. Dioxin is a broad topic, and a literally boundless number of documents may exist in which it is mentioned. To the extent that the plaintiff clarified the scope of her initial FOIA request in her later request, we made every attempt to provide all reasonably responsive material, and we provided additional material as the plaintiff subsequently identified and broadened her areas of interest in pleadings and affidavit. We believe we have provided all reasonably described records responsive to the plaintiff's FOIA request. 20. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best Page ii:? WW 1 Alarm paper goods hey are paper products that are used every day by millions of people. lint recent disclosures that such familiar items as collee ters and facial tissues contain the sus- pected cancer-causing agent dioxin have alarmed many consumers. In- deed, environmentalists led by mem- bers of Greenpeace Canada. the orga- nization that last month obtained and publicized secret U.S. government and industry ?ndings about dioxin con- tamination in paper goods, are now de- manding stronger pollution controls on their manufacture. But U.S. and Cana- dian paper industry representatives 'i?l Hunt flanu- mink . minute amounts of the manmade con- taminant that they are not a health hazard to users. Declared Red Ca- vaney. president of the American Pa- per Institute, a Washington-based trade association: ?Consumers can con- tinue to have the utmost con?dence in the safety and integrity of all paper products." Dioxin, the substance at the cen- tre of the poisoned paper controversy, is an unwanted byproduct that re- searchers say 19 formed during :1 mon procedure employing chlorine to bleach paper pulp. Many scientists add that they are concerned about one chemical in particular?a compound known as Researchers who have exposed lahi'iratory rats to ?Thc dioxin levels are low, but we use those products intensively and they should have very high standards of purity minute amounts of that substance?as little as one-trillionth of their body weight?during a two-year test period have found that many of the animals developed tumors. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Health and Welfare Canada have clas- si?ed TCDD as a probable carcinogen. Despite that listing, scientists have not yet established that the substance does in fact cause cancer in humans. Dc- clared Health and Welfare Canada re- searcher Jake Ryan: "One of the big problems is that they have been look- ing for [dioxin's] long-term low-level not found one." 5 U.S. paper industry rcpresuntatives learned almost two years ago that an study had found such high levels of dioxin in ?sh taken from streams near three U.S. paper mills that the Icatches were un?t for human con- sumption. And a further study found levels of in paper pulp ranging up to 350 parts per trillion. In re- sponse, the U.S. industry commis- sioned laboratory tests that con?rmed the presence of up to seven parts of TCUD per trillion in ?nished products like paper towels?and up to 13 parts per trillion of the substance in writing paper. According to risk assessments pre- pared by California-based researchers, those trace levels were well beIOw amounts that were likely to cause can? cer. For one thing, they said that dioxin concentrations in writing paper would have to reach a level of 12,000 parts per trillion before posing a threat to users. But many environmentalists reject the assurances given by paper compa- i ell'ect in people. And to date they have ny representatives. Declared Washing- ton, D.C., toxicologist Ellen Silbergeld: "The levels of dioxin in paper products seem to be very low, but these are products that we use intensively, and they should have a very high standard of purity." Added Silbergeld, a repre- sentative of the Environmental De- fense Fund, a private environmental organization that has focused atten- tion on the risks of dioxin exposure: ?No one really knows how dioxin might come out of diapers and be ab- sorbed?but despite that ignorance, most people would not want dioxin in those products." Some U.S. and Canadian government of?cials acknowledge that the discov- ery of dioxin in ?nished paper prod- ucts?made possible by recent techno- logical advances .that provide the detection of such substances in minute quantities?took them by surprise. in Washington, EPA of?cials said that al- though the agency plans to conduct further studies on dioxin contamina- tion, they do not believe that the trace elements of the poison found in paper products constitute a health hazard. Declared EPA assistant administrator John Moore: ?If it is at the low levels described by the industry, it is not something to be ignored but it is not something to break out in a cold sweat about either." ln Ottawa, Health and Welfare toxi- cologist Andrew Gilman expressed similar views?while noting that the ministry's health protection branch also planned further study of the U.S. ?ndings. Added Gil?man: don't know if we are going to come up with any alarming information. Some of those paper products have been on the mar- kets for years, but, we are not counting bodies in the street.? Dioxin?s suspected harmful qualities have generated safeguards against its presence in other consumer goods: apart {tom permitting up to 20 parts per trillion in ?sh products, Ottawa bans any detectable quantity of the substance in foodstuffs. And the dis- covery of its presence in ?nished paper products is likely to add urgency to the work of a federal-provincial group that was formed in 1985 to seek methods of reducing toxic emissions at 43 Canadi- an pulp mills that use the chlorine bleaching process. Declared University of Guelph toxicologist John Sprague, who is studying waste discharges at seven Ontario pulp mills for the prov- ince: ?The question of waste going into the environment is sobering, and we have got to do something about it. Pa- per products are just a part of that issue." GRAY with WILLIAM LOWTHER in Washington and DAVID TODD in Toronto CANADA ?8 WEEKLY NE WSMAGAZINE n's NO. 43 26. 1987, VOL. blurs 25. 19117 Lly Michael Weiskupf 5M Iran Of all the disasters that can befall a con- sumer industry. the nation's paper manu- facturers discovered last February that they could be facing one of the worst. Dioxin. the cancer-causing chemical. was believed to be bubbling up in the bleaching process of paper mills. contaminating dis- charges and pulp in tiny quantities. it seemed ?unavoidable' that the sub- stance would turn up in everyday products. wrote Carol Raulston. of the American Pa- per lnstitute (APIJ. 'For at least one year.? she warned in a Feb. 23 _nierno to colleagues. ?the industry could be responding to claims of skin rashes. upset stomachs. aches and pains. animal ills. bad-tasting water. etc.. all blamed on our products or processes.? at.? Paper 0* u. Realition to Dioxin Contamination Tut Post But this was not an industry to wait pas- sively for a crisis to engulf it. The dioxin_ discovery at paper mills set off an elaborate. damage-control strategy fueled by a $300,000 war chest and motivated by an overriding obiective of the industry: to man- agepublic and official views of the poison in its product. Details of the 'Dioxin Public Affairs Pian.? revealed in industry documents. show how a consumer industry of almost unlimited resources works to in?uence a' regulatory issue vital to the public health? and the commercial fortunes of the basins- try. . By the tinie- the news broke Sept. 24 that items ranging from disposable diapers to stationery were tainted by dioxin. the stratv egy had paid off. The industry. which had worked with the Environmental Protection Agency in surveying the pollution of paper mills. independently tested its products. As announced the ?ndings and played down their public health' implications. top EPA officials-'-given only sketchy detaiIs of the product tests a few days earlier?had little choice but'to agree. Many environ- mentalists seemed caught off guard. 'That was not an issue we wanted to leave to chancef-Raulston. API's vice pres- ident of government affairs. said in an in- terview. 3, The damn-treats portray an industry bent on crisis control as soon as the potential for trouble arose. The EPA was targeted for 'intelligence gathering.? Strategists sought a" to ?temper' news media interest. "mini- mize' public health concerns and hire our- side experts to challenge the view of dioxin risks. A Washington public relations ?rm was hired. corporate representatives trained and a consumer survey conducted. The EPA gener'ally appeared to fall in line with industry objectives. although its spokesman. Dave Cohen. insisted that the agency "was on its own track. it they w'ere attempting to be manipulative. it never-en- t.red our thinking.? Copies cf?mcmos and minutes of meet- tained from the API office by_'an insider and reproduced by the environmental group paign Defined ?min? or 39?- - - . .a?tiu'. ?1 - - Ir. . ings detailing the industry effoit?lixerehob- ?r 0- muss-mm . -. ?dt'e?r' work was set up in recognition 6f the 'need to have a quick response plan and a team in place for the day when this issue may make Greenpeace. The doctunents?were authen- .y:es1raordinary demands upon cur industry." tr'cated Raulston.? at.? f: said an memo. The Dioxin Task Group. ?The mandalI'bottE-ot line never came tabs chaired by..top paper industry exec- very,low the .le into consideration.? Radistohmaid attire headed theeffort. industry campaigrL?There was the honest a'At its ?rst meeting Feb. -12.?the task feeling that the dioxin detections were of ltgroup resolvedtofmaintain the'integrity of tbe?public ?c our ?unnecessary changes? was used to hearing about industrial production processes prompted by un- accideots.-Our obiectr've?wxs? actnirate _.-.sound scienti?c data and. above all. to ?pre- ?information getnutt-V My} the industry?s reputation as a con- Dtotnn. yproductof cer- ..'.jcerned and responsible public citizen! rain chemiml of the most The industry worked to achieve its ob- hazardous tubstanoes. irausescanoer. re- rectives with a strategy aimed chie?y at the - productive problems and imr?une'system EPA. which regulates hazardous substances damage in laboratory "id??{t?EJfPW low and thereby shapes the public perception of oi Theiod became involved in late . 1985 when the EPA was?sampiing riv- jets and takes for dioxin'xnd found unusually high levels ?of paper hills. in June '198_.6. the 'rndustry.entered 'into an agreement with the EPA fora joint study of live mills whose bleaching process was sus- pected of creating dioxinr, .. - API president Red Cavaney explained to his executive committee six months later that the industry agreed to the study in part to ?forestall major regulatory. and public relations diffrculties.? m? . The industry rallied under the banner of AH. its trade group and chieflobbying arm. A three-tiered 'crisis nunangement' net- so contaminated products. The documents un- de'rscore the need to moderate the agency?s . stance on dioxin's risks. which would serve asthe basis for regulations. The'agency "alsowas to be enlisted to help assuage pub- lic health concerns. . How central the EPA was to industry goals was indicated in notes of what Raul- ston described as a "brainston-ning session? in May. Planners spoke of the need to "im- prove intelligence gathering within the and to identify 'allies' and 'arlver- saries" at the agency, the notes showed. in a list of 'short-term objectives' cited in the notes. the indultry'was to: I ?Get EPA to'discuss issue with media in manner.? I ?Get EPA to dioxin risk assess- ment.? I ?Have EPA not seek publicity.? I ?Get EPA to issue statement?No harm to environment or public health.? The industry was to ?avoid confrontations with government agencies which might trigger concerns about health risks or raise visibility of issue generally.? said the notes. Public perceptions were of key concern to the industry. which rang up $50 billion in sales last year. One goal of strategists in May was to 'kccp allegations of health risks out of [the] public arena?or minimize them.? As the EPA was nearing release of its national dioxin survey last summer. and health questions for the industry seemed inevitable. API staff counsel John Thorner- suggested casting the findings as "old news? - to diminish news media interest. A press kit. he wrote Aug. 31 to Raul- ston. shouldnot be packaged in a ?formal kit? that ?might give the appearance that we mnsider this a major event.? The strategists recognized that industry would ?enter any public debate on dioxin at a disadvanthge.? it is seen as even "less credible? on health and environmental is- sues than government. they said. citing sur- veys that. show that regulators and admin- istrators are quoted four times moreoitcn than industry experts. . So. they looked to the EPA for help. In negotiating the joint dioxin study. the indus- try asked for. and received. the right to pro- vide ?inputs? to the agency's final report? and ?separate views' if it disagreed with the govemment conclusions. After the EPA granted an environmen- talist's Freedom of information request for preliminary data on the joint study. it agreed to meet with the industry to discuss the ?public affairs strategy.? according to a Raulston letter. Cavaney. reporting on a July 31 meeting of industry executives and EPA Adminis- trator Lee M. Thomas. wrote later that Thomas "indicated a willingness to cooper- ate with the industry to ensure that the public not be unduly alarmed." -- - According to Cohen. the EPA spokesman. Thomas told the industry that ?we would characterize the risk as we saw And. even though EPA officials played down .thc dioxin risk in paper products two months later. 'that was our objective-assessmentf. Cohen said. ?At no' time did we sit down with them and say ?Let?s develop one party Iine.? . . .He noted that while the EPA ruled our public health risks in paper products at the Sept. 24 news conference. its disclosure of dioxin in the pulp and discharges of paper' mills ?is not the type of news a major cor- poration would be wild about.? A recurring theme of the documents was how to alter the EPA's view of diorrin's per- ils. About three years ago. Thomas ordered a review of the chcnucal?s risks. its out- come could affect not only existing regula- tions ofdioxin in solid waste and incinerator' exhausts but long-awaited standards to de-' terniine how much of it should be permitted in the air and water. The stakes for the industry were outlined at a june meeting of its Dioxin'Coordinating Committee. as reported later: ?If the as- sessment were to be changed. the basis for questioning the industry's dioxin levels could cease to exist.? Raulston had earlier recommended bring- ing together a panel of nationally recog-' nixed dioxin experts 'to provide an external base of authority for the industry's' eval.? uation of risks. 'ft further allows us to go tci EPA with 'the best scienti?c advice avail-I able' and provides an opportunity for them toutilite these assumptions in their own risk assessment.? she said in her Feb. 211 memo. How such a panel was to be chesen was debated in a June issues paper. A group picked by an independent. third party would preclude charges of bias. The 'obvious dis- advantages.? said the paper. was that 'a third party might also insist on the right to publish the report?favorable or unfavor- able to the industry.? APl's directors eventually budgeted. $150.000 for an outside net to be chosen? by an independent orgaruzation to research the risks of dioxin at low levels. The money. was also to cover costs of an 'in-house' park, el of scientific advisers. A lobbying blueprint revealed in the draft agenda of an industry meeting inlune called for 'selective' congressional contacts to ?provide pressure on [the] agency to change current risk assessments? and ?provide as-. surances' to EPA Administrator Thomas that he 'can take appropriate time in resolv- ing [the] issue.? . The documents repeatedly call for a meeting with Thomas. who could "provide top-level guidance to rest of [the] agency on_ how tocharacterjze the draft. Thomas met with industry represents: tives twice. At the July 31 meeting; Cavaney later wrote paper company exec-T . utives. Thomas ?gave no indication that the agency felt that the current situation was a crisis warranting immediate regulations! At_ the earlier meeting In September '1986. paper company executives suggested industry participation in the risk assess- ment review. according to Alec McBride. EPA project director of the'joint study. "They were invited to participate if they had something to offer.? he said. 'But we didn?t want them to come in and browbeat us or lobby us as we did a risk assessment' of a substance in which the industry had a vested ?nancial interest. He said the indus- try has not submitted substantive material to risk assessors. . 'If there was a plan to influence our thinking.? Cohen said. 'it was either incom- petent or nonexistent. No one here felt any pressure.? BRADLEY 8: GORDON, RC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1397 WILLAMETTE RALPH A. BRADLEY EUGENE, OREGON 97401 JANE H. GORDON (503) 343-8247 November 3, 1987 Jaralene B. Green Freedom of Information Officer A-l?l U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 26466 Re: Notice of Intent to File Suit, RIN 6652-87 Dear Ms. Green: I represent Carol Van Strum in the above FOIA request. You have acknowledged receipt of this request on September 25, 1987. By letter dated October 9, 1987, from Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Monitoring Data Support Division Director, Office of Water, Ms. Van Strum was informed that the agency was invoking the ten?day extension allowed by statute and by 49 CFR and "expectIed1 to provide an initial determination by October 26, 1987." No such determination has been received, and Ms. Van Strum therefore has the Agency's permission to file suit to compel production of the requested records. I am therefore writing to inform you that I intend to file a lawsuit on Ms. Strum's behalf in the very near future unless - agency.;mmediately discloses all requested records presents Ms. Van Strum with compelling reasons why she auld not file suit. Please contact me if your Agency wishes to avoid litigation. Sincerely, BRADLEY GORDON Ralph A. Bradley for Carol Van Strum RAB:kah pc: Ms. Judith Kobbervig, AUSA RALPH BRADLEY LETTERHEAD Date Jeralene H. Green Freedom 0+ Information Officer 9?101 U.S. Environmental Protection ?uency Washinoton. D.C. 20460 Re: Notice of Intent to File Suit. RIN 6652-87 Dear Ms. Green: I represent Carol Van Strum in the above FOIA request. You have acknowledqed receipt of this request on September 25, 1987. By letter dated October 9, 1987 from Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Monitor- inq Data Support Division Director, Office of Water, Ms. Van Strum was informed that the Agency was invoking the ten-day exten? sion allowed by statute and by 40 CFR and "expectEedJ to provide an intial determination by October 26, 1987.? No such determination has been received, and Ms. Van Strum therefore has the Aqency?s permission to file suit to compel production of the requested records. I am therefore writing to inform you that I intend to file a lawsuit on Ms. Van Strum?s behal? in the very near future unless the Agency immediately discloses all requested records or presents Ms. Van Strum with compelling reasons why she should not file suit. Please contact me immediately if your Agency wishes to avoid litigation. Sincerely, RALPH A. BRADLEY for Carol Van Strum RAB:rab cc: Ms. Judith Hobbervig, AUSA Wu FWu/?xb (?wade px/ZL SIP) (90:63 (font, aux?da (09 q70 Sw 331. 3'3 13?" (60 3'3