UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, 0.C. 2000

NOV 2:?. 1983
IHSPl!CTO!lt GEHER.t.l.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:

Office of Inspector General's Review and Inqu1 ry Into
EPA's Handling of the Five Rivers Incident

TO:

Alvin L. Alm
Oeput y Administrator

In response to your request, we have completed our review and inquiry
into EPA's handling of the Five Rivers incident. We are enclosing our
report on the resu lts. If you desire, we would be glad to meet with you
or your staff to discuss our findings.
Should your staff require additional infonnation or assistance
regarding this matter, please have them contact Ernest E . Bradley III,
Assistant Inspector General for Audits at 382-4106. We are also providing
a copy of this report to Congressman James Weaver based on his recent
request.

?C..M?
Enclosure

O

John C. Martin

/

11El111RANDU!'I
51111JECT:

TO:

llf1'1cP. 01' Insl)'!ctor General's l!ev11!W and In.,u11"1 Tnto
fPA's "ant111ruJ of thto Ff.vi! P1v"rs lnc1'1P.nt.

r

Alvin L. Alm

Oeputy Ad"'1nhtr11tor

In M!SPonse to your request, we haye c!1'1pletl!<1 our r"v1Pw and ln1uiryJ
fnto EPf\'s hanrtlfn!] of the F1v" Divers 1nc1d!!nt. Ue are l'nClCl'31nr, our
I
r"!'Ort on the res_11lts. If you desfr II!,
W()\11(! bi! rilact to "1eet with you
.
.or your staff to discuss our 1'fnd1n'1So
Shoult1 your staff require add1tfonal fnfom11t1c:o or 11ss1stance
rP.garcl1ng th1s natter, ;,lease h,11ve thl!l'llcont?ct F.rnPst F. ?-radlpy Ill,
Assistant Inspector General for ?ud1ts ?t ,R?.-4lnfi. ?? ?rP also prnvfnlng.
a copy of th1s rP.port. to t:ongresst<'lln
Jar,es !leaver, h.tsed on his r1>cr.nt
.
?
rP.ques t.

C::

0

.,'"""")

o -?

J?hn

c.

........-=i o

,t

"loQ

.. ?

, . rl. \ .... ooo. - u-,.,.,..

-

?artin

o

Honorab1e Jaffles WeaYer
r.ha1rinan, Suhc!J'i!,,1tt,e on "1n1ng,
Forest ,?an.tge"lent o and the
Roonesv11l e Pow-.r Adnl1n1strat1on
Cdm1'11tte!! on Interior and Insular Affa1
Hou,e of Representatives
Wash1n?ton,
20515

n.c.

llffr Mr. Cha1 naan:
As we pr111111sed 1n our OctohP.r 2R, 9113 1etter, Wt' are enclos1nq a
r1>y,ort on the r?su1ts of nur revi@W ant1l1i,qu1ry 1nto the fnv1ronmpntal
Protection A9ency's hanll11nq of t"'e Five rl1Yers 1nc1dent. 14e woulll he
glAd to l'leet w1t.h your staff to d1scuss our f1nrl1nqs, 1f you lles1re.
,
Should your staff des 1 re alld1 t1onal 1 nfol'P.lat1on or asshtance
reCJ,1rdfng this report or our review and!111(Ju1ry, please hftYI! theoo
contact Ernest E. Rradlpy III, 1-ss1st!nt Inspector Gem?ral for .Aur!1ts,
It 3rl:?-410fi.

I

Enclosure

?,. I??,?rt, ., .
\}

bee: A-109:Colony:tms: 11/18/83.:382- 7600
A-109:C:olony:tms :retyped 11/21/83
KIRKENl'l?Ll - Al 09 2 5 6
AIGA
IG
TIWANA

. ..

:!.? .

REPOl!T 011 nm PF.VI? ANO IMPll!RY
nrrn TI![ f'T'" Rl'fEDS Ulr.Tl"f.14T
Pl!PPO'ic Alffl sr.nPF.

i\t the req1M!st of the ?uty Ad111tnfstra?or, t;hi! Office of the Ins?ctnr
r.enll!ral (OIi:) 1n1t11t? a rPY111w_ .,nd 1n?u1ry .1ntn. ?"'A'? resrior.\e to the
Ffve R1YP.rs 1nc1?11t. The purpose of t[11 ?IG effvrt was:
t.

z.

tn a,sess tho accuracy, covor?qe, 11nd _factual cnnt.P.nt of draft
r!Hlorts prftf)arl!d by the nff1c? of Pest1cfrle ?r0<1ra8S (nrn) in
rP.spon!lf! to II l"f!(Jll'Ht of the ?P.pnty Am,,1nistr11tor, relatt>d to
a J)t'n?ing r.ongr?s1onal 1fW1oJ1?y l""'Jarrl1riq "an Er.a ,tw!y f)f
d1ol1n anli c,ther che?1cal residue<; 1n the F1oe R1ven ar111 nt
1<estern Oregon;" and
I
to r?11!11!!end act1oris to corr? prohle?s 1dP.nt1f1P.rl.

Recause of t1:lll! constraints and ti!@ coriplex1ty of thP. 1ssue5, -,,e did not
<!r!ploy al 1 usual aud1t trld 1nvest1'Jathe proce-<1ur11? 1n t.hts rev11!!"' and
1nqu1ry. Instealf of try1nq to asstq,1 r?sronsfh1111'.1P.? to 1n'11v1r1uals
1nYnlYP.d wfth FPA's response to the Fiv11 Rtv11rs 1nc11Pnt, "'"'attl?"lpt?
to ascert?1n th-. reasons the P.Yents occurre<i, nur scone...,? 11Mft@1 to:

I
I

o ISSl!SS1nq drift l"l!l)OrtS prepar? by OPP, l!nt1tled .,?r,alysh of
EPA's tqndlfng nf th11 FfYII! Rivers lnvP.stf9atfon:"
I

o

11,;nssir,q all '1oc1-ntatfnn

.ts referencl!s to ttinP.

-

i?? 1?????:..:?.:??f??:::.:n!; ?r;::!:? ?????? ?h: c:?? ,; ! ?? the
rov1ew and 1 nqu1 ry;
_ I
rP.V1ew1ng and assessing 1nst1tu?1ona1 arr!n9e-:ients, or')11nf1.11t1on?1
structur!'s, functional stater:ienr,? arn1 relaterl <!lal'la'l,.,;ent ?nd
f

t

o

I
pr0JPY1cle1

R

y

t

f

!?
?t??ii!?!??? :;::??;?.?;???;?;::??;i;)?i;?:!.;?f ???=??f??:
Substances;
P.

P.

0

usen1ng issues, probll!!lls, thP. 'l'!""''"_.1 ovrrall s1tu?tfor,?
rehtl!d to F:PA mana']P.l'l@nt of the1 Five R1v!'!rS 1nc1rlen?, 11n<1
othP.r fnterrel11ted prn']rl!m acth1t1,.s, rPo,,1.,tory anrl lP.IJRl
act 1ons: anci

:::,:;??:??:;??:?;?;;;:;??-?",'.;?;?,;;::;;?;??;.

11111de to :11a.!<1r 1rtsta1111t1on1 1nvtl'lvl'r1 1n th-. Fh? !lfvf!" 1nc1t111nt tn
I recorr1! ?n'1 "1:hl!r nocw,.on1nt11rv11!W kr.y staff _.nit c,t,u1n 11'M re,,111w
tation, In arlc:1t1on, s1m11ar P.ff,,rt.s wf!:ro ?f'.tll"lp11,t-owj 1n f:!'A !'f:!aclquartl!l'5,.
lla?hfn1Jtnn, 11.c. On rictol>Pr 21, 1.on:i, an 1nfnrrJftl r.P.etfn11 f nvol vf nq ntr.
h
r
l
c,,ss thP.
:":? 1?: 11 ;?;.w11! ?e r. t,, dl,;
v;!.
?{
??
;?:
?
?:
r
???
..
?
?
,???
??:?;.
fPA h respon,;1ble for ad'11frthterft1'l an arr!y of rl!'lat"".1 envfrn,,.,,Pnt?l
progr?r.,s unr1.l!r r;iandates cif t"tP. ron<:Jress. l The prfi.iary nt-.1ect1ve nf thP.S!!
st?tutP.S 1s thf' i,rmect Ion and ml!1nt.ena,,ce of i,11hl1c hl!alt!l ?nr! thP.
'1Uo11ity of the env1ron"11'nt. In the Fhe; llhers 1ncf-nent, !'n.? acter'
unrler ?uthorfty of PL-n-5l"i, the FP.!1@ra) TnsP.ct.fc1de, Funr:fcft1,. ?nd
?OdPnt1Clr1e Act l)f r'lctobPr :'l, 1972 and
94-4,;o, the Toxic ::1,t-stanC!'S
l'ontrol Act of nctnher 11, 197fi. These 'sutut'l's pro.v1c!P. EPJ\ with thf!
respnnsihfl1ty and autlior1ty to control tile prntl!lct1nn, usP, ?M f11?rins11l
of pest1cfde!I anrl oth@r toxic subst?ncPSl

rt

.e.s P.11rly a, l'lli?, the ,c1ent1f1c tll"!l'lun1ty wn 11ware th11t. th!' hP.rMc1'1e
:i,4,'i-T w11s contlll!lfnatP.d ,11th 7,:l,7,l!--tetrachloroc11b?nzo-11ara-C'!iMfn
(TCT'IO) and that Tr.no WIS :,otPntfally fP.tnt.ll?1c (c.su?es ?t,nrt1nns and
st111Mrths), carcfno9en1c (C!U51!S .cancP.r), onco.Jcnlc (,:nuse? tu"lllrs),
11nd teratoqen1c (causP.s Mrth rlpfpc:ts). I In 1n10, as a result of ti-ti?
1nfnmatfon, the ?crPUrf P!: of Aqrlcu1tirP., Interior, and 'tt><1lt?,
Fducat.1on and WP.lfare (the fe<11!ral a')l!nctes the11 re?oons1h1e for
cnntro111!N'J pest1cf'11',) a11no11ncet! t?e suspe"'fon of thf! re?f?tr!tfnn of
?,?.,5-T. Thfs action "'-!S 11ns_11CCPssful. I ?ut'lsP.quent r-rir, !'fforts, rlurfng
the pPl'10f'.I 1971 to lQJ7, to SUSpe!!f4 thP r"'Jhtrl!tfnn for SOn" IJSP? al?O
faflf!d d1JII! to ler,al r.t,el lfln'?PS 4nr:I he? pf tethufca1 01Pt.h11C'!olo;y t.O
l"el f ah ly "le,uure th@ amc,unt. ? of rr.np prl'<;P.nt 1 n tlil!' envf ror,ment.

?l'tl#.!en 1?75 an? 1077 FPA helpPf! ?11velnplth11 tP.chn1cal r.??ar.111ty to
relhhly ?a?ure the prl!s@nee of Tr:or, 1n th!'! 1!11Y1ronr1!'nt ?t t.hl! :,arts per
trfl 11on level. l)PP's rpfdl!"11oloq1c.,1 S uc11P.S Prorira!'" .,ras also o,;t?hlfshf!?\
to lnve,t1qate the l'!!latfonshfp h?tWf'l'n pP.St1cfrfP. 11s1!! 11nrf hu::,an he-,H.h,
wfth l!<'lph.i?fJ nn herh1cf?-.s r.nntatnfnq Tl)''l. r.nA was ?1?o fnvn1vPrl fn
to deter,,,1 "" t?e pre?l!nr.P. rif an,f !o rieasure the
. Sl!v,.r11l s tut!I es llf'S f ri11ed
o
A"IOUnt of Tr.Tif1 fn hur,an mflk an,j the bnr4 I tfS?IIP? nf ".11"110'1 ?r,,1 ..nhaJS
"X rosed tn Tenn.
\

1

-

. -?--?--

;.

. -3-

'
I
tn 197P,? npr 1n1t1atP.d the Alsen ?ttH1y, !u11:1er 1+s ,r1r1,...,1ntoo1c11t
Stu<11t'S pro?r11.,, rlP.,1'1nP.li tn d<!tP.r,,,fnP. 1f
th'!r" w?? a qr,.fttP.r 1nc1dl'nc11
I
of soonta1teous abort ions 11mong hue,ans "xpose'1 to Tenn rPlat ht! to t hosP.
nut exriosP.d ilnd also to t1ete,...1ne ff th? t1,..1nq of sront?nP.ooJ5 ahort1oM
was relat!M! to tt,.e t11'11! of TO,!l exposur?. This study was centr.rll'l 111
the Alsea, Oregon areit o1' the ?u1s.1aw tl?t1onal Forest. It w?s 1n1t1at!!d
1n rP.sponse to a letter fro,, sP.veral fei,11111 re11rl4!nts all?q1nq thftt they :
had exjlt!r1encP.d spontaneous abortions a d other ftdvP.rse he11Jth effects
as a result of l'Xposure to 1.,4,?;-T. Tn ?F1>hr1111ry 1'17", F.PA ;,u!l11s.h@<! a
rP.port on tlll! retat1onsh1p betweoen hP.rb1c1rho 11,;aqt' anct spont.anP.011? 11hort1oris
frOPI 1ts Alsl!a Sturty, even thou<ih P.nv1ronl'lental sampling 11n? ft'lal:,,?h
lu1<l not ?P.n c<Plr,leted.
I
On March 1, 1979, F:PA fnuetl 1ts f1r,t ?111ergf'ncy Su5p!>'ls1on nrdl'r,
restr1ct1ng l'IIOSt uses of the hP.rh1cides 1;,,,t.!\-T 1111d q1Yrx. Iri 11ay,
aft11r the chfl!!ical industry's w1tl-tdra1o1al fron t!le er.il!r1r.ncy suspens1o,,
'1ear1n'.l, [PA tel'l'!1natl!tl thf! hear1'lg. F.PrA pron,ptly a11n01mc""1 tl\1> cancel lat ton
of ritg1strat1on for m11st u<ies of these ch?tcal?, am1 t,.,?rin,1s "" this
action bel)an about eight ..,nths later. \t11 ,luly 1010, fP.A ,.,.ci>1vP(1 a
1'!ttpr ,1qned by ,11veral f'""'ah residents of the Flvt' ?.1vll!r-s c1J111o1Unity
in nre?on.
These rPs1dents also claimed' to ha..-e P?lll'!rfe,,ceri ?pontftneous
.
abnrt1or,s anl1 ot.her 1tlven" lie?lth ef'f'e-:ts sf,.,fhr to tho,,. of' thP ?1?"?
1'81rlPllts ftS A 1"1!sult of herhfcfdl! pxposure, Sfll!t1f1cally ?.,-? ?nd
Pfclor? ... The Fivl! llfvP.rs c.Olll!mn1ty fs SJ!ll!ll suh-?rea within the
Alsea, !1re?on arP.a o1' thP. S11isl11w 'lat1nnal For!'st.
\
ll11sl!lf on our 1ntPrvf""'s anr! tht' records -. rev1!!,.P.<1, It aopurs that
fPJl's response to the F1ve ?fvers c0111:ila?nt ioas ?c:rlre?5? hy fnclud11111
1t 1n the environmental sa,-pl1m1 and ar,a 1:,,sfs 11ct1v1t.ies still hP.lng
1 ftlsea ?tudy. liat.,r, sll!rif.,.nt,
conducted under tile plan of action for. t:he
hurnan and anima 1 t 1sslll'! saMp1'!s were collll!cted fro, the F1 ve Qfv"r"
arl!a. A final report, Su1'!111ar1z1ng the '"Rlyt1c.J1
rPs11lts nf thh COfllb1ned,
'
l!Xjlilnlfed study vas pr!'!plll"ed 1n June 10111. Th1s report contains thP
result? of 11n111ys1s for TcnD 1n the samr:les ohta1'H!<1 frm hot.h the Als11t11
,n<1 the F1vP. ?1ven area. lfoW'!ver, Tahl? .VII of thi5 JunP 1q.q3 rP.rnrt
erroner.?Jsly inclutled rlat11 related to samrles o!'lh1nl!t1 fn 111>g1on v.
fsh*l11?h'Mi procP.'1nres rP.<1111re pet1r r@vi:ew and/r,r F.F'A's l"l?V1ew 11nd approval
of reports 11r11pare'1 for 1t unril!r contract !iy l11horatorfes, oin1versit1f's,
!
to th" puhl1c with11ut:
l!tc. ln spfte nf that, thi? r?ort wn rP.lf!ued
!-!o
othP.r
1nfn
t.1on
rll!gar,111111
healt!i P.ffects
any review or approval.
""'l'
data ?as l>een provided to the Five R1Vtl!? -res1tl!!nts hy FPA.
I

la

-

o

...,_

A.

.

Tlll!! l'PP's Analysis of Handling oft e Fhr i'1vP.r, lt1c1<:!P.!'lt

I

tn fo?at1on otit111ne<'.! dur1"'1 our rev?Pw ,1nrl frl{lufry 1nto thl' S:1v@
111ve? 1nc1deot svo;mrts tt,E"sP. s1q'l?f1ca"t sTat""'""t' ,??rl" fr, !'lPr>',;
tlr-a1't rl!pnrt, net!!'<! nctoher :>?, 1<1n :
l
l'!o Ul'lt1les werl! 11st, nl11'1tl1!1P'1 nr "hP1 ,.H., nt.?Pr sal'l(:'ln.
1.
r.ti11n-of-cu!lto'1y r11c0rd!I Pxhtl tllat. r.lo?rl;1 ,-?,:,.i,Jfsh th'!
Ment1ty e,id locatfo" or dhfln 1t1o" cf J11 SA"'f'lP5.
i
-' report 1nclud1n? 11nalyt1cal rl!s11lts frcr. thP AlsPit Stu'1y
i.
erroneously 1 r,c 1 udet! tlata on ,?np 1 !!S frrin ""SI !"l '1. TM s Prror
was not tlt!t11ctl!c! prior t.a rfllea?P. n1' thP rp?r,rt. t.n the r,11bl le
hl!ca11!lf' requ1rect rP.Yf P.WS 11ctrP r.l'lt d"nl!,
1.

There was not 11 sef'4fltl!! anti 1rll!nt1f1ablP "F1v,. t>h,.r? T"vP.st1'!8t.1on,o nor was a 1'nmll r-ho: of action 1!JPY1!r .?r...,?r,.1. ?fncp
tP\e Fhe Pl?rs and Alsu 11rns ,rl! a<!.!?CP"t an'1 since 4'1P.11'Pnts
gf th!!! llh"a stu'1y ?rl' st111 1n r,roc?ss at. tllat t1 .... , th!'
II hea stuc!v wu Uflll'ldf!.f tn
t.he Ff v" P 1v._. r? 11rp? ar,t.!
Its r? 1,1.,.rtts. Tll h C:l!c1 ?1m, l.11s """'""" 1 r,fr,m-,1 h 11n<1 w?s
un?r,r.norl by l'f'rsons 1nvr,hl!<l! 1n t.hP. ,,.X?l'l1Mt1on. . l'QWP.VPr,
thh i!11cisfor, Ml!S "!It C(1':"1Jn1cate1 t1J the '"1vl! !'fvP.r-S re?ft'pr,ts
nor to "11' f Pol pr..,9r"? rt' r-?or,nH 1 nvn 1 vP.'i 1., t hP ? hf'" ?t 1Jr1:,,
anti rel;it'-'1 rPn rE""ula.tory action?.

""i:""""?,

artd 1'1<-'lt1fht,1p "hi!
Thi! ,,,r.t that thPI"" WIIS. ""t 11 ?e;iaratP
'
?1vers 1r,vf!H1')11?1on ccu11 Ill! p11lell d n?Pncl?t:,ir.!! r.r,nblP.rn.
Sever;tl th1ni:s contr1b11t.Po to thh prMlP."', The lllse11 ?tu'1y
was conducte'1 1 n twr1 p?IISPS ,ini!I t-1,g?11 t.n ?o rPff!rrl!? to as th.,
o.l\lsPa ro anrl .?hea IT" sturl1es. So1h?,i1uently, t.,,. Fhr.
111v?rs 1nc1dl!nt beqPn to ? r..fii!rr"<l t.o ?s P1th'!r t?P .?1n
. Rh@rs Tnv.,st 1111t 1nn. o Ppr,.,ns
P.1v!'M ?tudy" nr the "F1ve
outs1r1@ FP,ll. s?"!t1,?s r@fP.r-rPeito hoth or t?MP. i:1J111,.,.inlt1P.'.'i as
ti.1n'l "thP. ?uhla"' roat1ona1 Fnp,,t "r"'"." ,11,J,.,i toJ t"h 1?
tile fact t'l111t 10"1@ El'A ,,ersn""el 1"volvf.'d 1n to,,. .1ocoJ"'l!'lt
1on rPr1o11!\tS w11rp n,it ? ..
?11a,-ches t n r!s!lon\P to 1 n1'o?t
o
I
that Alse" ?nd F1ve R1vctr, ttel'r .In ti!? ?,,tslaw o111t1r,, .. 1 '"'"P.\t,
This "",,,.ncl11turl! ;,ri,hlPrt re,u?t'!<l 1n fr>?.? cr,nfu?ini, ar,1 ,lPl1ty
,., rP.spontl1n') tn '"P.t11J'!st.s fnr ?nfor-,at1nn. 1n r"l?t1o,o to th"
?,4,5-T a"d 511YPX C?nce11at1nr he?r\r,?1 ?nrl in rPlatjnr, tO
1ftf,atfoll 11' whftl! 1? 1S :,rp?rntl-t i'lyn)yp,jo
I

.,I"'!

i;.

t.ie fo,r,,rl no ev1c!enc111 ti, 1n,11eate
1 intP.nt to c 1ncl!! .. 1 or 1P111lt'r-'ltP
f?illJrl! to 11.?C10lle 1<1fo,..,at.f,:,r r"l?t.1nr. tn t?!' 1'1v? Plvl'I"?
1nc-1dent.
1

I.[

I

I

I

i,

I

8.

lol? found the OPP l'l!port, d1tt!d nctorer 25,, l<l?J, prnvMes a nnrl'ltfvo
of ?Pll's llalldl fnlJ 1n<1 tlle cul'ri,nt st.11t11? of 1ts oFhe P1W!l'1 T"vHt1- .
.
get Ion.o Howe,11r,
the dllClt"lent d ? not addrf"U thP. cf rcu.,c;OncPI 1nl1
cont11tfc,ns wftMn F.PA tlll!t contl'1h ed to Its follirrP. to pr11,ide 1
t1"'fl1)' anr:I a<lequ11te ri?sf!Onsl! t,, t?f' c1tfzen1 of thi, Fh11 o.hP.rs
Cllilll'l1in1ty. The?e cf rcoJoistances anti contif t ions lrP. dhcu?i;11l1 1 n t"111
foll011iPIQ section.
The OIG 's Eopanrled R,tvf ew and !nquf ry Into PP.1 ated Prn?.-?? ,.a.,a<?l!l?nt

hs11n

I

The ornos 1xp11nded review inti f11q111,ry f(Hl11tff11'<1 certain :irogra,i
?anagenent issues t.llat contrf?uteti ?o ? 0 11 1 1 fnftd"luate responoe to
the Fho llhen fnc1clent. Th-..;e ?re as 1ollnw?:
1.

I

?r?anfzatfonal Chanqes. ?eg1nn1ng fn l?te 101?, fPA's a!lllfn1strathe structure for !l'lnagf!m?nt of tt,e ?"rleral Tn?ect1ci<1P.,
Fun!l1cicle and P.od@ntj_cf<fl' Act ?,it! Toxic ?u'-c;tancPs Control Act
progr<<l!IS under-ent Sf!veral !'l!ljor reorganizations:
I

( 11)

f!I}

(c)

In Move111?r 1'17?, these Jogl'1.,, lff'.l"fl re,ooved 1'rlffl the
Office 01' Water and Hazar?ous "?ter1Als and ?Hablfsl'led 85
the Office .,, Toxic S11t)stances at ,n i\sshtant ,'dil!1nhtrator1
levf'l.
111 !larch 1?7il, thf! Office t)f Toxic Sul'lst.1nces wn
so1bdivfdl!f! 1nd ghen four l'e,>uty Assi?tant Ac1i>i1nhtl'1tnr1
l'l'IP. e,w;h for !leHtcfrte Proqr,1"11 1 C"l!"liCl!l Control, TP?t1ng
inti F.,.1u11t1nn, 1nr1 l'r!l<1ra .. !t1t!!<1P'at1on ancf 1'1fo""'lttion o

.I

In ,;ept?r l"Rfl, the Ofr1c"! of Toxic Subst11ncM was
ren11P1e'I the Office "' PMticfriM ann Tnok ?u?tanr!!'I
(OPTS) incl O"'-lanf,-p'1 "1th/ t'<l'.I ?puty i\s\!?t-'!nt A.'1T-fn1stratar,
fol' thl! f'lfffce of Pest 1cH1,. rrr..1ra.o?
/""P'
nn1 t?11 l'!ffico
.
.
of Toxic Sut>st .. nces (OTS)I.

I

The,11 cllangp1 ti' tl!e or?nhat?nnal structu,.,. .-:orl! <lCCOl't!lanfl'tl
by Ch?llq!!S fn the lllffl1n1st.rattrl! pt!f'SOnftl!l ?nrt In t?I! funct1one1
stat-nts of several ti!)' Mvhfo.,, a,,ri 11ranches w1':h the ni,i,,
T'hel! nhistons and flranche1 wr,re l'e1ponsihl1t for t?e ,,15.,o
?tuAy, FPll's responsf! tn the F ho 1<1Yers 1nc1?n.t, ?"d .-.re
1'1volved 1n the SUSf'M!l'!1ion and? r.ancl'!11ati"" nf ?.,?,5-T ?"<1
S1l'fex, n lff'll as requlatory , ,:t1on? fnr ?11 ,:iti,.,,. P"Stic1t1es.
1111'! ?11evl! th119e Or'!:lnhatiana/ ch1noes r.oM.rfhutl!d tD !".PA's
I
failure to "'l!M'c!1t1111Jsly co,,pll"tE" thP aJ?P.a Study 1n'1 to ftrleq1111t11.ly
respontl to the F'hto Pfven f"c/<l@nt. It al?o ?dvPrsffly ?,fl!ctl!d !
rPA's act ton, rP.qartffr,9 t'1e ?,?.?T and 511 ,eJ suspi-nsion 1rd
canc.. 1 lat1nn o!Id ft? rP.qul1torr action? r!'garr!1nq ot.hP.r pe?t1c1d11s.

-

-fi-

?. o

,.

Fraqi..nt!!(! Adnfnhtr.1t1on. !!equl?t1on of tht' u?e of .in_y tnx1c
suh,:tances, known or sns;,l!ct@d to a(!Yf'r?P.l y aff11ct puh 11c he-! 1th
nr thl! l!nv1 rnnr.,ent, rl!quf res 1 1ntl'qratPd <1<!1"11 'lhtrat 1on c,f sev .. ral
[PA pro!)rar.15. ?ie id?t11'ie-l a lac? of fntP..JrMt1on w1thin nPT'>,
hPtwP"n npp ind ors, and .ilso ht!tween orr?-?nd nther EPA offices.
For exarnple, 1n the Fhe Rfvl!"f 1nc1!lf!nt, tio'!' flfnxf" 1-lonftorfnq
Progrilffl coo1;d1n11tnr was fntP.rested nril_y in t'1e nfnxfn Issue,
t'1e Pestfc1<;l1' Incident 11,.spnnsI@ 11ff1cP.r wu interested only 1n
')P.ttfn1 an 1nfomat.1ve resronsie tn t'1" FlvP. l11vP.r'l rMMents
an(! the flu?rd F.:valm1tfon "1v1 1sfon t11rP.ctnr wiis tntt'reste1 1n
CCl'lplet1ng the Alsu Study, wh11ch- includP.-:1 analysf'.'i of Sl!"'l)hs
aht?1nl!f! fn tt,e F1ve Rivers co-,r,,unft_v. Tn 11rldftfnn, fnArlP.f1111tte
and inaccurate re,;pnnses ta ??"11!!'1? of Info Mat 1 nn Act ari?
dhcovery requests .rl!garctt ng tt1P. A lsP.a Sturl_y, thl! F fve Rf Yl!r?
fncir!l!nt, and 11t1qet1o11 tJndPr,I tloe 11 8t1oM1 ?'lvfron-,l!ntal
P1J 1f cy Act Wl!rl! the result of pnor co,,..,un f cat f nn a r,rf coort11 n?t fon'
hetwl!el'I tlie l'fffce nf Pestfci'1es "n<1 Toxic ?,ihshncPs ?nd t'1P
"ff1ce of l:t-11P.ral rounsel. l!e1 helf PY!! !;hp,;e P.xa,,oll!S of fra11,,..nt;Pd
arl,-,1 ni strat 1on cont.r1b11tl"'.l tn OPP o.s fa 11 urP to prnv1o1P r,rmpt,
t11rl!ct, and full rl!Spo'ls"s fn ?'1o Ffve l>fvP.r,; in,:fdP11t. Tt
aho f,.pPdt>d thP. proqr11s,; of t:i'1e fth!!? <:tur1y ?nrl to11, conr.1us1nn /
of the :.!,1,5-T anrl ?llvelf c,.ncelht.ion ?ctio11.

-1

'1verl11p01"1J Arr?n,-nts anr1 F" 0inct ions. ThP arr?n<)P.MPnt of
the orfjanfrattnn11l structures Ian<! their rl!l?tP.d functional
?t.?t""'EUR.'nts for !\P.P'i fluard F.v1111,u1t1nn "1Yis1on ?nrl R,m!!1'1ts
4nr1 Fielt1 ?turifes n1v1s1nn rar:allPl a11rl nP?rly d11rlfcate th<1.11!
nf OTS's ?e?lth an<l rnvfrol'll!lental nev1e-,, r1v1s10,, ""? Fxpnsure
GBPvalu?t1nn ?fv1s1nn. In the ca?" nf the !'he rhP.rs fncfl!ent.,
t?e Pestfcirte Inchfent llfesr,ons:e Offtc:er, n?513nerl to t!'e llo1m?n
Effects :"on1tor1n<<i ?ranch of the flenP.f1ts ?nrt "iPlrl St1Jd1es
n1v1s1on, was rP.spons1ble fnr jcoorrtfnatfng and prov1rt1nr: 11
rapfd response to rP?rtl!d f'!!Sitfcfd"" lnc1r!!!nt?. T?P. fr!rll!ctor
of tllP. Haza;r-'1 F:valuat.1on 01vis1on was rl??fl'lr.Sfhle fnr sc11'lntfffc
data and h,ii;.zard e..aluat1ons 1n sor;:,port of all l'!'F' ?rn,ir11.,,?.
T'1t' 01ox1 n 1.11'n1tor1 nq Pragral!I 1Coi,rdi n11tr,r, 115siqnl!rl tri th"
Sp,,.c1a1 Pll's't fcf111!5 RPY11!111 1'1v1.s1on, w?s P?f'll!'r.tP"1 tn coorcifnate
()po Rnd ot?r FPf. actfvit1es t1o provide 1nfn,...,11t1nn ?i,rt -lat?
fn. SU(!pOrt Of rl!')U11JtOry ?Ct1!1rS rPiardf 0'1 nPSt 1(:1,Jp? ?11!\WTl tn
cont11in nfox1ns. ?11c'1 nf thPo; 1<? kPy ?t11ff "'""'h"? '-11? resoonsfh1lft1es for "ll!rll!!lts of th'! F" lve Pfvers 1nr.:f,1ent, l:iut no onP.
l
iictPd to control t?P total .tct1v1t.y.
Ttiis overl?n nf 11rrar.')""11!n'l:s
an<! functfom'l res11ltet1 in no n .1! lil'fnri ?5sfq11!!'1 the to?al
control inti respr,ns 1h111t_v.
I

o I

..

.o

.

??

-7-

4.

Inadequate C()ntrol ar!d ilccountatii 11 t_y. lo/P. -.rf! a'>le to t.riice
acc01mt,1!>111ty_and control forJthe Fiv"! R1vPrs 1"c1-:!pr,t no
further tt,a11 thP. neputy .\ssht nt Arj,,,i,.istrator of orr>.
lrn"IE!d1 ati>ly after receir,t of tfe lP.tter' frt'l'II the F1v!'! ?h!'rs
resident5, he rlirect<!ff h1s sta f to rr,.fl'!re .a plan of actfo"
for a response to thi! 1nc1dent. The rlan.was to l\t> returnPf'!
to hi., withi" tw" ?e?s. r1n o?e 1ndh1!h1?l was assirme<!
r"spons1hflfty for the task an no plan WA? pr1>f\<1rerl, lie
atteoir,ted to detel':l!ine why the r plan h?n not beP.n rrepare'1, but
wP.. found no other evf!fe"c" thi1 the proo,rttss of thP. incft1itnt
re'sponse was t,eing 1110nitor@d. J11s nc,t.P.d in 2 and 1 11bovP,
.several inrl1viduah 11.,,1 r!!sponsihfl1ty for P.le..,ent? of tt,e
f'he RiVflrs 1"cident. M?'l'P.rL non!' was hPlri rP.snons1hll! for
plan 11f action 11or for
t!le faflure to rroduce the requflsted
I
the c0111plet1nn of Fr?'s r1>spo11se to the rive Qivttr? lnr.l?nt.
We found the u? 1 nade'.luate r.hntrol 11nd accounto1M 11 tv rP.l At1ve
to th!' Ahl'it Study and thP 2,?15-T itnd Sllvl!Y. 'IU!pflns1?n and
canct!llation actions. HonP. oflthe?P thra'! ?c:t.iv1t1,.s has?"""
offichlly concluded. We bellc!ve that 1natl11qu11te co,,trol ?nd
11ccountat,ll1ty contr1hute.1 Si<Jn1f1c?ntly to delaying tht-1r
CClipletion.
I
!legulatory Of!la:,,s. Hfect Ive r-?uhtory act Ions ?o pr111vent
adv,rse health effects and er.vir-onoie11t11l ""-:rad11tinn, r(!(JuirP.
thAt fl>A eitabl1sh and br,lf!"ll'?t coric1se rP.<mlatinn? a,,rt strAteq1es
for program a<1-li nl ?t rat ion II nd l execut 1on. Fro.,, th'! n Ir. rPv1 ew
ind inquiry Into t?e Flv? Rlvr.rs 1nc1dent, the rPlate,t Alse?
Study, and re(Julatory actions ?P.r;iir'dlnn ?,?.?-T, 511vPx and
other pest1cides, we founri ev1?ence of requlatnry delays. Th@
foll nwi na are reprf!sf!nt11t he cas,. stud! PS.

.

(a)

.

'

I

In l91i9, sc1t!nt1f1c ev1de?CP exhtl!'I r":i?r'11nq the tox1c1ty
of :?,?,5-T and related f111;,11ul11t1ons, SU?J'l'cti>-1 t() bf!
contamln?ted wit? Tenn. rsee flack1ro11n<1, P?'l" ::>.) EPA's
reo11latory itctlons lnvoh?n., canc'!l l?tfon 11ntl rP.re9htrat.1on
of 2, 4 ,?-T and Sllvex, bl!q1n in }Q7?. r.xtens1vP dP.l?ys
haoe rP.sultl!c1 frtl'1 lft1ga1!1on ijl1!l th.<! ad1'!1n1?trat1v11
hearing ?rOC@SSo Over this period Of SO!IIP fourteen yP.a,-.;,
EPII has not C!)Olpleted thiS r_l!r,ulatnry acti011.
(h) S1nce late 1970, sc1ent1f?c ?tudles indiutP.1! th11t POtentfal
atlvl!rsl! health effects "'1.ht re!;ult fro? P.x:,ns11rP. tn ',4-n
and rl!latf!d for,,,ulations. We r1P.re ?dv1sed th?t EPA !las
been activ11ly 1nvolvP.'1 1n rev1i>w ant! ?v?loi?tfon "f ?cfent1fic
111ta on ti-th family of ch . 1c?l for.,mliit1ons s1ncP. ?t
I
1,ut 197P. or 1q79. !11 J ly lO!l?, EP? lssu'!rl ? "!'?ta Call- '

l.

-

. /

.. A.

,-?w.

-11-

tn Not1cl!" t'oi- add1t1nna,1 tox1cologfc3l stud1es of ?,4.nl!
(one of' the nll!!lel"!!US ?,4 .n foMl!ulat 1ons) to t>e prov1t!Pfl.
by "' onufacturers by no l 1atnr th11n 1 qn,;.
_
l
In oi-r!er to i,,ore fully e,:plor,e this 1!151111, the tilt; plans to
1 n1t1atl! an ?":l1t of stolect
HP'!cts nf nPTS prl)tlrarns 1n
Ft,cal Yeai- l ..,14,
1

RFC?F.l'll'!IITJtlNS

.

!!aSl!d on the results of our rl!Y1P.W we recmmend th11t:
1,

The Assist.ant Adlil1ntstrator,
$ubstances (o:)TS):
(a)

(b)

2.

(c.)

I

1

ft'1ce of' Pn.t1c1t!l!S and Tf'.lx1c

l

.

1nfol"l!I thl! s1gners of t. "F1Yt! P1verso letter of t'le
. status of EPA's response to their re,uP?t,
!

prepai-e a plan, 1nclud1n? a tt? frl!BI!, for the COl!lplet1on
of tlMt 1nYl!St1gat1on 1nt the Fhe Riven 1nc1.rlent: 11nti
l
,rP.p1re ind furnisho report of the 1nvP.stigat1on to t"4!
Five IHvers res1dl!nt'5, I

The t\.ss1 st ant Adn1 n1 strator of Of>TS- ensurl! 1:?at 1111 correct hto
1ct1ons 1c!,onttf1ed tn the OPP\report ? trnplf!l"E!ntP.d ?t the
earltest poss1hle t1111e. Also, requ1rF! the 01r11cton of' OPP
a,111 OTS to 1nit1ate a cnordh1at"'1 rev1? c,t' the 1s,u1>s anti
problems 1dent1fted 1n the OPP rl!f)ort and t? 1?pler.ient any
furtlil'!r correcthe actions fount! to M requ1rM.

The Deputy Adlll1n1str1tor 1n1t1ate o rev1ew to loo? 1ntn CIU\e!
ind re-.d1es t'or 1n-,deq?te c9ntrol and 11ccountah111ty 1rlP.nt1f1etl
1n our rev1ew and 1nqutry. Sycli ? reY1!!W ?ho,11'1 include th11
effects of frequent or?n1iat1nnal Ch8ngP.s, fr?gllll!nt.erl
1d111tnhtr1tton, 1111! overlapp11)9 arrangP."'1!nts ant! f1mcttons.
I
I

bee: A-109: Co 1 ony :tms: ll/21/R3: 382 7,;110
l:1rl(endall (reading f11e)
AIGA
T1wana
RF.TYPED:A-lOCl:Col ony:jmh: 11/22 83 :3R2-71i0()

 A
EPR

I,

REPfJl:tT Ofl nm Rf.Vff\.: AHO IN011HlY
rnrn THt FTVF' RT'Jf PS Ttlr.J f\f.t.!T

At the reqt?st ?f the f)foputy Ad?in1strntor, tn? Offic? of the Ins?ectnr
?n?ral {f'ltG) 1n1t.iat.?d a rPv1Pw ,ind inquiry ir'ltt'I ff:'A'c. respo?i;e to the
Five RhPrs 1nciclt-r1t. The purposP of th,. nm pffvrt \,as:
l.

tn a\se?s th? accuracJ, covf'raqP, ?nd f?ctual cnntnnt af rlr?ft
r?orts rrepnrPd by the ntr1cP of 1>.-?ticide ::'ro<'ralis (nl'P) it1
rP.spon?f' t.o It rP.qve?t of thP. flPputy Ar.t,,,irlistr<1tor, related to
a l'E""?1n!.J l".on?rfl'?sinnr11 1n(lo,1ry r?(lar,t1nq "11n F.r.A ?t11t1y of
oio'ltin an,t nthP.r chen1c:a1 res1(jup? in thP FivP PivPrs arPn c,t
we?t@rn Oregon;o anrl

2.

to r?co-n?nd act1o"? to corr?ct pro?1ems i??ntifi?rl.

P.?c.suse of t1? cnnstra1nt? anc1 tli11! cmpl?l(Hy of thP ic;s11P\,, 'll!! did not
<"111ploy c1ll usual a11rl1t 11M 1nvestt')at.1vtt proc?.for+'>!- in t:t-iis rev1?w and
inquiry. Insteart of try1nQ to u.s1qr1 rPsJ)ons1h11itiP? to irdiv1rlu?1s
invr>lVPd with rr11 1 s respor,s? to the Fiv .. R1vPrs 1nc1o1Pl't, "'"' ?t.t1.....,ut?i'1
t:o ascert.t\f n thP. rP.uon? the ovPnts occurret1. nur scr>ol' -.<'? 11M1te1 to:
o

o
o

a,sPss1ng draft r??orts pre)ar?d hy opi,o t?r.tit.lPrl "A,.alysh of
F.PA'? H?n?11n9 of thP Fiv? Rivers 1?vPst1q?tion;o
,. .. ?P.ss1 nq all tfocnffl@ntat 1nn prov1 ded as referP.nc?? to t.l,P'iP.
rlraft. rP.ports. ,n,j furthPr 1nfol""'.t\t frm nMaf l'lj0'1 h_v nyr. c;taf1'
frc.-i 1nterv1?.i1? \r.'1 rlocuf'!tl'11ts c11cce-;??'1 l'i?1r1ri9 the courc;P of the
r.-v1c"' ?n<1 inquiry;
r?1e\'.1 1nq and asst!ss1nc 1rist1tut1ona1 arranoNents, f'lrr;;.int1r1ti0Ml
structur('S, fur,ct 1on;1l stater:tel'lt? anr! r?l?tP.1 rll,'lrH1,,?,.?nt and
?nMinhtrAtfvp ooltciPs. r,rncP.rl11rPS anrf nr?c:t.ic?s of thP. nrr1cP.
of rr.sticidP.s .iil'd Toxic Suhr.t.ancPs {fWTS) 1p,ii Hs sun-off1u1s,
t.ne nffice of Pestic1,1? t>rf),JNII"? ond t:'1<" nff1c1- of Tnxic
Substanc";

-2-

0

0

ssses,;1ng issues, problems, the \gP.nerr.l ovr.r?ll situations
related to rl'A mananer.iP.nt of th 1 Five rtivl!rs incident, ,ind
other fnterrel?ted pro?ram act.1v1t1<>s, rl'!'lUla.tnry and leqal
act iot1s: and
\
Rsse?s1ng corrective actions c tained in the draft reports of
J

fll>P 0

Tim orr. r"1v1ew and inquiry was 1n1t1at
011 Si>ptr,?1bPr r., l"fl? anrl was
completed on Octoher ?.l, 198?. i"ur1r,q t.his p,?riod, field visit? wl're
rnade to ma,lor installAtions involvi><:1 in [the Fivi! ?ivP.rs incident to
interview kr.y st.iff iind obtain 11ri,:t revi?1o1 records iln-l ot.h?r rlocwn,,ntation. In addition, similar efforts w1r? 11r:cri"lp1i5h"1 in r:r,, \ 1e<1dquarter!:,
Ua?hfn<Jton, n.c. On Octohf>r 21, 19'1?, an infor,,1?1 Fo?E,tin<1 involvinq rnr;
staff am! the fl1 rector 11nrf l11>1'Uty l'li rector of nrr wns hrl rl to di sc1Jss thP.
preliminary results of the !'.'Ir. reviP.w and inquiry.

RAr.KGRl'Urm

FPA is responsible 'for adniin1stering .an array nf r""lat."d envir0no1P.nUl
progra,:is nnc1er mandates of tile r.onqress. The prim?ry nh_iect.1ve of these
st?tute? is thGBP! tirotection and-mainten?11c? of poJb11c ht!altn Mel the
riu111ity of the environment. In the Five !livers 1nr.f<lent, r. 0 r, ccterJ
under ?uthor1ty of PL-92-511>, t.hl' F<!derlll tnsect.icide, Funr:ici'1P ?rid
?odPnt1cirle ,\ct of f'lctobPr ?l, 1972 and Jll 94-4"'!, the Toxic S11?stanc1<s
r:ontrol Act of Octoher 11, 1976. These stijtut?s 11rov1de EPI\ with thr!
respons1hility and ?uthority to control ttie prod11ction, usP, ?nn riisros?l
of pesticides anrl oth,ir toxic. suhshnce-s..
As early as l'lllQ, t.he sc:i2ntHic C?.!'lrnunity loas ?ware H,P.t the herhicine
:1,4,ri-T was contaminated 111th ?,:l,7,l1-tet.racn1orocfih,?n1.0-rara-dioxin
and
(TCl1fl) and__that TC!lJ?...!:f..'!.,S fl!l.tf''lt1_11]_l,y--!gt'oto?ic (c<111ses ?bort .
St ilJ t,fE:... t;hs),C?J;).!J.Q!Jl!,!liC ( C,i!l.L??C.O.!lCP.'.r), 0QCOill'J.DJJ:_ .r..aLL?es_ tuo1QE_,?) ,
teratoqen1.c (c?usns hi rth <lnfec:t5 ). ! In 1?1n, as a result of this
infomation, the SecrPtarirc: of .?grfcult.11re,
lntr>rior, ?nrl 'ln?ltti,
o
I
Education ancl ?lelfare (the f"!d!!ral a,::.enc,le? then re?oonsihl<> for
r.ontroll1nn p'!stici".f!'?) aMoou1cer! the su1.spi?nsfon oft.hr? re-:;fstratfM of
2,4,5-T. This ?ction was 1111succ!'Ssful. ?uh,1!q1.1ent rr>t, efforts, <1ur1ng
theo r,eriorl 1971 to \Q77, to SIISJJ"?O<' t,hP. 1rP.?1 strr-tion for ?on<> "s"? also
failed <111e to l<'r;al r.l\vl li-ntJes ?nd 1nc? ('f technical ,.,,,.th(lc1olo::;y to
reliably ,,e?sur'i! t.h"! amt>unt? of Tr:ni1 pre?ent in the environment.

1i:ncf

OP.tween 1075 and 1977 EPA help!'<! dt>velnp t.he tec?nlc?l c?ranil1ty tri
reliahly measure the proser.ce of Tcori in tho 1i11virnnnc>nt ?t. thP. parts per
trillion level. OPP's Ep1de 1iolo!jical S?udies Proqra.? was also <>?ti!l:>lisherl
to 1nvest1qate the relatinr.ship hetwN'" p<!sticirte usl? ?11ct hu??n he,1lt.h,
with ?ph;ic:1s 011 herh1c1rfes containing Tr,11n. F.r,, was Al?o involvPrl in
several studies deslnned to chtemine tt>e presence rif ?od to neasure the
amount of Tr.mi 1n hu?an. milk and the body tissues of hui,ao<; ?.nrt animals
PX posed to TC no.
0

o

I
I

I.
I

I

j

-3'
I

In 197P., npr initiated the /\hea St.ud_v. u?der its F.pirlef'lioloCJical
Stud1 l'S progra"1. des i ')Ill!!! to detP.mf ne 11' /th'!re- 11a. s a 9rP.a ter 1 nci dencP.
of soontaneous abortions ;;r.,on9 humans exposed to Term relative to those
not exposed ,ind also to rleter,iifne 1f the ti::,1ng of spontaneo1Js .ahort!rn,s
was related to the tirna of TCl'l!1 l!Xposurf!. I This study ,ias centerert fn
the Alsea. Oregon arP.;i of the 5u1s1?w t:at?onal Forest. lt \tas initiated
1n response to a letter fror., S<:!veral feMilll' residents illlec;ing that the}o
had exreri enced spontdneous abort ions anr1 lather ?dv<1rst> heal th l?ffects
as a result of exposure to :?.1,5-T. !n F?hrw1ry 197?, EPA p11blfshe<1 a
r'!port on tile relationship between hP.rbicil.-J" u?aqe and snont.aneo,,s ,1hl)rtions
fror1 fts Alsea Study, ever, though environr.iental sampling 11n,1 ijr,alysis
had not hl!l!n completed.
.

I

.

I

. On March 1, 1979, F.PA 1?suet! its first F.mergrncy Su;perision Order,
restricting r,,ost uses of the herbicides ?.Ji\,5-T arid Silve>x. In May.
after the cher.ifcal industry's withdraw?, ?ro.? the er.ier'}ency s11sr,ensiori
tiearfng, l'PA teN,1n11t1>rl the hearfl'lg. EPA prn?ptly aonouncl?rJ the cancel lilt1on
and he?rinqs
f)f rE!gfstration for most uses of th!!se che,,iicals.
. on this
'
a<:tion began about e1 qht MOnths later, In ,luly 1070, fPA r'!cni\<r>!i ?
lettM signed by snve'ral fP"lale resident? !Of the Fivt- P.ivers Cl)01nunity
1n Oregon. These residents also claimed to have experiencP.r1 spontHneous
abortions ;inn other arlv'!rse '1e?lth effer.ts sif'lilar to those of thP. /11?,.?
rP.s1tlents 11s a result of herbicidf.! exposure, srec1f1cally ;>,?-n and
Plclor?"I. The Five fl1vers com,?un1t.y ls a 51'4'111 su!J-ilrea within the
Alsea, Oregon are11 of the Suhli!w Hatfoni!l ' ForPst.
I

Based on our 1 ntervf ews ancl the records we reviP.we<i. It appears that
l'PA's rP.sponse to the Five !'.?iv!!rs com::ilaf?t was 11dore5S<;>.1 hy includinq
1t 1n the environr.,ental samplinq and analysis .ict1v1t1es stfl 1 being
conrlucterl under the plan of action for the /1.lsea ?tudy. Hater, serli'lll!nt,
human and an1mil tiss? S<3nples were coll?cten fro,, th,? Fiv'! Riverq
arP.a. fl final rerort, s11m,,mri1.ing the analytical rPsults nf this co111b1ned,
mcpanded study was prep?red in June 10?.3. This report cont,,1ns tl1e
re?ults of 11n111ys1s for TCfll'l 1n the samples oht.a1r.ed frne, hoth the Alse?
and the Five !!Ivers area. fl?r. TableJY.Jt !lf this J? l'l!H rt'!J:>nrt
erroneously included data relaten to sarnrles ohtainect .1r1 !?r.qion v.
Fsta'llhhe>rl proctirlures r!!f!uire peer M11iew ancl/r>r F:PA's revieu ?nd approval
of reports rreD11re<1 for ft unrler contract /t>y lnhorator1es, universities,
etc. ln spite of that, thh r<?port was r?lP.ase<I to the puhlic ?1ithC1ut
any rev1ew or approval. tfo other 1nformatfon regarrlirHJ he?lt.? P.1'fect5
data has been provided to the Flv!! l<ivP.r<; res icients h_y FPA.
--

I
I

------

I

-

---4o
P.F:Slll T5 OF THF.
A.

om

Rt:'!IH! IV!!' HINJlllV

l

The l!?f''s Analysis of Handling oft e Five> !'ivP.rs IncidP.nt

I

Infor-matfon obtll1ne? durinq our rev11ew ,1nrl inquiry into the Fiv'.!
l!ivers fnci<leot S11f)r,orts these siqn1flcA11f: st.JtP'.'lent? osac!" 1o nPr>'?
draft rP.pnrt, rlated nctoher 25, 1Q11:
1.

2.
J.

r.o sa!'lples 11ere lost, rii?l?b<!11'1 or .ohP'.1 with ntn;,r sal'lrles.
r<icor-i!s exi5tl' t!lltt. clearb Mtiihlish the
Cl1a1o-of-cu!1.tody
'
1de11tity end location or d1sp.o,sftior, of J1 l SR?lfllPs."

I

A report 1ncludfng analytical ,re?ult? fror, tb" Alsed Stu".ly
erroneou?ly 1nclml!.orl '111t,1 on sriple? frlJl1 nr,gfon v. This error
of thp r,wor-t tn the rub! 1c
was not cf!!tt"CtP.cl prior to rf!leaSP.
I
hf!caoise r&111f red rev11!l'S 11or" lnot rlone.

There w?s not a sep?rat" anrl irlf!ntifiablf! "Fivf! P1vers lnvf!st1(J?tfon,o nor was a fom?1 pl!!n Clf 11ction ?.Ver rr,or,,1,-i,'1. ?lncto
the F1ve !livers 11n,j Alsf!? are11? arf! adJ?cPnt ?n<1 since l"ll!111l"11t.s
of Um /\lsPa stu<1y '"'r" still In rroc<.>s? at that ti!'.li-, U1 e
/\!sea study wa? t>xp11nderl ta en,cir.:irll?s thr, Flv" rher? ,,re? aPd
its rP.,;1.-1-;>ots. This dP.c1?ion '.Ms re8l'.hood infor:-,?11v 111111 wg
ur1r.!e rs tood by persoM 1 nvnhe,,: 1 n tho ex.ml n,H I on. . iom;nvPr,
this drcfsion 1,as not ccr.!"lunic-,terl to the fivP. r>ivers rP?1rlents
nor!!) 11].l. Wpro?r11o, ?r-snnn'ol invnlV<1<1 .1? thn.
--- Study
- A1s<'?
11n<:l relater1 !:P? rMulatory octl1or,s.
-

--

--

o

Th!! fnr.t that thl'r'l ,1a,; not ii s1i;1aratP and irt ntifi11blr F1w!
q1v1>rs in11nstl1atlo11 coultl bl! c:alled ? r1ci,11>ncl?i:ure problP."'o
S<'voral th1nqs contr1hut.P.d to ,this prot>l,?m. The Al<;e? Sturly
w1s cond11ctt?t! in tom phnsl"S and l)rHJiln t.1, tw r<'f P.rrod to 11$ the
.-?lsea ro a11(f .A1sea IT" studies, So1bs?1rn?nt.ly, th" Five
>>1v'!'rs incident beq?n to hl' referrNJ to a5 oithP.r t.hP .?1ve
?.111?rs Study" nr thtl "Five Rivers !nvest11atinn." !"ersoM
out5irlP. 1-:t>A sO'!leti!:,es refP.rr-eci to hoth or"tr-,<:?se r.:@o1tmHies as
b1>in'.J "thP. Suhla'l llational FnrP.?t ilrP.?." 4.drled to th1s 1s
the fact t!l?t sooie Ef'A persnnntl i nvo l v,:,d 1 n t!te :1ocoJ'"'P.nt
?Parches in respons,-. to infort'j-'tion rf!'l''":;ts werC> not. ??:or'!
that r,l5e? ?ml F1ve R1ver? 11eT 1n the ?11i,1a-.i !l1ttion,1l Fnr1?st.
This 09mP.nclatur-e prohlf!f'l re?ult? in [P/\ 1 5 C'lr,fusion 11nd dPl11y
fri rP.spo11c!inq to !"P.f1IJ'!Sts for l111fomatl<:1n in r'!l?tion to t.hn
i.',4,5-T and Silv<'x c?ncellatiM he?rings ?nrl in r,11,,tion to
11 t 1 ?at ion f n w'11cli ir. 1 s i,re?;n.ntl_Y f nvo 1 V<''f.
0

I

".

'.

lie i'ounrl l!o evi c!enct> to 1"c!ica 1to i r,tent. tn cor>cenl or- rlP. 11 ber11te
failure to di?clo5e 1?forMat1011 re1?tin? t,o thn Five Rivers
fnc1 dent.

-5-

o.

The Otr. 's Expanrted R1Jvi ew an<! Tnqu1 ry Into P.r.1 at ed Prn']ram !'ana,:n,,ent
Issues

I

The ornos e,q,?nded reviP.li anc! inquiry idi'ntif1(id c.irtafr. ;irogra"'
managw.ent issues tliijt contri !'luterf jto fJ> /1 1 s 1 nad?uate response to
tlH! Ffve l!fv(!M fnc1clent. The?e
as i'(lll.ows:

1,

&r

Organiz?t1onal Changes. ?egi?ning in late 1976, EPA's admfnf-
strat1ve structure for w<11nager.1ent of tlie Fetioral Tn51'!Ct ic1de,
Fu1191<:ide and l!odentfcide Act and Toxic Substances Control Act
programs und?rwent several major r1!organi zat ions:
o

(a)

{b)
(c)

In 1-love"!bP.r 197?. the?e progra?,s 1terE' rel'l-OvP.d fro!? the
11ffici:, of Water -111\!1 Hazardous t111terhls and est11bli shed as
the Office of Toxic Suhstances at ?n Assi?tant Mminfstrator
level.
i
In March 1'H8, the 01'fice1 nf Toxic Suhstances was
subdiv1<led and given fnu? l'eputy Assistant M?11n1?tr?t,,rs
one nnch for Pesticide Pro,1ra!11!l, Chfl"liCl!l Control, Te?t1ng
and Eva l u?t 1on, end Pro gr a"' t11tp_qrat 1 on ft nd l" fon,iat ion.

I

In Septe<">her l'!RO, tlie Offic'! of Toxic Sut>stnnces was
renaried the Office (If Pest ii::fd<'S and To?ic Sutist?rll''.P.'I
(l'PTS} end or911n1l('d with two Deputy llss I stant A?frrl strfttor<:
for thP. Off1c@ of 1>?st1cijdll' Pro'.Jra,1s (OPI') a,1d th;> 1'11'f1ce
of Toxic Su?5t?nces (OTS).

-

1,

I,

I

I

ThesP. changP."I to the or911nlzat1 1nnal structurP \<(ore ,,cco,ipan1i>d
changes 1n the adr?1n1st.rative pP.rson,1el and io th11 functional
statefll'!nts of several ?l!Y Mv1 11s1ons an,t Branches w1tt, the ()?I'.
Thesl! Oivisions and Rranctrns were re?ponsihle for the A1$P.ff
Stu<ly, F.l>A's response to the ?ive 111vers 1nc1!1EUR-nt, and ?re
involved 1n the susr,ensfon and cance11ation nf ?.,4,5-T ?nd
SilvP.x, as well &5 regulatory :actions for all other pesticirlP.s.
We belfco1r, tl1?:se orr;anfzat1ona 1 ch,rnges r.ontrfllut1od tfl !'PA's
1
faf1ure to ex:,edftiously COMPlttl!
the ftlstta Str:dy ?n1 to arteq1111t?)y
respond to the Five Rivers inc 1r1?nt.. ll- ;i)2_o a<1v1,rsnly affect.P.d '
f:J'.'A's actiQ.ns rP.garrl1ng t.h.P. 2,,14,5-T a11d Sil vex suspensiOJI -?
cancel lat1<111 andTtsrequlatory
- ..:___-; actions regardfng other pesticides.

hy

I

I

ll'I! found the OPP report., dated Octobar 25, }Oll'.l, prnvft!es a narrat1v<!
of F.PJl.'s handll11ri an,1 tlie current -?t;itus of its "FivP. Rivers T1west1- ,
gatfon.o llow,wer, the doc1_1ment <lo?s not ?ddrMs thl! cl rcw..,stllnci,s anrtl
conditions wfth1n fr>A thi!t cont.r1t1ytP.d to its f?1l11rr. to prtwlde a
I
t1'11ely am! a<lequ?te r<1sponse to th P. c:1tfzeris of the 1'11: 1> Oivr.rs
cor.munf ty, ThP.se c1 rcucistances an. conc!1t fans ?re di scussnd 1n tliP
fo 11 owi r>Q sect ion.
l

--

''

-fi-

2.

I

FraQ!'lent,?
Adr1inistration. Rr.qul.:,tion
of the use of anyo tox1c
o
I.
suti?t.ances, known or sns;,ecte1 to ?(lver5P.ly affect puhl 1c hE'l!lth
nr thP. environment, rf!?uires 1ntegrated ,1<1,.ini?tration e>f sel/P.ral
[f'A pro9ram5. He 1rfontif11!'l ij lack of integr,,t1on ??ithin OPT?,
hetwP?n ?PP and OTS, and alsol'>etwP.en OPTS ?nd othP.r F.PA offices.
For exRmjlle, in th(' Five Rive?s inc1rJP.nt, ttie Dioxin rionitor1nq
Progral!l coorclin?tor was intP.risted only in the nioxin ;??UP.,
t?e Pesticirll" Incident Qespons" 'lfficr>r w?s interestil<l only in
?P.ttiM. an 1nfornat1ve response
' to the Fiv,; t?ivnr? resitlents
?nd the l!azarct F:valuat1on flivision director was 1ntl"re?tl'1 ir,
cOMpletinq the Alsea Study, o1?ich includP.d donlysi? of sa.,pl!!s
ohtafnerl in tho Five Riv(lrs comrmnit_y. Ir, hdrl1tinn, 1Q?rlegunte
Jl..Qrl inaccuratP. resvon?es _J;n. Fneerln,"'l of Infor,,at1nn Act an<1
discovery r?ts rf!gardfn9 tnl! AlsP.a .s?ill!_v, the Five RiyP.rs
i_!!illP.nt, and l1t.1gatio" unctP? the M?tional Envi ror>"lent?l
Polley ?t WP.re thP. result._Q_f poor cww1unication anrf co_ordfn,;tfon
5etwf!eri the Office of Pestlcirles and Toxic ?1J?stancPs ?nd th.-.
flfffce of t:e111Jral rounsel. We helieve 1;1,.,?e examplf!s of fr,111mentecl
a(i111nfstr,lt.1on c:ontril>utc-d to r)flP's failure to providP prcr.ir,t,
r1irect, and f11l1 rP.Sf'0!'1S'1S fn ,t?e Five RivP.rs inci,!ent. It
al?o fi,ppcted thl! pro?rP.s? of t'he Alse? St.urly ?nrl thP. conclusion
of the :.!,?,5-T and ?llvex c11nc 1ellat.ion action.
I

o

I

Overlapping Arr?ngeri\>nts anrl Foinctlons. Thi> arr,1n9eMent of
the orqan1zat.1nri,,1
structures 'anti their rnlilt.P.d functional
.
stilti>r1l'nts for rPP's i'azard Eval11ijt.ion rJ1vis1nn ;inci RO?n?.fits
Rnd Field St,idies {livisinn parallel anri n<';,rly doirlicatf! tl1ose
nf OTS's fl!!,?lth anrl ?nvirone,entill rleview !'1vis1on ;in? Exr,.,sure
Evaluntfon ftivisinn. In the ca?P. Qf the Five Pivers incident,
t'ie Pestlcit!e Incident 0.f:sponse Officer, ass1gnerl to thP. l!l1rc1an
Effects MonHorfnr:, T!ranch of t?e flenP.fits .incl F1<>lr1 StoJdies
fl1vision, was r"!sponsi\:lle for r,oorrtinnting and providinQ ?
rapid rec;ponsP. to rennrtnd f''!Stic1de incident?. Th() flirector
of the tlazar'1 F.v?lu8t.itJn l"livis'I on was re?p'Jns1ble for sr.l,:,ntiflc
data and h:izard 1!v111uations fn I s11pport of all f1f>f' proqrnms.
Thi! Dioxin Mr,n1torfnq Progr11rn foordiMtnr, assigned to t.hP.
Sr,!!c1al Pest1c1'1es f!Pview Division, >Ms e?nr?ct"" to cnordinate
OPP and oth?r F.:PA activities th provide illfor-,-?at.inn nn? -fat.a
in support of re9ulat.or_y ?ctiors re1ard1 n? nestici.Jes kno1m to
cont11in flioxins. f.llcli of thPSf- kP.y ,;taff ,?pr,hers had res1illns1hilit1es for ,.lenents of th<J FJve Rivers incident, t,ut no one
?C:tP<l to c?trol ? total /!Ct vit.y. This overl?p nf ?rran']"PJents
an<J functions resulted in no oi!l! he1n'] assiqnerl the to?al
control and res pons lhfl ity.

-74.

tnadefluatP. Control arid Accountahi11tv. ? '?" a?1e to t?
?cco11nt,1t,111 ty nnd r.ontr"l 1.!)r thP. ? v,0 1.?s 1n.c11Pr:it no
f..!.LC!),Pr t?I'\ thP. n?poty f\ssi c;tnnt. Ariri11'11 str__tl.or o OPP.
1??ed1atPly aftPr rec?1f\t of th 0 lPtter frm th? FivP rivPrs
rPsidP.ntc;, hp rlirect?<f his stt1H to rr"p.llre ? rl;ir1 nf 1'ct.1M
for a respons? to thP 1ncidC'nt. Th<' r1 lon ?as ':o "n re-turnPrl
to hil'I within tw" wr-i>lcs. ?-l'l onP 1n<11'/i'1u.iil wi"c; a!.sinned
rospons1h1lity for the t,11-k 11nt1 n0 rl.:in "'A'- nrPMtrPrl. ,:e
att-irtPr1 to <?t?r:lline why thP pli!n h;i'1 not "rPn rr?p"ret1, but
wP fo,,nd no nt er PV11f'"ICP th"t the rrnc!r?c;s r,f t!'l? 1 nc1rl1> nt
r?sponse "'"? "!'1n1J 1o10n1tilrNI. ,,? nrtf\d in 2 ,rnd 1 ?!'iovP,
sPvera1 inrt1v1,1ualc; hM ret;pc,ns1h111ty for ?lC,..,Pl"lt? of thp
r1vP. R1v(lrs 1r,cirlP.nt. uOvlf> P.r, nnnP wr1s hPli rr>snnnsihlP for
t?e failure to rro?1cP thP rcquPc;t?rl rlan nf i,ction nor for
the c??p1?t1on of FP 's rPc;pons? tn tne rive ?iver? inr.1cpnt.
\J? +'ounct the ?,u,fl' inarlp?uat? rontrn1 11nrt account1't"li1ity rP1Ativ<l
to tho Alc;P? Stu<1v and thP ?,11,S-T r1nci 51lv?Y. ?llSCPnSil'ln cll'l,1
c1'nce11at1on actions. NonP 0f trcc;P thrQ? ?r.tiviti s hn? h"Pn
offic1itl1y conr.lu<IPCI. \Je ?P11cvP tt,i'lt in;i'1pq11?t:e contro1 ?nrf
c\ccountat,111ty contr1h11te<1 si']n1f1cr1ntly to 1t>1r1yinq their
c0t,plet1on.

5.

qegulatory ?hvs. Ff feet ive r?'lllt-'tnry act ion,; 1:0 DrP.vent
ac1ve-r5t> health effects anc1 env1rol"l''lel'lt"'1 ,.,.,1ri,C1,11tinn, re<iu1rP
t1,.11t fPA establish 11nd 1r:ir,l?"'?r,t concis? re<1ulat1on? 1'MI str;iteq1es
for program ?tt,,,1n1c;tr;ition f\nd exrc1Jt.inn. Fro"1 thP oyr. rPv1ew
i11nrt 1nq,,iry into to," F1v? R1vrrs incident, tli? rPlate,1 Alse.:t
Study, and re!Julator.Y actions rP?rrino ',?.'i-T, ?11vPx anti
oth{'lr pPst1c:1df's, we founrl evidence of rP<Jli1ator.Y cie1?1ys. ThP.
foll('lwing 11re reprPsPnt.11t1ve Cll?P st11d1M.
Jn 1'3#i9, sc1Mt1f1c ev1rlf"nCP e>.ht?d rP1H'11nC) tl'le toxicity
of 2.1\,5-T a"d re1ate'1 for'll'l11l??. su?f"PCtP<1 to hP
cont-,n1Mterl w1th TCrin. {??e "?ck<1ro1mc1, Pa,,,.. 'l.) El'f\'s
r?oulittor)' 111ct1ons involvinc, CMCf'llAtfnn ,11nrl rPrP!"Jistr?t.1on
of ?.4.?-T ?nrt ?11vex, bPq?n 1n 1Q7?. ?xtens1vr rlPl"'Y'
have rP.sultPr1 frcri 11tioat1on ;ir1d th" <<rll"lin1c;trat.ivf"
hear1ng proc?ss. Ov?r t?1s period of sn?P fQurtrPn y?a?,
F.PA has not C()lllpl?t?d this riac;111?tnry ?ct ion.
(h}

Since latP. 1q1n. sc.1entH1c ??"S 1ndic"t?c1 th?t POtPnt.fal
ad.'Lttc.sP. ?th Pffects Mi?ht rest1lt frn,.. Pxpns11rP to ",?-n
11nt1 r111lat?r1 fomulat1ons. We t-1r-rc Ac1vis?c1 thi't fPf\ has
bf'en Act1v?ly 1nvo1v,..r1 in rr-v1Pw anr1 ... v-'io1?ti"n nf c;cfent1f1c
'1?t11 on this fa-i11y nf che--,ic..-1 foM11lat1Qns si"lCP ilt
lf'ast 197P. or lC'l7<>. y., ,July 10??. [PJ\ 1 ssu? "' .!'?ta Cal 1-

 

Five Rivers, Oregon
March 16, 1985
Hon. James Weaver
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Overview of National Dioxin Political ?ituation
Dear Congressman Weaver:
Kevjn said that an overview of the dioxin political situation
would be useful to you. This overview is based on my ten years of
involvement in the dioxin issue and review of over 15,000 pages of
recently-received EPA internal documents. We will prepare documented
reports over the next few months, but in very broad, sketchy terms, this
is what we see happening:
To put it bluntly, dioxin-caused abo?tions and birth defects
in Western Oregon are only the tip of a deadlt iceberg. Virtually the
entire nation is contaminated with dioxin at hazardous levels, and EPA
has actively participated in a government-wide effort to keep the public
ignorant of what can only be termed a national emergency. To a fright\
ening degree, that effort has succeeded.
In 1979, the same year that Vietnam veterans filed a class
action lawsuit against manufacturers of Agent Orange, the EPA issued. an
emergency suspension of most uses of dioxin-contaminated 2,4,5-T and
silvex, based largely on epidemiological evidence from the Alsea study
area in Oregon. Over the next two years, EPA developed overwhelming
evidence of the extraordinary toxicity and persi.stence of dioxin at
almost infinitesimal doses, as low as one part per trillion. In addi-
tion, EPA scientists were discovering many times that toxic level of
dioxin in domestic water supplies, wildlife, game animals, human moth-
ers' milk and human tissues in western Oregon, associated with birth
deformities, involuntary abortions, reproductive disorders, and other
heal th effects.

.

'

While one EPA team developed this devastating evidence against
dioxin for use in the 2,4,5-T cancellation, however, other divisions
within EPA were discovering the extent of dioxin
contamination throughout the country -- levels
thousands of times higher than 1 ppt in manufac-
turing sites, in areas surrounding dumps, and in
fish from the Great Lakes, the Hudson River, Nar_ragansett Bay, and Gul f states waterways. The
Canadian government, distressed by high levels of
dioxin in fish and in sea gull eggs from Canadian
Great Lakes waters, suspected the contamination to
be of American origin; by 1981, the EPA had traced
(503)

JIM

WEAVER,

March

16, 1985,

page 2:

the Great Lakes dioxin to Dow Otemical Company's manufacturing complex
in Midland, Michigan.
By early 1981, it was cle ar that to proceed with the 2 ,4,5-T
cancellation, showing l ppt dioxin to be a significant risk to human
health, would cause economic, political, and social devastation, both
nationally and internationally. On the basis of EPA's evidence against
2,L., 5 -T, whole areas of the country could be declared uninhabitable, the
chemical industry would collapse tmder m?ssive liability suits, rela-
tions with Canada would be further strained, if not broken, and the
Vietnam veterans' cl aims against bot h the chemical companies and the
government could result in liability exceeding the gross n ational
product.
Rather than alert the public to the growing danger or seek
Congressional action to resolve its regulatory dilemma, EPA put the lid
on the entire subject, quite liter ally closing the door on the 2,4,5-T
By this time -- well before
cancellation pru?eedings in March, 1981.
John Hernandez and Ann Gorsuch Burford came aboard -- references to the
Alsea Study were routinely delet ed or qualifie d ii EPA reports and
public statements. Political appointees took the blanll for longstanding
policies of the EPA civil service, policies that are sLill in effect.
For the next two years, while industry flooded ?he scientific,
medical, and popular medi a with propaga nd a minimizing the hazards of
dioxin, EPA joined the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administra-
tion, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food & Dntg Administration,
and other federal agencies in a concerted effort to develop consistent
"accepta ble" levels of dioxin contaminati on -- levels based not on
safely, but: on political and economic expediency.
Because these levels, such as the COC's one part per billion,
were fodefensible by any scientific or regulatory standards, they were
ti t1ed "levels of concern," suegesting to a trusting public that any-
Lhing below such levels was not worth worryini; about. Neither EPA nor
COC warned the public or Congress that one part per bill ion is
one thousand times the lowest level of dioxin -- the lowest dose ever
tested -- fow1d to cause multlgenerational reproductive effects in test
anjmals. The "levels of concern" are in fact no more than a cold-
blooded disinformation campaign, with no other purpose than to manipu.
late public opinion.
. )
The campaign to replace safety standards withl i 'evels of
concern"/.!. found eloquent expression in former EPA Administrator William
Ruckelshaus's speech to the National Academy of Sciences in June, 1983.
With public and congressional acceptance of "levels of concern" for
dioxin, t he stage was set to exonerate 2,4,5-T and bury the d amning

1/ This tack was also taken by Ruckelshaus in dealing with the EDB
fiasco. Rather than fulfill its own statutory mandate to take action,
EPA issued recommended levels of concern and left the individual states
It warrants notice that "levels of concern"
Lo take regulatory action.
rnther than "margins of safety" are unlawf11 under several EPA statutes.

JlM WEAVER, March 16, 1985, page 3:
evidence EPA had amassed. The scheme collapsed t wo months later, how-
ever, when t wo pages of that evidence surfaced i n federal court i n
Eugene. The pages were laboratory analyses showing six times the 1 ppb
"level of concern" in the Al sea study area, from the use -- rather than
manufacturing -- of herbicides. If the public were to learn that such
levels could result from the use of herbicides, then every place such
herbicides had been used is a potential disaster area.
Although the EPA successfully convinced the media that those
high level samples actually came from Dow Ghemical Company, the incident
jeopardized the secrecy of EPA's evidence on dioxin. To re-register
2,4,5-T would open the cancellation record to public scrutiny. In
October, 1983, as EPA completed an internal "investigation" of the
mixed-up samples, Dow and EPA simultaneously announced the permanent
voluntary cancellation of 2,4,5-T. The cancellation record -- with its
evidence of dioxin's staggering toxicity -- thus became a dead horse
politically, and the "levels of concern" campaign proceeded with little
or no serious challenge.
UndeT the guise of "levels of concern," government agencies
can simply close their eyes to dioxin contamination in hundreds of other
substances -- pesticides, drugs, industrial chemicals, cosmetics, manu-
facLuring wastes -- which continue to increase an already toxic burden
nationwide. Furthermore, Ruckelshaus's 1983 speech suggests Lhat levels
of concern for dioxin are only the beginning, a test model for managing
public concern about all toxic substances. The regulatory apparatus
Lhus becomes a public relations arm of the poisoners, whose vested
interest is maintaining public ignorance.
In short, we have a regulatory agency held hostage by the
regulated industry, an all too familiar situation. The dioxin crisis
underscores the need for drastic and rapid re for?, through omnibus
legislaLion to deal with all toxic substances under a single statute.
The gut issue for reform has to become the individual citizen's right to
p,rant or withhold informed consent before being exposed to a toxic
substance.
I want you to know how greatful I am for your commitment to
Lhis issue over the years. I know you believe -- as I do -- that toxic
substance issues are resolvable. There are far too many elected offi-
cials \lho prefer to hide their heads in the sand. I appreciate your
courage.
Sincerely,
CAROL VAN S1RUM

CVS:pem
L:C:

file

,_ I

DIOXIN PAOCAGE
?\lllllarx
1. "Physical and Chemical PrOPf!rties of .Dioxins in Relation to
Their Disposal," National Bo1reau of Standards paper by W. M.
Shaub & W. Tsang (undated draft, c. 1982): Discusses some of the
limitations on destroying dioxins by incineration, the extraordi-
narily complex and specific conditions required to destroy dioxins,
and the likelihooJ of actually generating more dioxins through
an imperfect process. Note especially the7ast page table of
dioxin decomposition times. Important, too, is the fact that
these times are only for? phase, and that particulate matter
(e.g., fly ash) introduces another va?iable altogether.
The conclusion to be drawn from this study is that to incinerate
dioxin-containing or -producing waste efficiently requires highly
specialized equipnent maintained in perfect operating order at
all times, highly trained, competent personnel, constanl monitoring
of the process and emissions, and therefore lots of money.
Furthermore, even assuning all of the above are available, a
99.99% efficiency, impressive though it may appear, still means
the incinerator will be emitting small amounts of dioxins (and

God knows what else) continuously, which will persist (e.g., two
billion years) and accumulate in the environnent.
2. Direct Testimony of Dr. Otto Hutzinger (in the EPA 2,4,5-T
cancellation proceedings): Hutzinger was a Dow Chemical Company
witness and demonstrates a bias toward Dow's "Cod makes dioxin"
theory that dioxins are a product of natural combustion, but
nevertheless he provides.a good review of dioxin production by
European municipal incineLators.
3. Direct Testimony of Dr. George Streisi?er (2,4,5-T cancellation
uroceedings, EPA witness): reviews Dows three-generation rat
study on 2,3,7,8-TCDD, showing 111Jlti-pnerational reproductive
effects at chronic dosq ?va??, part per ti;illion <the
or? heaith.
lowest dose tested) and tbi r1ap1
'-I-,,.
4. Direct Testimony of Or. Roy I? Albert (2,4,5-T proceedings, EPA
witness): Dr. Albert was h9'd of EPA's Carcinogen Assessment
Group (CAG); he reviews CN; data on the carcinogenicity of TCDD,
finding hunan risk at chronic expoBUre to one part per trillion
TCDD (lowest dose tested) and emphasizing dioxin to be the most
potent carcinogen known, with no known or asslllled "safe" dose.
&

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, 0.C. %000

NOV 2 2 1983
INS,-!CTOR. GEN ER .-.1,.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:

Office of Inspector General 's Review and Inquiry Into
EPA's Hand ling of the Five Rivers Incident

TO:

Alvin L. Alm
neputy Administrator

In response to your request, we have conpleted our review and inquiry
into EPA's hand ling of the Five Rivers incident. We are encl osing our
report on the results. If you desire, we would be g lad to meet with you
or your staff to discuss our findings.
Should your staff require additional infonnation or assistance
regarding this matter, please have them contact Ernest E. Bradley III,
Assistant Inspector General for Audits at 382-4106. We are also pr oviding
a copy of this report to Congressman James Weaver based on his recent
request.

?C.M?
Enclosure

Q Joh? C. Ma rt in

-

.-.

I:

.Nov 22 7983
/

HEMORANOU!'!
?!fqJECT:
TO:

Off1cP. of Ins l)l!ctor General 's . iiev1 P.tt and ln'lu1 rv T"to
F."PA's "4anr111n9 l'ff ti!'" Fl.vi! P1v"r-s lnc1'1P."t.

Al vf-n L. _,.,.
Deputy Adrrinhtrator

In r"1!Sponse to your request. we Ila j.e ccr,plete<l our rPY1Pw and ln,iu1ry
1nto EP?'s hanr11fn9 fJf the F1ve Ofver-s 1nc1d!!nt. Ue arP. Pnclostnr, our
r"!'Ort on the res11lts. Tf you des1r'!. W'! would bl! 'lhd to MP.et with you
or. your staff to discuss our ff nd, 11ris.
I
Shoulrl.your staff rl!':lu1re add1t1onal 1nf?m?t1on or ?ss1stancP.
rP.gar,tfng this r.iatter. pl@ase hoe ther, \cont?ct F.rnPst F. ?.rai:llPV III.
Assist.ant Inspect?r General for ?ud1ts at ?ll?.-4ll'lfi.- llti ?rP also pr11vfntnr.1
a cll!)y of this rP.port. to r.on9ress1<111n ? es 11P.aYt>r, h4sed on his r11c!!nt
rP.ques t.
.
or.'"9
I '.o
,'l
. ol
-

I

C:?. - - ,-? ? ...

.......-?

. r,. . =.--w--.

() John \C. ?art1n

\

NOV 2 2 1983

Honorable James ijeaver
r.ha1"'"11n, Subca,,,,1ttee on 111n1ng,
Forest r?an.tgl!"lent. and the
Roonesvflle Po-.r Adnl1n1strat1on
C0mt'!1ttee on Interior and Insular Affa1 l
Hou?e of Representatives
Washington, o.c. 20515
Offr Mr. Cha1 man:

As we prc,a1sed 1n our Octohl!r 2A. i'91l3 letter, "" are @nclosing ?
r11rnrt on ttle r111sults of nur r@v1 l!W anl! '1 r,qu1 ry into the E'nv1 ronmpntal
Protection A(Jency's handl1n11 of tlle Five: ?1ver, 1nc1dent. !?e would he
glad to -t w1t.h your staff to discuss our f1nd1nqs, 1f you rlesfr?.
[
Shf!uld your staff desire al!dit1onal 1nfol"l!'at1on or assistance
regardfng t?1s report or our review and f"'lu1ry, please hnv111 th@<II
contact Ernest E. Rradley !II, AssfstAnt lnsJ)t!ctor General for Audits,
It 3rt<'-410fi.
Sfncl!rely,

.?.
,.._ .

ro

!

Enclosure

'.

\.j
..,_

Jotin

bee: A-109:Colony:tms:ll/18/83:382-7600
A-109:r.olony:tms :retyped 11/21/83
KIRKEN11?LL - AL 09256
AIGA
IG
TIWANA

. . ...

r:.

Hllrt.1n

..

'.

-

PUPPO'if A"'1 Si.OP!".

RE!IOl!T 011 oyr, RF.Vt
ANO llltllllRY
IIITO TNr. FT'" A tV "S rnr.Trlf."T

itt the request of the ?uty Ad..tn1stra?or, t;ni! Office of the tns?ctor-
r,en'!ral (nfi:) 1n1t11t@d I r...,1 ..w 11nd 1n?u1ry .1ntn. f:l''A'? res11on,;e to the
Flve. RhPr, 1nc1<W>fTt. The purpose of tHP !)JG t!ff'ort was:
1.

2.

tn nsen tho accuracy, covpr1.cie, 11nd _hctuiil cnntl!nt of draft
r!!llorts l)rfiJlar.P.d by the nf1'1cli, of Pt!st1c1r1e ::'rO<Jra"'s (nrr>) in
rP.sponw. to ,. rP.Q-t of the [1P.p11ty Ar.!!!,f nistr11 tor, re lat Pd to
1 penl!tng r.on9rHsion11l 1ft'11J1ry r-..,arrt111q oan El'- ,t11t1y of
d1oo1n an'1 i,ther chei:i1cal resfdu? 1n the Fhe !11ven al"t'1 ot
western nr,qon;o 1nd

I

to r.cOO!ll!l@nd actions to corrt!ct pro?le?s 1dl!ntff1nr1.

llecause of t1=e .constraints anrl tti.l ccr,p,lexity of thP. 1ssue5, i,e dfd not.
<!!'!ploy al 1 usual atJd1t Ind 1nvHt1"Jathel procedur11? 1n this rev1...., anr1
inquiry. lnste11'1 of try1nq tll asstqn respons1h111':1P.<: to in,f1v1'1uah
1"JPY'>1Yl!d with FPll's respo"S(I to the. Fhl"\ ?tv.. n 111c1i111nt, ? attl!"!11t?
to ascert .. 1n th-. reasons the !!vents occurre-1. ll11r sc!lne ...,.? 11?1te1 tn:
o USl!Ss1nq drift r-.,orts prei,aredl by OPO, t?nt1tled .?"alysh of
EPA's tqndl1n9 t1f th11 Fh'! ?1vers J11.,..stf9at1on:o

I

I
prov <ie1

-

o lt'\SP.ss1nq all 11oco-ntat1nn
.ts referencP.s . to ti!HI!
?
t1r1rt reports. anrl furtli11r lnfo"j""t1mt llhtll1no111 hy nyr. ?taf1'
,,...,. interview!! on'1 dncurll'!nt, acce??e-1 li\1r1?'1 the c:011r?11 of the
rPY1 ew and 1 nq111 ry;
. .
I
o rn1ewtnq and assess1? 1nst1tut?onal arran?e-:ients, or')anflat1on?l
structurl'S, functional 1tat?:ient1 alll1 relaterl r!lall<!'Jo"aent anti
1dminhtr11t1vP. po11c1es, proce-t11r11s anti rira?t.1c?s of the flff1CP.
of P!!St1c1des and To:'!1c SuMtanc'.s (Or>T?) and fts suh-of1'1cas,
the Off1ce of Pest1c1,.o Prnqr??? and the nff1ce of Toxic
Substances;

.i

-

_..,_

o

HSH?1ng issues, riroblt!!lls, thP. 'l"!n .. r4J nvrrall s1t1111tfon5
related to F:JIA "'ana']f!l'lent of the Five llhl!rs 1nc!rlent, ?nr1
nthwr 1nterre111ted prn'}r!si act1?1t105, rP?ool?tnry anrl lP.'!111
actions; anrl

o ?sse,s1nq cnrr,,ctfve 1ct1on? conU1nl!I! 1n the draft rernrts of
f4'JI.

Thw.Olr. r!Yfew anrl 1nqu1ry WIIS 1nft1nted on ?f'pte,,,hPr P., 1n?1 anrl was
clll!lpleted on l'lct.ot>er ?.1, 1nR1. l"o1r1"1 o. h is !'l'rfo<i, f1P.ld vh1t-s wrl!
11111de to :na,!Qr 1"sta11atfon, 1nvo-ht"11 tn tti.! Fhot ?fvl!r5 tnc1rlP.nt tn
fntP.rv1""' tr.y staff 4nd c,hh1n '1M reJPY1Pr recorrl! ?"" nthl!r rioc,,,.,..,._
t.at11>n. !I' arld1t1on, 510,flar P.ffnrts Wl!ro 41'.Cll"!pll ??"'1 1n f:l"A ?ad?uartl!M,
?a?hfnqtnn, n.c. l'ln. nctob4-r 21, ion?, anI 1nfnrr.,nl r:P.et1nn fnvolvinq ?tr.
staff 4nrl the Of r!ctnr nnt1 nerrnty n1 rl!'ctor of nrP 'Ill! ?P.1 rt tn d1 -sc,,ss thP.
prpl1"1fnary results of the l'!C: rev11!w
fnquf ry,

?"1

FPA 1? respon'S1ble for ad?f"fsterfn'} an arr?y nf r,.Jat..,j env1rnn..pnt4J
prograr.,s 11n?r raandates nf tl't'-! ron'Jf'ess. i Thi!' r,rhiary nh.1ect1ve of tllP.SI!
sUtutP.'l 1s thEUR' ror<rtectfon and nu,!ntena.,ce of i,o1b11c hP.alt.? ?"<I thP.
?uality of the e"vfron,,.,nt. In the F1YelR1vers 1nc1oent, ? 0 h acte?
unr1P.r- Authority nf Pl-"?.-5lfi, thtt FP.11erR1, TnSP.C1:1clde, Funr:fc1<1P ;ind
?OdPnt1c1de Act of rtctob,r- :'l, 197:! 1nd ?l 94-4"!', tt,e To111c ?,,?stancPS
l'.ontrol Act of rtctnher 11, l97f; o. These statute, proY1de EJ!I\ w1th thl!
respnns1bf11ty and aut'1or1ty to control tlltt r,roc!11ctfon, uv, """ rtf?r,flsal
of pest1c1de5 anrl oth@r- toxic suP:tstancttsJ

It? Hr-ly as 1q,;?, the ,c1@nt1f1c c!ll'!l'lun1ty was ?ware thAt thP ht>rh1cMP.
?,4,?-T was cont11mfnatP.d ?1th ?,J,7,?-tetrAchloro?fbl'"ZOoPara-r.1oyfn
(TCTl!l) and that TCDO wts :,otP.,tfall_y fet?to?1c (c.su?e! ?hnrt!nns and
st11 l M rths), car-cf not)f!nfc (c-111'11'!S cancP. ), onco.:icn1c (cAuse? t11"10r-?),
and teratoqen1c (causP.s ?frth <1?ft"cts), 1Jn 1n1n, as a result of tll1?
1nfn,,.at1on, the ?cr-Ptar-1? of AqrlculturP., lnt11rfor, and 'le11ltt,,
Fducat1on and \Jt'Har, (th!! fet1!!ral a')encf 11M thel' re<ioons1h1,. for
cnntro111!'1fl pest1c1rlf'I,) anno11ncPt! the sus1peft!fon of t!IP. rel'.!f'ltl"!t1nn of
?,?,5-T. Thfs action was unsuccl's5ful. 1?ut,s?uent r-i>A P.fforts, l'iur1ng
the ?r-1ot1 1971 to lQ77, to suspeml thts rri1strat.1nn for SQno oJSP? al?o
faill!d dull! tn ll!'ial r..,al ll'n?P.5 .. no:1 lnc? 01 tech111c?l ""'thc,t!ol1Jgy to
r,-11 ahly 1'!1!'15UI'? th@ al'l!'unt? of Tt:nti pr'" "t 1n tt,? env1 ror,mP.nt.,
T
?..t.-.en 1?7? and 1077 ?PA. helpPI! r!?vel"!l Fho tP.chnfcal r.??a?111ty to
re11ahly "'1!a?ure the pr-11sencP. nf Tt:0" 1n ?he f!?v1rnnr?!'nt ?t thP parts per
tr111fon level. IIPl''s F'.p1dP."11oln<j1C.,1 StllrlfP.s Pr-or1ra!" >1as al?o .?t.?h.lfsh<!'1
to lnvP1t1qate the rP.1at1nnsh1p hP.tWl''"" p?stfcfrlP. 11s'!' ann hu::1?n hl!?H.h,
with l'!l'lph??1s nn herhfc1rl-.s conta1n1P.q r,:nn, F"A was ?1?0 1nvn1vPn 1n
. sev.,ral st11<1ies dn1tml!<! tn deter,,,1nl! t!ie 1 presl!nc11 raf ancf tn neasure the
A"lount of rr.nro 1n hu"'!tn 1111H an-:1 the t,or<_y tfs?.,,.? nf 'l,1,.,11n? ?n-t ?n1.,,als
?11ro,ed tn reno.
I

I

o

-3-

In 19711, OP!' 1n1t.f.itl!d thl! Ahea ?t111f_y, u11:fer fts rp111-1nloofc11l
Stud1M Pl'0'.ll'ft"1, t!P.,f'lnefl ti, d<ttl!n'lfnl! f th'!,.., w?? a qrPfttP.r- 1ric1dPnc11
of soontaneous abor-tfons among huo,ans "'xpnse<1 to rcnn r-Plat1v@ to tho"e
nut exposl!d and also to <1etef'11'1ne If th? tf.,fn'l nf srnnt!nP.ooJS ahol't1nn?
was relatl?<I to the tf,,,. of Teti!\ exposur11. Th1s study wa5 centr.rM fn
.
the Alsea, Oregon c1re11 of t'11! ?u1shw l!at1onal Forest. It w11s 1n1t1at? 1
I n l'l!sponsl!'- tr, a Jetter fro,, several f'er.1111" re.-s1r1ents al l'!qfnq thnt they
had exil@r1encP.d spontaneous abortions and other adv'!rse t-iealth '!!ffects
as o rl!sult of "xposure to 2,-1,i;.T. tn Fe!lrm1ry 1'17", EPA ;u1!11fshP.<1 a
rl!port on tl'iot relat1onshfp bebeen h!!rb1cfrf11 u?aql!' nnc1 Sl)Ontaneou? 11hf'.ll't1ons
fl'OPI fts AlsP.a Study, @Yl!n thouc;h P.nv1ronr-iental sa1!1pl1ng An'1 n11a1y!1?
h11d not !?M!P.n Clll'lflletl!!d.

I

On Harell 1, 197q, F:PA fn11&d 1t, 1'1nt F:rer.ry"ncy ?US!)!''lsfon OrdPr,
rest.r1ct1ng 111ost uses of the hl!rhlcides .,,.1.5-T a"d ?flv!'x. In !fay,
afhl' the c:hf!!l1ca1 industry's wlthctra"'al: fra, the er.ier1r.ncy suspens10'1
'1ear1n'.), EP? te1'1'11nate'1 thl! hl!al'f'lg. F.P? pr1J110ptly a""mmc? tlu, uncel 1at1on
rif r"91stration for mnst uses of these c??ical?, anr! hP.1trin,1? on this
act1on bit')ln about eight "'llnt:hs later. 1rn ,July 101?, fP.6 r10cPh..-t a
lettPr 11qned by ,11ver1l ,,....11le residents of the F!vl!! Ffvers c?"lun1ty
1n nre<Jon. These rpsfdl!nts al!o claimed! to haW! P?lll!r1e11cPrl ?r,onhneous
abnrt1ons anri other 1itv?nP ?e11lth ?feets s1:,fhr to tho?P. o1 thP Al?Pa
l'l!S1r!,.nts n " result of herh1c1<!1! f'XPOS!JI'!, Sl'P.eff1cal1:,, :',"-J'I and
Pfc Tora... The Ffvl! 111Vl!l'S tor:i,,un1tv. h a' 51'11111 suh-?rea wHli1n the
It aopurJ that
:::: o o: ::: 1 :::??""':":n: ::: :e:::::"t
fPA!s re,ponse to the F1ve n.1vers c011:ila1nt 1oas ocrlrec:?? hy fnclud11''l
It. 1n the l!'nvfrom:,ental s,a,-pl1nq and anaj:,sh 11ct1vft1<!5 st11 l r,'!fng
conducted un<ll!'I' tlie pl<<n of action for. t?I! AlsP.a ?tudy. liat,.r, sed1.,,.nt,
hu?an and an1i:ial t1ssuo, sanples were co11Pcterl fr-m ?hp Ffv1> Qfvprq
ar11a. A final report. sulllfflllr1z1ng thl! 111nJyt1ca1 r-Psults nf thB CIJ!llb1ned,
expanded study vas prepnrl!d 1n June lDl',3! Th1s report contains the
r-esults of analysis for reno 1n the S&!!rles oht.a1?ert fr,.,., r.ot.? the AlsP.11
ind the F1v'! ?1vers area. lloP.ver, Ta!!I? .VII of thh Jun., l'lB3 r11pnl't
erronl'<.o11!ly 1nclud4!d <1at-, related to sam?1es ohta1n'!<1 1n ""gfon v. _-
rstnlilhhl'f'f procerf11l'H. rt!f1u1rl! Pl!'l!r rl!vf't" and/r,r F.PA's l"l?V1ew am! -,pprrival
of reports prl!iiare'1 for 1t uncler contra? hy 1 .. horatorf P.s, oin1vet"S1t11!5,
etc. Jn spite of that, .th1? r"!)ort wiis ?l!lP.ued to thP puhlfc wfth11ut.
any rev1 ew or approval o !'!ti othP.r 1 nfnl'l!lllt.1 on rl!ga r111 "'l hP.-, It. h l!f'fec:U
data t-ias ?een prCY1ded to the F1YI! Rf""
r!!s1rf?nts hy r-PA.
r

n

11

a

:::;::?,

o;uap pu ?
s.,.,,.I? ;jAl.:1 u?i u? IIUl?l/[dJ ;1.1.:ine...iOjlll ill>Oll\Uo Dl a.lflllt,1,
"'o?,lollJHd;,i JO ll'o;)Ul,J u:; lUil,IUI ii+ilWwl Ul li)Uotllllil Oil 1-'IIIUIJ ii!,

.

"1-"''l"""I 1,14Ju?;i,1,: SI oI "'Ill" Ill uune!;pu

o-:i .iv1?WLdJ u1 ;,u11 ?""I""'"? luu1+1.'LlilJuk';, X,)ALI? pwe .L-sovot
"4o 0,1 ,,.,,?q..,,1 u1 .uu1:i111..JOJUI .1u,1. s.,15;,r,i,iJ,. u; C.u1i,uuclsu.1 u1
;..,loP 1-.iv wu1sn,u1.1:.> o,JPYul u1 ??liliil.l ""'l'li.lJd ilJn}l!l)Util::IIIU 511(.L
u.:1 [Wu.ii, .. ,, 1'-VLSl'oS ulj? u1 1dJilil lf..l&Aljj iMl,:j pu .. l'ilSL\f +lril+
..ie... ,ou d.,l,IH S+\illoU,,J IIOl?Vw.lOjUI o-;i .. SUOOSiJ UI $,llj)Jli ..lo
l1.&ilwr1:>01, oo,o u I p.lA I 0,.U I 1auuuSJilll \lu3 illioU? tlll;l .}:>Vj ill;l
?, s,._. r,? 1-"f'llt .o11;..111 Hil!.,u;1 1euo1.u,1 ..e1s1n!o ill.I+. i.u1.q
u sc11,1u,u..111i:, ;,s;,u; ;o 'i+o>1.1 o? i)dJ.1;,,;i,1 s;;.;n;;"'?s td.i au1s1110
loUUlo.ii? ..uu1,i,q,1so11u1 S.l?Alc ;11,1.1. ;11n, .IU .-<PA+!. S.laAlii
ilAl.:1. ,i.n Ji,?H" SI/ 01 u.,JJi,?ilJ "'-j O+ Utlboq iu;,pp111 S.lirAl11
ao1:1 oi.l oit:iu,mt... sqr.s osawn+s .ll 11as1,. 111<e .1 ll!ililli.
1
oIll SIi .:>o ;,uJ.Jol>oJ o,i u;i uebu.j i,u1r SoSlt?d uai u I J,il+:>npuo:, SPA
.<i,ni? 1tililv o'l.i. o.,.,t..,.iJc s111? 0. Po:inq1J1uo:i i;:.u1111 tt.1,u,as
o.,;,1quJJ 0.111:.E(:>uo=ii P Doll Li? dlj Hlli>J uoi;. 11!.1,SilAUI SJtilA/0
oAlai "LGIIIHo"""I ;.ue d+li.Jill!oS It 4011 ?"' .. ., ....
lJoj o11.L

...

-.?il..

I

l

o'llo

"5uo 1 ;:ie i.101e1n..a.1 ijd.i !><'al!loJ """
Aufll? Wo?I? dlj? I.II j>dA LUAIII i?UllllS.Jo..l i;.1t.l6i..1d l'cij I lit 04 JOU
u11.i,i1?o.1 f>.lilAl<i o"'Li a4? o, 1>ii,e:>1ur .... 1o11J :;.,., ,;,,. 1101s1:111;, spi;?
'.1oAi01110r1. "i.101'l11u1wu.,
u1I V,,AllMUI \11us.1...i .,(q 110uu..1;i_.,un
Silo jJUV 41 t?'-JUJUI foLi.lltdJ Hl'I liul?Pil;> Spu, os,uol-'l?J SH
;:,.ie 11o.111 \.Jtil"lu '""I? "llo ??lrlilo(jUwil Ill i,.ipult\111..i no .1.;,nis 11.is1v
i11H o ... H lii;?-?f SSo:>0.1.J UI LH1-S oJ"" AJ,RH U5LV iillj1 .JD
s ..... "'vlil cl:11115 i,ue ... .,::i,i'PP IIJt ?llil.11 lilStY PUii $.lilAld ilAl.:I illl+
.:iu1? oi,;,,1t-...,.10 JitAil uo1lJII
u111J LIIWJUJ e sea
.ouoi:uu
-1+iilAU! ?JolAlu iOAI?. "lGfljl+UaPI uu1 olli.l?U&i Ir ?OU ,w. il.lilllJ.

. .v

I

ii,u

I

o

I

;ol

.1,,.,

o;iu.:,i, :iou dJil" - 1w.1 i)ilJ p1bil.1 isu11:,11?
:ll lllllll ii?+ u:. :OJU?".1 ulH jO ilH'ol!il.l o;i .101.1:l ;>oi:1oo911 ,ou 511,.
.IUJJo Sl'I.L o1,, 1.11;15i>c ut,.1; r.iitduh uo l'llPP l'oPnt:>u1 .C1,noauQJJil
111-n.s "'"stv .?o ...0.11 s+111?-? 1v,ntLeu11 t.u1pn1:>111 +JOdiiJ 'f

.L

I

I

I

o

"'.?+O ??.? ? ....

.o

i

.cooo

'Sd!Ui,,Vf, l (t jC wUIHSOuilP .10 uone::io1 Pl>I
11.-1o1
oIll 11i1t-ivi?.; ;,1.1?.p :u1n is110 i.p .. o:n,J ..ru0.sn,-10-u1w11:i
'5otolwes
,?.JU ?eloQ"l'IU .lSOL i!Jil? 5iil0WiS Oij

.t

:CuDl .?j; .likj04:IU j)olll' 1 +.ludilJ 4;t.1J,
s,e1du 111 ol'n, ?lli.l""1lt,1S ?1111:IIJIUbiS aso-ii S,l..lllll(HIS lll&i)IJUI S,JilAlll
oAl.:1 ;i?,1 0+111 i.1p1b1q .,ul' ,.,.111a.1 .1nr. ""1.1np ;,au1E:iq0 1101n.... 1i;u1_

-,-

-- ,-

-

-5-

8.

II? found the OPP l'IIPOl'to det!d ncto?,. :!5,. !<HO, prnvf?l!S a n11rr1th?
of fPA's h4ndl1n,:, &"rl tlle cul'l'f!"f: st.Rttt? of fts "Ffve l!1Y@I'! T!'IYntf-
getfon.o Ho"""""o t?e di,c11-ient t1oek not addl'P'I? thl! c1reu!"'liUncPS 1nr1
conr11 t fons wf thf n F.P? tl'lc"!t cont r1 hut l!d to I ts f? t1 ,,,., to p,-11,1 de a
tfN'ly anrl atl,quate r?sr,ons, to tnl!. cftlzons of the F!vl! ofvP.n
C01111'111n1ty. These c1 rc11?,unces an'1 contif t 1 ons tr!! '111cu?s,nl 1 n ti'Io
fall 0111 p,q Sl!ct fon.
The OIG's Expenrled Review anrl Inquiry Tnto PP.lated Prn?r?? ?ana?P.l?nt

!?sun

/

I

The ornos exr,anded r!!Ylf!W 1nrl 111q111r, 1?ntH1"'1 certain erogra,.
?anager,ent issues t.hat contr1hute,1 to :DA'o fn?dP.f!uate resoon51! to
the Fho ?httn 1nc1<1,nt. Th'"e ?r? as 'ollflW?:

1.

I

Organizational Chenqes. ??1nn1nq 1n l?te 1016, fPA's adol1n1strit1ve structure for !'lano<:lf!??nt of ti'le ?l!?eral Tn1ect1c1rle,
Fun?1c1<1e 1nd P.otlent1c1tle Act an? Tnxfc Su?,tancl!S Control Act
programs unde""'1nt Sf!vttral l'l!lljor l'l!OMJan1zat1ons:
(a)

In !'love"'ht!r 1'17?, tht!!H 1)1'.'ogra .., lfPN' ,.,."'0,P.d fr""' the
nfffci, of' Water tn1 Hazardous "?terhls and 4'Habl1st,ed 85
th, Office of Toxic Suhstanc'!s at ?n ,\ssfstant ,,c1s11r11st1"ator

I

1, ...,1.

{!I}

(c)

In !ilel"c!I 1?7::!, thi! Offfc111 1 tJf Toxic ?ut-sttnCP.! was
s11bdhfrl? ind ,;!JPYen four !'eputy Ani'?tant i\<1i>Jfoht1'1ton
onP. PAC!! for ,,?tlc1r1@ Proqr;i,,,,. c? .... 1c?l Control, r??tfng
1nr1 F.v?lu11tfnn, and ?ro,1ra'" l"t!!ql"at1on and l"for!'!!lt1on.

.I

.

In Sept?r 1nm1, tl'te Of1[1c:"! of '!'ox1c ?11bsti1nc!!S was
ren?l'll!'I the Clff1ce 111' PMt1c1rlM and T!!ofc ?u?Unf'.!!1
(f'?T?) end Ol"'Jan11"'1 w1t'1 It"" ?puty ?,\1st?nt A.-1rtfnfstr1ton
fol" the r.1'f1ce of 1><l'st!cfd11 l'rr..1ra.o? (""Pl and the C1ff1c,
of Tolliic ?ul>shnces IOTS) J

o

I

The,o ct1an911" to the Ol",Anlzat11 rinal str11ctul"" ..-:-r'! .JCC0"pan111rl
by c??nq,s 1n tl'te adP.11n1strat1?1! IW!nonnP.l a?? 1n t?I! funct10"1l
sut-.nts of SP.veral kP.y nh1s1o? and qr-!ncl'tes w1?h thP. !1!1tt,
These Chhfons and flranci'I? w?re rtt,pons1?1" for t?I! -?15 .. ,
?turly, f"PA's responsl! to tho ?1 wo ?1Yl!rs 1nc1-:11tnt, ?"d -.re
Involved In the SU5fll!"110n and 1canc?11at1nn nf ?.,?.?-T and
?1hex, ,115 Wf'll as ,-,qulatory ti:t1on'.'I fnr ?11 tJtli"" .'"St1c1r11!So
1111! ?lfevl! tllese or-;:1nhat1onall ch4nol!? r.or,r.rfhut1!<1 tr, !:P,l.'s
failure to "Xl'N!d1tfously co,,,pll!'r'? thP 41?1!''1 Study anrf .to ffrll!QIJ3t1tly
l"espnnrl to the F1vo Phers 1nr.1<11!nt. It also advf'nl!lv ?ffP.ctl!d
rt-A's actfon1 r-P.qard1ng t!\e 2,4!,!--T and S1h!!:,r susp?n?lon lf!d
co"c"'l l1tfon ind its r--.qulltory act1on1 r"!''.jardfn,i at.hP.r ?e?t1c1des.

I

-

_,._

.

:,

.

Fraqr-.ntl!!I Adn1n1strit1on. ? 1qul?t1on of the u,e of ..ny tnx1c
sut:,tances, known or 511SP'!ct!!d to ao:IW'r?P.ly affl!ct puh11c hHlt!I
nr thP. P.nv1 rnnr.,l!nt, rl!qu1 res 1;nte,o,ratl'd a<1,-,1 nhtrat1on c,f sev,.r1l
tl'A pro9rams. ?le ident11'ie<f a lac? of int"oJrAt1on w1th1n nPT';,
hetw,.,.n npp ond OTS, and ?lso jhf!tween O?T?.?nd othP.r F.PA offices.
For ex!f!lple, 1n the Fhe R1ve'i5 1nc1df!nt, ti>? n1nx1n '-'on1tnr1nq
Prograi,, c:001;d1n .. tor was intP.restl!d nnl_y in tile n1nx1n Issue,
ttie PP.5t1c1911 Incident 11,.spnns1,. tlff'lcP.r wes Interested only 1n
!)P.ttin'l an 1nfomat.1vl! res?nsle tn t?"' FlvP. ?1vP.r, r"sMents
an,f tne fonarc1 Ev?lnatinn ?h1 1s1on '11rP.ctnr wo1s lnt!'reste-1 fn
CCP1Plet1niJ the Alsu Study, whf1ch- includP.".1 analysis of sa"'f'leS
oht111nl!'! 1n tl!e F1ve Rivers COj"Pun1t_v. !n arld1t1nn, ln1?"'l""te
allf! 1naccurate re?pnnses to Fr1!!1!-1...., of Info,...,at1on Act anrl
discovery requests rl!gard1ng t!!P. AlsP.a Sturiy, thl! Five ?1?r,
i nc1'11!nt, and 11t1qat1nn oindPr the "!t1oM1 ?nvf ron-,l!ntal
Policy Act wel'1! the result of pnor CllP'l"'''"1cat fnn a.nr! coord1n11tfon
hetwl!en tile f'ff1ce nf P!!stfc:1-tes ?nt1 Toxic ?,,!'lst?ncPs ,.nd thP
,,fficl! raf ?n@ral rounsel. 11eJ '-l!'l1PYI! thP<e P.xa,,01 .. s r,f fr111"'l!ntPtl
ai+,1nistrat1on contr1b11tl"':l tn pppo.s fa11urP tn prnv1ofP rrmr,t,
'11rect, and full rl!Spo'l?P.s 1n tit!' Five l>iv"? 1n,:1,??t. Tt
r.111!? <:t11r1y ?nr< t'11! conr.l11s1nn
thP. proQrl!s< of t.'1P.
al ,o 1 .. o?Pd
.
I
of the ?.'-,5-T and ?llvl!x c?ncellat.1on ,ct1nn o

.I

rJverl11pofn'1 Arr?n?-nts an<1 ":onet fans. ThP arr?n!JP."IP.nt of
the nrqanfrat1nnnl structures ?nr! their rP.l?ted functional
?t.it-nts for C\Pi:t', >'nard Ev11lo111t.1on n1v1s1rt n ?nr! P.l!nP.f1ts
anrl ""?rlv. dur11cate th?I!
4"'1 F1e1'1 Sturlies n1visinn parallel
'
nf.?TS's i-l<!?lth anrl rnvfron,,,ent?l ?Pv!P.O< n1v1s1on ?n? r:x?nsure
Evalu11t1nn "fv1s1nn. In the di?,. nf the !'iv'! P.1vers 1nc1rlent.,
t'1e Pestfcitle Inc:1,1@nt ?*sponse' Offtcer, 8,?1,nerl to t!'e 11,11,,?n
?Pnef1ts ?"r1 r1,.1,1 Stud11!S
F.ffects ?n1tor1noo Rranch cJf the
I
nat 1 ng and prov1 :11 ni: ?
111vh 1on, was rl!s pnns 1b lP. for coort11
'
rao1d response to r'"ll"rtl!d f'l!St1c1d" fnc1rf'!nt?. Thr. ri1 rector
of thP. Hliza.r,:i F.valuar.1on n1v1slon was rp?n-,r.sl!ile fnr sc:i-.ntff1c
data anrl h?.zard evoluat 1ons 1n I s11;,i:ort of. all l'!'F' r,ro?ra,.,.
Thi' D1ox1n ?-1rori1tor1r,q PrograPI Cor,rd111atnr, aB1qn? tr, th11
Sp-.c1a1 ?-.s?1c11es RPY1P.W !'1v1!1on, WdS P?DPr.tP'1 tn coorn1nate
OPD .tnd ot?r """ act1vft1? to prov1dP. 1nfnr-,8t1nn A!'lr! -iat.t
nPst fr.1,J,;,? ?nown tn
1n. support of re9ulatory ?ctio?s r'""!arrl1
C!lflt?in ll1ox1ns. ?nc'1 nf th"?" k"Y <taff ,,,.,,h.,rs "?,j rt!soons1h111t1?.S for ,-Jl!Ments of th'! Fjve g1vl!rs ln,:ident, "Ut. no onP.
1ctP<I to cnntrol tl!P. total act1v1t.y. TIJ1s overl?n nf ?rran']'ll'lents .
and functfrin'S result?etl in no n I! bP1n'1 a?siqr, .. ,t the to?al
l
control ,1nrt resP<.tnsf1'1111ty,
.

I

"'?'

-

-7-

I
Inadequate Control al!d AccountaM llty. 1./'! w-.rP. a'ile to t.r?ce
acco11nt,tb1l1ty_ and control for! the F1v'! R1vPrs 1nc1,J!'nt no
further then tho neputy ?ss1,;t?nt. Arim1?1strator of er,.
Im"IE!d1atP.ly after rece1r>t of t?P lP.tter frl'l"I the Ffv'! ?1v'!rs
residents, he rl1rect!!rl his starf to r>r.. ?re ft plan r,f action
for a response to t? incident. The i,hn.was to ? return....t
to hi., within t...11 Wf!'l!?s. tin one 1ndiY1111al was ass1nne<l
rospons1h111ty for the task and no plan wA? pr"ridrP.rl; \le
att?r>tP.? to ?ter.iiine why thelplan hilrl not beP.n rrP.pare<1, but
WP. found no other ev11!!'1CP tho1t the riroorl!Ss of th'! 1nc1t1P.nt
risponse was f\e1 n9 1110n1 tor?.
nc,t,P.<:l '1 n 2 and 1 11tiovl!, o
.several 1nrl1v1duah 11?<1 re,;pons1"111t.y for P.le,.ent? of tt,I!
F'he Ri""rs 1ncident. IICh'f!YP.r? nono was hP.111 rpsoons1to1P. for
t?e failure to rro,juce the requPsted plan nf Ar:t1on nor for
the C0ftlplet1on of FP?'s rPspon!I! to the F'lve ?iver? 1nr.1dl!nt.
lie found the 5,1,,,,. inade?uate r.rintrol anif accountat:i111ty r@14t1ve
to th'!' Ah1>a Study anc1 thP :?,?,15-T and ?fh@x ?u!ponsi1Jn and
cane@11at1on actions. HonP. of t?e,P thro'! ?r.t.1v1t1os has?""'"
off1c141ly concluded. We belfove
that 1nar1Pqu?te cnr,trol ?nrl
1
11ccountab1l1ty crintr1hutE'f1 si']n if1c11ntly to delaying their
[
cc,?plet1on.

I",;

5 o.

:

!legulatory ?lay!. F:f'ectivl! r?uhtnry action! ?o prl!vent
adver,e health t!ft'l!ctS anrt er.vi ron.?nt?l ""'1rad?t inn, 1'1!<1U1 rP
th4t FPA est.,bl1sh and for,lf!!'l"'!'lt. co_nc1sP. r1?<111htinn? a11r1 str11t.eq1es
for program arf"l1n1?trat1on and P.xer.ut1on. Fro., thP. n1r.. rPvfew
1nd 1nqu1ry 1nto t'1? Five Rivers 1nc1dent, t'1e rP.laterl Alse11
Study, a"d rel)ulatory action, r'r'll!rd1nn ,.?.?-T, $11VP.'l( and
other r,f!stic1des, we fount1 evidr-nce of requlatory delays. Thf!
follok1no are reprl!s@nt11t1Y'I! caso studips.
I

o

(a)

.

I

ln 191i9, se1ent1nc ev1deneP exhtl!'i rog11r!11nq the tox1c1ty
of :!,?,5-T and relatt!d funf,ulat1ons, su?P,.ctP.rf to ?
cnntar.,iMted wit!I Tenn. (See ?ac?'lrtlund, Pa'!" ,.) EP.?'s
reoulatory act1ons 1nvoh1?'1 cane"! l11tfon anri rere9htrat.1on
of 2,4,5-T and ?ilvex, beq,n in }Q7?. r.xtensiv? rlP.litys
have result1!'1 frCPI 11tigat1nn ?nd th.<! aril'11nhtrativl'
hearing ;,rocess. Ovl!r this per1nri of snMP fnurtl!1!n JP.a?,
EP.A has 'lot crio,pl<<it?d thh r.equhtnry act1011.
l
S1nce latl! 1970, sc1ent1f1c ?tud11!5 fndiutP.rl t!l?t POtent.ial
advl!rSI! hulth effects ... 111t\t re!iult fro"! P.x;,nsrrrP. t!l ', d -n
and rl!latP.ri for,,,ulat1o?. . \ lie .wP.re it<fv1 sed thot EP? t,as
bet!" actholly 1nvolvP.'1 in ?ev1Pw ?"rl l!V-'l,,?t1on ,,, ?cfent1fic
111t11 on thh fa:o11y of ch?1c?1 for-:1111at1ons s1ncP. ?t
ll!!ut 197P. or 1079. In Juy 1???, (P.n 1ssu'!rl " "!'?ta CallI

(h)

o

-.'1- '

tn lfot1ceo far ldr11t1nna1 tox1calogfC81 sturl1es of ?,4-n?
(one of the nU!!lerous ?,4?n ro,..,ulat1ons) to ?P. prov1rll'f1.
by ?onufacturers by no later th11n l?R?.

.

I

In orl!er ta !'WIN fully explo this hsue, the f1Jl'. plans to
1n1t1atl! an dt::11t of select? Hpec:ts nf nPTS prl)llrarns 1n
Fhc1l Year 1 ..,14.
Rf'C?F.ll!lAT!llNS

!laud on t11e results of our re,,1-.w we r 1ll!l"'1!nd th11t:
1.

I

The Ass1st1nt Adnl1nfstrator, ff1ce of Pl!st1c1des and Tnxfc
Substances (o:)TS):
Jn
(a)

1nfol'III the sf,;ners oft "Fl?- P.1verso letter of t,e
status of EPA's rusponse[to their r!!'JuP.st;

(b) prep1re I plan, fncl11dfng a t1n,i, fr!IIM!, for the c01!!plet1on
of tlMt 1n'n!St1gat1on fntri the Ffve Rivers 1nc1tfent: ?nrl

z..

3,

(c) Pf'"fllre 1nd furnish I rJort of the 1nvut19atfon to th@
Five 1!1vers r?s1ctent1. I

The ,',.ss1stant Mn1nistrator ofl OPTS- ensurP. t,i,at ?11 corritct1Ye
oct1ons 1dlont1f1ed. fn the npp report. t-. f?plf!PIE!ntf!d at the
earlf est poss1h le time. Ahn,I requf rl! the 01 roct.on of llPP
ar,d OTS to 1nit1at.e a cnordfr,a?? rl!v1?- c,f the 1s?uios anrl
prahle?s ldent1f1e<l In the nP? rl!f'nrt and t? f?pler.ient any
furt?l!r correct he act ions fount! to II'! r?uf rl'd.

I I revleot to loo? lntn c1uw1
The Depvty A<ftil1n1str1tor fnftlate
111d r-.d1es for fnadeq111te cortrol and accountahlllty 1'11!nt1fle?
In our review all'f lnqu1r-y. Such A rev1'1'1 ,ho11ltf 1"clude th!'
effects nf frequent orq,inlzatlpnal ch8ngl!5o fr?gowan?e-1
1d1111"1str1t1on, alllf overlapp1 arrangl!l'lents 11nt1 r,mctfons.
I

I

bee: A-1119:Colony:tms:ll/21/RJ:382- ?no
l:1rlcendall (reading file)
A!GA
T1wana
RF.TY1'GBPD:A-ln<l:Colony:Jmh:ll/22/ 3:3112-7?01'

.

I

 

PIJPPO"iE A!!('I SCOPF.

Rt;POl!T ()fl om RF.VIO: AMO If!l111lRY
rnrn THE FT'!F: Rl\lEPS rru:Tf>P!T

l

At the req1l!!st M the OP.puty Adorln1strat r, ,ttiP. Office o1 the Inspectnr
General (OIG) 1n1tiated a rPv1P"' ?nd 1r.q111ry intn (1'A'? respor.?e to the
Ffvl! R1vPrs 1nc1dpt1t. The pur;ios?. of th? /JIG effort 1,as:

1.. tn <!!>Sen the accuracy, cov!'rsgP, and hctu?l cnnt.P.nt of r!r?ft

z.

r"!!florts prapared by the nff1ce: of Pe':<t1cir!e ::-ro<?rarns (n?P) in
respnt1S!! to? rP.quest of the [lP.puty ,k?1nistr?tor, related to
a.pent!1ng. r.on9r?sfon?l 1n'loi1ry re?ar(fir,q "a11 F.PA ?tw1y of
dfn11.in anlf nthP.r chen1cal reslduP'I in th':' Five River; ar1>n ot
we?t.ern l)regon;o and
I

to rKt:l'lll!IP.nd actions to correct pro?le?s id?ntifierl,
I

!

P.ecause of t1? cnnstra1nts and the cor.,plP.l(ity of the iss1,e,;, '/le did not
eraploy al 1 usual a11d1t aM 1nvest1'.)at1ve, procerlur1>5 In this review a11tf
inquiry. Instead of try1n,; to ass1(111 responsihilit1P.'- to ln1iv1t11111h
involved with Frll's respor,se to the Fiv.-f RivPr? 111c1<1Pnt, "'" ?t.ti!"lpti><i
tn ascert?1n the re?son$ the 1>vents occurre,t, nur scoo? w?s 11?ited to:
0 assPss1ng dr'&ft r'P.l)orts ilf"eparedl by OPP, r.ntit.lPrl "M!al?sh of
EPA's Mandling of the FivP. Riveri InvPstiqation;o
o

o

?,;sess111q all rlocu111Pntatfon pr0'1'?de1 as referencP.s to t.he?P.
rlraft r"P.tmrts, Jn,j forth.. ,. 1r1fo'i"'1?fon oM.aln?t1 hy nyr, staf'1'
frm 1ntervi?!I ?r,,t docuMf!nt? aclce?se-1 rli1ring the c:mrsP of the
l"l'V1 ew 11nd 1 nqu1 ry;

rP.V1ew1nq and assessing 1nst1tut11onal arranqe<:lents, c,rryanf1atioMl
structur!''S, fu11ction<1l stat1>r::eritf an? related r<1and'l"""'"t and
?dminhtrAt1ve pol1c1?, prncP.d11rP? anrl o,-?f:tlcl-!s of th?. flFf1cP.
of Pr.st1c1des anti Toxic Su?t.?ncbs (Or>TS) anct 1ts sun-nff1cP.s,
tt>e Office of P!'sticirl"' Pr!>'JM""s and ?he flfficP. of Toxic
Substance";

-2-

0

assessing issues, problems, the l<J'!n<>r?.1 ovr.rall situations
related to f!IA r.,ananf>.,'!nt of thP. Five Pivers inc1rlP.nt, ?no
oth"r 1nterrelt1ted progr?m act1v1t1"s, rPr,ulRtnry and leqal
act ior,s; ant1
.,

I

? ?sse??1ng corrective actions cont?inerl 1n the draft reports of
nPP o

Th@ orr. review anti inquiry was 1n1t1?terl m1 SPr,t?,b"r P., 1"?'.'l anrl was
cor.,pleted on nctoher 21, 111R:l. i'orr1n'1 +.his ?rio?. fi'!lt'! v1?it? ,,,pr@
mt1de to mai.o or 1nsta11Ations involvE'd in the Fi'lli! Riv"!rs incit!ent to
1 ntP.rvi P.w kr.y staff ?nrl e>l>tain Mo-l rP.vi "Ii'" rP.ctird? .in-1 ot.luir rioc,,,.,..,._
tation. Ir! ar!d1t1on, similar P.ffl'lrts Wlf? ?f'.Cl'l"lp11??M In lcr'A f'P.?t1riuartPrs,
\la?hfn<Jtnn, n.c. On Octohf>r 21, J.<ln:l, ar, lnfc,,...,al r...,etino invnlvinq f'tr:
staff aml the [l1 l"P.ctnr Mn flc>r,ut:, r>i r?ct:or of !lrr> w?, o1!!l r. t'l rll ?c11ss tl!P
prP.11m1r,ary results of the fl!(; rev1P.w ?nr, inquiry.
R/1.C:KGRl'\1!!1')

I
FPA is respon?ib1P. ?or ad?1nistP.r1n? an ?rr!y nf rP.lat.-<l envirnnmPnt?l
progr?r.,s unrll?r raandat!!s of ttie r.onqress.j The prinary nh.iect1ve of thP.Sf!
st?tute? fs the rorotectfon and n,afnt,mance of p11b11c ill?alt? ?nrl the
?unl1ty of the enviror,ment. In the Five Rivers 1nr.lnent, , 0? acted
unner ?oithor1ty of PL-"-2-51!\, thr F1!i:1erA1 TnsP.ctici<.!e, F1mr:1cl'1<> ?n:i
?o<i.,nt1c1r1e Act of nct'lb"r :'l, 1972 and ?l 94.4,;u, the To?ic s,,t>stdnCf'S
t:ontrol Act of nctoher 11, l97fi. These st?tut!'s provi!le EP.? with the
responsih111ty and ?ut?orHy to control tlie pro?o,ction, u,.-, ANl rii?r111s?1
of pesticide? anrl other toxic suhst?nces?

A? e?rl y as Jni;Q, the sc1entff1c cr.l!!r.uni ?Y loi'IS ?ware th?t the hP.rhici<!?
;>,4,?-T w?s cof'!taminatP.d 111th 7,:l,7,?-tetr?chlorociib,o?1.0-Dnra-dioxin
(TC!'ID) and _ _t:hu_Jr,nQ.o.!.f_\!S riotP"lt_i 11J.l%....f.etotodc (C,lll??s ?bnrt ir,n
nd
?_l 1'fi:t!l5) , c? rcj_?.Q!Je_n ic ???1L?A.!lCP. ri'\ ),o.,_co,m.n.ii cause.,;_ tll'.".>Q.G?),
J!nd terato(Jl!nic 1causP.? hirth ""feet.?). In 1n1GBP1, as a re?ult of th.I?
1nfomation, tMe SecrPt.?ri? of !v1rfculture, lntPrior, ?nrl 11,:-?lt?,
Fducat.ion ancl IJelfare (th2 f'!dt!ral a'"RnciJes then re?oonsihle for
c1mtroll1!'1 '1 p<!st1c1'1Po;) ?f'lnoo1ncP<l the suspen?fon of t.ht? r??i?tr?tinn (If
2 , 4 , ?-T. This act ion wa? 11r.succt>?Sf1Jl. l?uh?t!<loJent r.n" efforts, rlur1 ng
the rl!rioti 1971 to 1Q77, to susp<'!rn< th? r ...-Jistr?.tir1n for?"''" usP? al?o
failerl rl11P to l<>r;al cl\Bl 11'"""? ??rl 1?c? of1 tec.hn1c?1 ,.,,,th!'?olo,;y t'l
rel1a!:>ly ,..e?sur!! t.h@ ar.1c,unts of r,:ni1 preo;IP.nt 1n the environooent.
n.. t,.,..en 1975 an? 1?77 EPA helpPd d?vP.l<l!l r-he tP.c?nlcal c?r?hil1ty tti
reliahly measure the prllser.ce of Tr.Of1 1n 1tho envirnn,at'nt ?t th"' ;,arts pP.r
trillion level. OPP's Epide"liolog1c?l St)1<11es Pro9rd"' Has al?o "?t?.1:>lisherl
to investlqate the r?lat1nr.sh1p het.>1P"" prsticirl<! 1Js1> anct hue,iln IHMlt.h,
w1th ...,ph,.,r;fs or, herhfc1des r.ontainiri9 Tr:D'l. F.P,\ wa? al?o fnvolvPrl 1n
sevrral s t11<11 es rlE!S 1 rnf!fl tn dP.termi nP tt>e 1 prllsencP. llf ?nd to neasure the
ar.iount of Tr.nri 1n hu!'lllo milk ari,j the t>o,:ty tissuP.? of ?11,,,an? ?.nrl ?ni"lals
"xpo?ed to reno.
/

--3In 197/l, OPr 1n1t.1ated the Alse? Study, u.,;der 1t.s F:p1rlr!"'ioloo1cal
Stud1 \'S pro:ir?01, rlP.s 1 l')ned tt' ?tP.m1 n,i 1 f ?hP.r"' was a grea tP.r 1 nc1 den cl!
of soontaneous 11bortfons ;;mon') hu"'llns 1'Xpose<1 to Tenn rP1at1vt1! to those
not ex!"osed ?n,:! also t.o rletef'>'!1ne 1f the timing of spont?nemJs .ahortton?
was related to the tfma of TCl'l!'I expnsurP.. This study >ia? centC?r<>d fn
the Alsea, Oreqon 11rt"1 of tlte 5uis1,1>1 l:at1onal Fnrest. lt w?s in1tiat,.d
1n rP.sponsP tn a letter frllr.! sl!ver<'ll 1'eM<'!le rP.s1dP.nts al l"'11n9 th<'lt they
had ex;,er1enced spontdnP.ou? ahortfons anr1 oth'!r ?dver-se liealth <?ff,:,cts
?s a result of t'Xposure to l,-1,?-T. Tn Fnhru?ry 1?7'?, F.PA p11hlfshwt a
rP.port on tlte relationship between hP.rbic1'1P u?aqe aniJ spont,aneo11? Ahrirtinns
fro" Its Alsl!a Sturly, even thouGh rmviron:,,ental samrl1ng ?nr. analysis
hi!d not hP.P.n Cill'l?leted.
I
. On ri.,rch 1, 1979, F:PA 1?sue<1 ft,; f1nt F.meh:;enc:, S1ispellsion Or,11'r,
restricting riiost uses of the herhicides :i,jl,!'>-T a11d Silv!"x. In May,
aftf!r the chl"'lical 1ndustry's with'1raldal ffoc, tho er.ir.ro.1ency suspensio.,
?earing, EPA teN>in11terl the hearill9. F.PA pr??ptly aono,mcet! the cancellat1on
of rP.91stration for most uses of t?se ch'<"licals, a?d hearin\JS M thfs
action began about eight ?nths later. tnl ,luly !07?, fP.? rP.CP.ho"!i ?
ll!ttPr ?1CJnl'r1 by ?ovifral fP..,?le resid'!ot? pf t.he F1vP ?.ivP.rs c!)ll10,11nity
fn nrerion. These res11ent? also clair.ed to havP. P??ri,;,ocet1 ?pontnnP.OlJS
abortions <lnd at.her arlvl!r-s? he?lth '!'ffer.ts Sl<'lil?r to thosl' o" thl' ,\l? .. a
rP.s i t!ents 11s II resu Tt of herbki de t>XJlOS ure, srecHi ca 11 y :>, ?-n ,1 nd
P1clora"!. The F1v!! r.1vers coi?mm1ty 1s a s,qJl suh-area with1n the
Al sea, (lreqon area of the Suisl?w '111t1on?l: Forpst.

i,iel

B?sed on our 1ntervif",js an<l the records
revfow?. lt appears that
fP/\'? re?pon?e to the F1ve !'!1vers com:,lain? was ?dctre?s<:?,1 hy focl11d1nq
1t 1n the environmental samplinq and analysis "'ct1vit1es st11 l bl!1nri
conr!uctf't1 untl!'r the plan 01' action f'or thelAlsea 5tud_y. ,iat .. r, sert1.,..nt,
human and animal tiss? sariples were cnllPcted fro, ?ti,? Five Riwir?
arP.a. A final rerort, S!lmn>nr1z1n,:; thf> anAlyt1cal rPs11lts nf' ttiis co111b1ne'1,
expanded study was prepared 1n June l'l?,3. \This rP.port cont,,1ns thP.
r@sults of <'tnal ys1s for TCOTI 1n the sll1'1Ple? oht.a1 nen fr<"n hnt.h the Alsl!a
anrt the Five ?1vers area. f!?r, TahlP. VT! SJ! thi? J? l'l1?3 rP.?nrt
erroner.?isly included ?at? rP?e<f..!_o sam:>les O?'!c1 .iD ?!'l)ion v.
Fstai,11?h"'1 procertures re<]u1re pt>P.r rriv1ewland/'lr F.PA's rl!vieu and ?pproval
of reports r,rP.pare<1 f'or 1t unrter contract ?Y l;ihorator1es, un1ver.;it1es,
etc. ln sp1tii nf that, thi? r<?9ort was rP.1P.?SP.<1 to th,. puhlic w1thnut
any review or ?pproval. !'!o nthP.r 1nfnr>!lilt.1on rf'gard1rHJ hNlt.? effects
data has been provided to the e1ve R1vP.n; resinents hy FPA.

-4-

A.

Th'-! llPI' I 5 llna 1

ris of lland11 ng of t?f!

l'i YI.' ['i\'r,r? I nci dP.?t

Int'o,.,.at1on obt111nerl durinq 'lur rev1Pw ,1nrl lnriulry into the Five
P.ivers fncident Sllf'lilnrts thesr. s1r;niflcanr. sr.at1>"l?.nt? "larl 0 in OPP'?
draft rP.pnrt, rleted nctoher 25, lQ?J:
I

1.

2.

'

r-o sa1<1ples 11ere lost, .,; 5l?b'!1,--:f nr -.1-c,.1 with nt.??,. S3Pll'.'1es.
Chain-ot-cu?torlv r'!cord's Pxi5t: t!)llt clearh ,.?tahl!sh th"!
identity and 1oc?t1on or d1sr.o?lt1on of ?11 .,n?r1Ps.

rot

A report includfnq analytical re?11lts frors th" Alsed Sturly
erroneously 1nc111rlpd t1?ta (In S?"?ple? frm .1?:li"n '.'. Tt-1; error
Wl!S not rtPtPct!'cl prior t.o rple,HP. 111' thP r<>tinrt tn tne p11f)l lc
h11ca11se required !"!!YI P.WS l<(!!"P
110ne.
I

1.

There was not a sen?r!tP. and 1?ent1f1?ble "F1vl? 01vr.r? lnvesti-
??tion,o nor was a fom?1 rl?n of action ?.Yer pr?ara,j. ?1ncP
the Five ?iv<!'!"S ?ntl ?lsP.a ?rpa,; ?re a<!}RCP<1t ?n'1 sine? Pl?"'Pnt.s
llf thP ?lsPa stwfy -rl? st.ill '" proc<c>!.!. ?t. t1'at ti"'"o thp
?hea study "ils e)[p11<1dP.r! t<l eneimr,.?s th,; Flv" r1v,-r? ,,re11 and
its r?lrtents. This ?P.c1?ion w?s rP.?r.n,oct i<1fori?1iv ?n,1 w?s
unr.lerstno<1 by Pf'!"SOIIS invnh<?<l, in t.hP. ,?xM,iMt1on. ionw"vPr,
thfs drc1 sion ?s ofot .cn-:'."lttn1r.:-,te<1 to ti,e _qvP. ?1vors ,.,,?1r'!'?ts
!J.!!r ? aJl. W ;,r,,gr11".! ?n0.1 1 n?-nl v,irt ..0_ th"
- -?? Stu:ty
-and reLHE>rt [P? rewrnlatory actions.
o

I

ThP. fJH:t that thl'r'! wa,; not ? s,o:,aratr> and 1t1nntH111,l!! "ivr!
q1vers 111vcstl1at1on coulct lll! r,a1 led ? r.o.,1Pncht.ure problP.r:.
S<>vcral thlnqs c"ntrHmt."d to this prot:>l'!"'o The i\h"? ,?urty
Nils con<:11:ct<?? 1n t>m ph?SPS ?nrl 1:-!lqan to lw rPf P.rrP.ol tc ?s t.h,.
o,,1sea l" a,i,1 ""-lsP.? Il" sturl1?s. SoJhs>.!,;uently, th:> Five
P1v'!"rs incident heq?n to t-,.. r'!ferr"<l to a? r!it.hP.r trP ">ive
P.lv!>rs Study" nr tl1P. "F"1ve Rfve? tnv,ist1?at.1nn." P?r?!lM
m,t?irl!! F.P.A. soei.,t1,,.es rerP.rrP.cito hoth M tM?P. COl!l..,unlties as
bi>ln'l "thP. Suhlaw ,,?,:tonal FnrP.?t dr<>?.. . 4.dtJetJ to t?1? h
t:1e fact t??t !iO,,.I! F.l't, 1,er:snnnel 1nvolvc-d 1n t!ie .1ocoJ'"'P.Mt
?11arches 1 n Mspor:?,- to f nfor,-...,t ion rP,io1e?t.s ,,erl' r1<1t. "'"'arP.
t?at Al?e? ?nd F1ve Rfve? ""'"? in t.?f.' ?11isla..i 'ldti!'Ml For??t.
This ,i-,1e..-;,nclaturl! prohl1>r, re?u)t"!<i ,., [P.A'? C'lnfusio,i a?1 <!Pl?y
irl l"P.Spond1nu tn rP.'11J'!St.s for jt1f"or,,?t1,,n 1n r'!l?tilln to T.hl!
7,4,5-T ?nd 51lvrx C8ncellat1n? he?ri?,s ?nrl !n rPlatinn t.o
ltt1!;at1on 1n wide? 1,: 1s i,rC!? ntly f?volv?<f.
j
1-i? f 011o11! no (!V1 c!encP tn i "di cat!! i ntP.nt. to c'lnC>'? l or r!<> 1 i ber'lt e
failure to df?close 111for"latlo? rf:'latinr: to t?" Five Rivers
1nc1dent.
I
I

I

...

.........

8.

II'!! found the OPP rer,on:, dat? Oct11h11r25, l<l?'.l, prnvfrfi,5 a Mrratfv'!
1
of E"Pl\'s h?n,11111'1 an,1 the currl!nt. .s tRtll5 01' its "FivP. ?fv@rs T1we?tf-
g11tfon.o llowevP.r, the doct1!"1ent <lo? not ad<lr-P?? thP. c1 r-cu.,?t11ncP5 ?nr1 .
conr11tfons w1th1n fP/1 tl'l?t contr11iut1>d to fts f>itlo,,.e t6-rr-nv11e ?
ti"'f'ly an,:! a<ier:u?te r?pons1.> to thf' c:1t17.ens of the 1'1vr> Qfvl?r-s
Clll!n'lunfty. Thl!'le cfrc11ii,tances anrf conditions 8re dfscussl!d fn t?"'
1'o11?"fr>Q section.
The OT!'> 's Exp11nrfed R<1view ?ntl Tnqu1 ry Into PP.lated l'rn1r.?-:? !'ana11'!1,ent
Issues
1
The OIG's 11,ci,?nded review ancl inquiry 1c!,e,ntif1'!(1 certain :,ro\lr<'!l'I
"'anageMent issues t.li11t contrfhuterf ?o E!'fl's 1nari!!lluate rP.spon?e to
t'1e Fhta ?fvl!r-s 1nc1rlpnt. Th!>?e M'P. as fQ11.ows:
1.

Qr?en1zatfona1 Chanqes. Reg1nn1n1 in 1.-ite 1?76, E?A's admfn1str-ative structure for- "'1!nallf!ment
of t?e F?<leral Tn5ectfc1de,
. '
Funq1cf di, and l!o?nt 1ci de Act a11d Toxic ?u"?tancPs Control Act
progrtms unden<ent sever-al r,,ajor reor?anizations:
(a)

In f.lOV<!"lbP.r- 197?, th<!?!! PfOgl'aMS UP.r!' rC!"10YP.d fro,? the
nff1ce of Water ?nd Hazardous "?terial s and P.?tal>l1 s?ed as
the C1ff1ce of Toxic s,i?tilr.ces at ?" A,;si\Unt f,ds!fnistrftto,.
level.
I
(h} In ?arch 1?7R, thP. Off1ee 1 of Tox1c Suh5t6nCP.S w?s
suhd1vf<!ed and .;fV'!n four: !'eputy As?ista:,t i\de1in1?tr?tor?
one each for l'esticf<le Pr??ra"'s, Chi,,ifc?l Cllntro1, TP.H1ng
Ind Ev?lu?t1on, llnd Progr
!nteqr?tion ?nd Tr,fonoation.
r
(c) In 'lept?r 1nr.o, the OffiC<! of Tox1r: Sut>stilnc"s was
renil"'C" the Off fee of ?st 1r.1 ril'S ?nd Tn?if. ';ut:>st?nr.M
(nrrs) and Or".)anf1.e!I with!t"<n ['!eputy Assfst?nt -?-m,ir,i?triltor-,;
for- thP. nf1'1c<! nf l>f!st1c1dP l"rooJrar,? (l'PI') and the '1ff'fcP
of Toxic 5u?st?nces (OTS)!
.
.
.
I
I

i

These than?, to the or-')lln1 zat.1nna 1 st ructur" \ll'rl! ?cco"11ani Prl
hy chanqes 1'1 the adrnfnfstrat1ve p9,rsnnnP.l ?nd 1n the functional
stat-.nts of SP.YPral ?l!Y 01v1s1ons an,f !lranches with the oPP.
Thesl! Oivhion! and f!ranche?S wr.re re?ponsihJ&? for the ,\1s??
?t11<1y. FPA's ru1.1ons@ to the Five 'livers fnc1ctt>"to and ?rf!
involved in the susre?1on and icance11at1nn ?, 2,?,5-T anrl
S1hP.x, i!S well as re-,ulatory actions for ?11 other pP.st1cirtP.s.
'1P be11evl! these oNJ?n1zat1on.tli ch;,noes cont.r1'1utP.i:J t'l ?PA's
I
1
failure to P.XPP.?1tious1y co,:,p1,.t., the .?lsoM ?ti:dy ?n1 to ftr1P.Q11?t11l:i:
res;mnn to the F1ve P1v@rs 1nr.111 dent. I!- Q]2_o ?dw?rs,1ly ?ffP.tt.P.d [
[l'A's actfons rP.?ard1"(} lllf! ;>,4,5-T ancl S? ?uspensio!' .ar.<L_
canc!ll latfon ?nd lts requlator-y act1o"s rP.gardin'l other pe?tfcides.

'

---.

""'
-Ii-

2.

F'raq--nt't<l Adroinhtrat1on. Requ1-,t1on of the u?e of any toxic
suh?t.ances, known or sns;,ectec1 to ?(fv"r?"ly affect puhllc he?lt.h
nr the l!nv1 rOm'l<>nt, rerp,1 res 1nt?rat pd ,1c!r,1 ri1 ? trat ion of sevP ra 1
(PA pro')r?ms. \ie 1rlent11'11!'1,. lac? of 1nte'.)rAt1on w1th1n n1>T?,
hPtwP?n nPP and OTS, and also het?een OPTS ?nri nthP.r EPA off1c<>s.
For ex?mjlle, 1n the Five Rivers 1nc111ent, tloe Dinx1r. r.ton1tor1"g
Progral'I coordin?tnr \<fas intP.restP.d o;ily 1n t?P n1oxin lssuP.,
tliP. Pest1c1rlP Incident Do,sponsP 'lff1cer w?s interPst,?d only in
r,ettin') an 1nfoma':ivP. re?ronse tn th'! Fiw, ''ivnr? rM1'1ellts
and the f!azarti F.v?luatioo ?iv1sion c1irPctor was 1nt1>re?tl'? in
CO!'lpletinq t?!l Alsea St.urly, 1-1h/ch include\! dn?l1osi? of s?"'Pl!!s
ohh1ne<l 1n the F1vl! Rivers coipr,,11nft.y. rn ;,ridition, 1o?rl.,..,unt"
:a,nd inaccurate re,;r,nns'!s J:!L Fr"etil'l<'l of lnfo,-.,a,;1on Act ann
cfi scovery r?ts r!!aar!11 ng fu P.l sea .stunv, the Five Ri '!!i!2.
1.!!9,.!Jl!M., and 11t.1gat1o n ,mcter 1 the t'??1onal ??vi r,ir>"!enul
Polley ?t Wt'!f'f! thP. result of pnor COl'wrnnicat1nn and coort11nntfon
hetwee" the flffice nf Pest1cirtcs nnd Toxic .SoJhstanci>s ;ind th!'
riff 1 ce of '-'Pril'!ro 1 rounsp l o Ile i he 1 i """ ?h,.,;e P.xa<1p 1 f!S of fril'11?1P.ntPri
am1n1strilt1on r:ontrib11tM tn ?PP's failure tn prnvid<> r.rmpt,
tl1rP.ct, and f11ll rP.sro!'l5P.S 1n tli!! Five Pivers incio!Pnt. lt
al ?o 1r,pe,1P.d thP. nro?r..,s,; of t?e Ah<!il ?t.,,rly ?nr! th" conr:lusion
of the l,?,5-T and 51lvex c?ncell?':ion action,

:J.

()verl8poing Arr?nge,i<>nts. anrl Foinct. for,s. Thf' arr,1n<;e..,?nt of
the or,1ani1?t1on.il 5tructures anrl their rP.l?t.P.d functional
st?t""'f'nts for C"PP's \ laurd Evalo1at.ion "ivlsion nnri ?.!?OP.fits
?nrj FieJ,j $t11rl1es n1v1sinn parallel anri n<"?rly d11rlicatP. th(l?P
M llTS's tlP.-,lth anrl ""vir11nl'lental .nevlew "1v1sion an? r:xp<1sure
Evaluation !'ivis1nn. ln the caS<! of tn,1 !'iv? l'iser.; incident,
t'ie Pestfcic1e lnci<i<;!nt n.r:spons? OfficP.r, assi:in"'rl to tt-e l!11ia;in
Effect? ?onitor1no Rranch of the ?enP.fits ??<1 !'1,.lrl St11d1es
fl1v1s1on, was rP.sponsi?le for i:oorrtinntin,; and prov1:lin? ?
rapid responsP. ti) r"n"rtl!d f"!!S1iicide incident?. Thi! riirector
of the Hazar<:1 F.val11ati11n n1v1s1on was rP?n'!n51!:>l? fnr r.cil!ntifie
data and h-lzard ?valuat1on'I 1n :s,,;i.ort of. all f'l'J' proqril"''.';o
Tlie Dioxin Mo111t.or1 nq Pro9ra., Coordi natnr, as si ?n!ffi t<l the
S?c1a1 P"'st1c1<1P.s ?Pv1ew l'iv1slion, WdS P.?r>P.ct1>? to coordinate
opo and other !'PA activities to provide infoMat1on A!lr1 -lata
1n support of re9ulatory ?ction:s rP.1ard1n<1 nP.stic1.Je5 known to
contHin n1oxin'.';. i::acli nf thPS?, kP.y ?taff "IP'1h<>rs ?ad resno"si-
h11it1'!s for "lerie11ts of the F1[ve Rivers 1ncir1ent, t>ut l!Q o,rut
?ct.Pd to cnntrnl !he total act l,v1t.y. Th1s ovP.rl?o nf ?rran']?P.n?s
an<! functions resulted in no on?. 1)<>1n<J ass1qn<>rl the to?al
control anr1 respons1h111ty.
o

I

I

o

'

o

-74.

5.

JnadequatP. Control and llccount;aMHty. t,11!.. o"'!rl? ahle to t?
a_ccoont.1!>111 ty and r.ontrnl fnr1 .tt11?_Fi v'! R1'tPts 1 ncf ,Jent no
fJJ.d.her tHn thP. nep11t.y ,\s?t Aii"'1,,istrator ..Q.f. !Jl'P,.
Tm?ed1ately after receipt of tho. letter frt'l"I th'! Flv'! Rivers
residents, he rlirecte<f his staff to prep?re ? plan nf action
for a response to thP. incident'. The plan 1><as to "? returnPrl
to hi!ll w1thfn twr, weP?s. t'" OM indhidual was assigned
r"spons1hflity for the tijs? aot1 no r,l?n w?? preMrerl. We
atte-:,pterl to rjeter.,,ine why the rlan h>.d not hePn prepared, but
we found no other a.vi dericP th?t t.he rrogr<?5 s nf th'! 1 nci <hmt
response wAs "e1nq rol0n1t,,r!!ff. ! ,,-; noted 1n 2 ,rnd 3 above,
several 1nt11v1duals hn'1 responsil-i1lit_y for P.]e,-,ents of ??e
f'1v@ Rivers focirtent. 1-lrn,,!!vP.r', none was helrt rPs110nsihlr. far
t?e fa11 ure to rrotjuc? the rcquP.stP.d pl.an nf ?ct ion nor fnr
the c0"1plet1on of F.PA's r?spons? to the Five Rivers inr.i?R.nt.
We found the s?r,p 1nade-:-uatP. d,ntrnl and accounUbilitv rel?t1ve
to th'! AlsPil St1Jdy and t.hP 2,4?5-T and Sflv'!Y. ?uspPnsi?n anrl
cancellation actions. NonP. ofithe?P tr.r 0P. ?r.tivitfps hn5 b?P.n
offfc1?11y concluded. l'e tlelieve that inadPqu?te crmtrol ?nn
accountability contrihute-d Si!ltlffci!ntly to tlelnying their
comr,let1on.
i

Regulatory 0,,.lays. F.ffective rl!'.lul?tory actions ?o prl!vent
adverse health effects and environ,,er,Ul rlrqrndat1on, r!l(]u1rP.
tMt EPA est,1blish and 1r.ipll!l'!Pflt i:oncise re<111lation? and strntegies
for program a,j,,,1ni?tration and execution. FrO"l the nrr. review
?nd inquiry into the F1v!! R1vl"rs incident, the rP.laterl Alsea
Study, and l"l!<Jlllatory actions 1eriardina ?,?.?-T, S1ivelt and
other pP.sticictes, we fount1 evidence of requ1atory rielays. ThP.
following. ar.e represP.nt11t1Ye ds" studips.

I e?I r"::iar1in<J t.lle toxicity
Tn )91i9, scfent.1t'ic ev1rlence
of 2,11,5-T and re1aterl fol:l!lulatio?s, susr,P.cted to be
conUmin?ted i-rltti Term. (See !lack?rounrf, Pa'le 7.) EPA's
re?uhtory actions i nvolvi,nq cancellatfon ?nri rere91str?t.1on
of 2,4,5-T and Sflvex, bP.<Jo!ln 1n 1979. r.xtensive rl!!lays
have rP.sulterl frOM litiga?ion ijnd thP ad?inis?rative
hearing process. OvP.r this period of so?P fourteen year-;,
EPA has not Cfll'lplr.ted thij rer,ul?tory action o.
(h) S1nce latP. 1970, scientific ?tudies indiutP.r! that pat,mt.ial
a?I! ?h @ffpct.s ?i? ht result fro? P.xpn? to ?, a -n
?M rP.lat!'d fomuht1ons. 1 We omra advised that EPA has
bt!en activP.ly involo,r.d in r<c>view antl -,v?1uijtion ,:,f $c1ent1ffcl
data on thh family nf che,-,1c?l for":lulati<Jns since at
lPast 197P. or 1q7<1. !n JJly lOR?., EPA issu'!'i a "l'lltii Call-

(?)

I

-A-

In orrler to !IIOl'e fully explore this issue, the om plans to
1n1tiatP. an audit of selected ?spects nf OPTS programs 1n
Ftscal Yenr 19?4.
RFCtml1F.rl!'!AT!!'lNS
Rased on the results of our rev11!W
1.

Wt!

rec0111mend th?t:

I

I

.

The Assistant ?dm1nistratnr, Office of Pest1cfrles and Toxic
Substances (OPTS):
(al tn1'om the sf,;ners 01' tlie_ "'F1vP. ?iverso letter of t'1e
status of EPA 's respnnse 1to their request;

(h) prepare a plan, iloclud1ng; a tfmf! fr.,ne, for th!.' completion
of the fnlN!stfgatfon into th? F1v? Rivers 1ncfdent; anrl
(c) l)l'f'pare and furnish a repol't of the 1nvP.sti')ation to the
Five Rivers resident?.

2.

Thi! Ms1stant "'1n1r,fstl'?tor 01'I Ol'TS 'Insure t.hat ?11 corr'!ct1ve
?ct1nns 1c1Pnt1ffed 1n the opp ,repol't t>e 11"p1P.f'lent? at the
!!dl'll est posslhlP. t1r.ie. Al?n,I requ1rP. th!' l1fr,.ct,1rs of ()!'P
and OT5 to initiate a coor?1"?tPrl rRvf?? ?? th? is5uPs anrl
prohlel'IS identified fn th? OPP report and ti) br,Je.,ent any
f!Jrt.,P.r correct1.ve actions faunrl
to be reauire<,,
'
'

3,

bee: A-109:Colony:tms:ll/21/RJ:382- 1 ?on
Kirkendall (reading ffle)
AIGA
Tfwana
RETYPED:A-109:Colony:jmh:11/22/83:3.?2-7600
I

 

ANALYSIS OF EPA'S HANDLING OF THE
FIVE RIVERS INVESTIGATION

..

prepared by the
Exposure Assessment Branch
Hazard Evaluation Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
November 22, 1983

ANALYSIS OF EPA'S HANDLING OF THE FIVE RIVERS INVESTIGATION

Contents
I.

...,.... ,..,...

II.
''

III.
IV.

v.
,,

VI.
VII.

aooendices

Introduction

1

Description of the original letter, EPA's
response during the period 1979-1980, and
description and status of all samples
collected f?om the Five Rivers area.

3

Discussion of the health questionnaire
investigations carried out by Lincoln
County and by the Colorado ESP.

22

Overview of the Dioxin Monitoring Program

24

Description of the FOI and related events
during 1981-1983 o

30

Discussion of the Region V samples.

38

SUllllllary discussion

40

..

>.

..

1. Detailed sample history of all Five Rivers
samples
2. Organizational Status of Personnel

.-

3. List of references
references

(three volumes, in separate notebooks)

,

. .
-.,

-1-

'

Introduction
On August 4, 1983, one of the plaintiffs in a National
Environmental Policy Act case in Oregon presented to the court
a table of analytical results which appeared to show that
samples taken in the Five Rivers area of Oregon contained
TCDD, in one instance at a level of almost 6 parts-per-billion
(ppb).

These results were released by the plaintiff to the

press and immediately attracted the attention of at le-ast two
congressmen and the Governor of.the State of Oregon.

Subse-

3uently, ?t was found that roughly one-third of the sam les in

the table (including the 6 ;.,c;.;;;.._?=?le) ?tually came from EPA's

Regio? V, rather than from O?on.

The Agency was barraged

with demands for information on the Five Rivers and Region V
samples, and for an explanation of the apparent rnixup of the
samples.
The Five Rivers samples had been collected by the Agency in
1979 and early 1980 as part of an inve9tigation into alleged

health effects resulting from the use of 2,4-D and picloram.

The investigation had been initiated in response to a letter
from several residents of the Five Rivers area, and was to have
included several aspects, one of which was the analysis of the
samples for several herbicides and TCDD.

The Agency had told

the Five Rivers residents in 197? that they would be advised of
any results of the investigation as soon as possible.
The Region V samples were collected in 1978 as part of
the Re?ion's investigation of TCDD contamination in Michigan.

-2-

r

Some of the samples were of river sediment, and others were
in-plant samples from a major chemical company.

Immediately

after the August 4 incident, the Agency preliminarily assessed
the status of the Five Rivers investigation and the Region V
samples (l*).

Regarding the Five Rivers investigation, it

appeared that (a) the samples were never analyzed for herbicides;
(b) the TCDD analysis of the samples was incomplete; and (c)
the people of Five Rivers had never been advised of the available
results, notwithstanding repeated attempts through FOIA and
the NEPA litigation.

Nor does it appear that Region V had

ever received the results of the analysis of its samples.
Finally, the mislabeling of the Region V samples as samples
from Oregon seemed to be the result of a clerical error in
an EPA cooperative laboratory; there was no actual mixup of
the samples.
The following is an in-depth assessment of the ttFive Rivers
incidento.

Included are discussions of the status of the Five

Rivers investigation, the adequacy of the Agency's performance
in responding to the Five Rivers residents, and some steps
which can ? taken to avoid further ".Five Rivers incidents".
Also included is a brief discussion of the Region v samples.

* The numbers in parentheses refer to references listed in
Appendix 3. It should be noted that references cited in
the text are not necessarily individual documents but
rather index numbers to groups of documents located during
the preparation of this analysis.

,

II,

Description of the. original letter a?d EPA's .response
during the period 1979-1980,
On July 17, 1979, Ms, Melyce Connelly and four other female

residents of Five Rivers, Oregon, wrote.to the Administrator !of
the Environmental Protection Agency describing numerous health
I

i

problems, including spontaneous abortions, experienced by
community members (2).

u.s.

The correspondents indicated that the
I
Forest Service spraying of 2,4-D and picloram was a suspected

I

cause of the community's health problems.

I

The women specifically

.

.
stated, "We urgently request that these herbicides
cease to b e

sprayed until their, safety has been unequivocally established,

and that the miscarriages and th? health of the population be_
I

studied immediately",

The letter noted that Five Rivers was a

community of some
SO families andI located in the Alsea, Oregon
drainage area. . Attached to the letter was a table depicting
I

o

I

dates, lo.:ations, acres sprayed,:herbicides applied, dates

..
miscarriages of
-

the signatories, and the distances of the spray

areas.from the women's homes.

--

0GBP?

-i

- .,

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs received the-Connelly

letter, via the Assistant Adminiltrator for Toxic Substances, on

July 24, 1979.

--

The Office Direclor, Mr, Edwin L, Johnson, sent

. I

a copy of the letter to Dr. Peter McGrath, then Director of the

Hazard Evaluation Di?ision (HED)J on July 25, 1979.

Mr. Johnson

requested HED to investigate the incident, prepare a plan of

action in response to the letter within two weeks, and prepare

a letter to be sent to the women,: also within two weeks ( 3).

Frank Davida was. the Pesticide
Response
..Officer
....
---Incident
-..
.
. ........
--,-- -?in the 1ieal th.Effects. Branch. of HED; his res pons ibili ty. was to
"---?

investigate reports of health impacts of pesticide use on the
public.

He was first made aware of the Conn elly letter by Dr o

..-,---?--- Michael. Watson. of _the EPA_ Region,.X office in Seattle .on July 24, 1979 (4).

Mr. Davide requested and received a copy of th e

Connelly letter on the same day via the EPA communications
center (5).

Mr. Davide informed his Branch Chief, Dr. Jack

Griffith, of the incident on July 24 and told him that he
would initiate an_ inv_e?_tjgation.
The Health Effects Branch (HEB) managed the Epidemiologic
Studies Program ,{ESP), .which consist ed of cooperative agreements
for health- and exposure-related research on pesticides with a
number of major universities throughout the" United States,
including Colorado State University.

One permanent fulltime-

.

Federal employee, Dr. Charles Miller, was--.sfationed at the
University;. he served as the HEB Field Studies Coordinator
for four different university cooperative agreements in the
.-

western"bn(?ed $tates o

Unknown
to HEB headquarters staff,
the
. --- . -- -. -:..:..:::.::.:?::.::.::..;;.::.=.
. .

ESP at Colorado State University was contacted on July 24,
1979 by Dr. John Gcogins, Oregon State Health Department,
regarding the Connelly letter which the Oregon Department had
.also received .(6 l-?

Dr? Googi.ns req1,1esteo -assist.a.nee fr.om the

Colorado ESP in investigating the matter.

Dr. Eldon Savage,

a professor of Epidemiology at Colorado State University and
the Project Director of the Colorado ESP, agreed to cooperate
with the state and local health departments.

(It should be

..

,.

.. -Sr

o
. es con):acted Colorado
noted that the .Oregon state health authoriti

ESP staff directly because of prlvi6us in??raction during the

development of the Alsea Study*, which had just been complete,d

at this time.)

On July 27, 19 79, Frank Davide informed EPA Reg ion X v.iai

Dr. Michael Watson of the investigation that HEB was to conduct (7).

On the samfi! day Watson and Davidb telephoned a number of indifiduals

I

,

and offices in an effort to obtain general information from the

medical community in relat.ion to! 1;.he allegations stated in th?
Connelly letter.

(This was stan?ard operating procedure in HEB

for this type of investigation.); The following were contacted:
Dr. Sheldon Wagner, M.D. - Oregon State University
Dr. Norton Kalishrna_n, M.D.

Benton County Health Officer,
11 Corvallis,
Oregon
..

.or. Schmidt - New Lincoln HeaJ:th Care Center, Toledo, Or?gon
Dr. Richard Bond, M.D.

..

.-

New Lincoln Health Care Center,
Toledo, Oregon

Dr. J. Kraus - Obstetrics. add Gynecology
Good Samaritan
Hospital, Corvallis, Oregon

..

i

Dr. Eloise Kalin - Sequrim, Washington
!
Mr, John Stoner - Lane County Env ironmental Health Department
Eugene, Oregon
I

I

Health Department, Eugene, Oregon
!
Dr. Barbara Wood, M.D. - Li?coln County Health Officer,
Newport, Oregon
Mr. Dick Kirby - Lane Count

*The Alsea Study is an epidemiolJgical study carried out to
assess the rates of spontaneous ?bortion occurring in a forested
region centered in the Alsea bas?n of Oregon, where 2,4,5-T had
commonly been used in forest rnandgernent, and to compare those
rates with rates occurring in a comparable control area. This
s?dy, along witj'l extensive animal data f? laboratory studies,
formed the ?s ? the Agency's J,.219 2,4,5-T suspension order.
!!i_e Alsea study a? includes the Five River s area.

-6,-

On July. 28, 1979, Frank Davide called or.. Charles. Miller,
the EPA Field Studies Coordinator based at Colorado State Uni-
versity (CSU), requesting that the Colorado ESP interview the
five women signatories of the July 17 complaint.
---.o...:,; .:.o '.

Mr. Bill

Wheeler of CSU was already in this area of Oregon collecting
some information previously requested by Dr. Miller in reference
to another study (6).

The Colorado ESP sent him some interview

questionnaires, similar to those used in the first phase of the
?lsea study (8)..

Mr. Wheeler interviewed four of the women and

collected water and sediment samples for poss ible pesticide
analyses.

No formal sampling plan was prepared,. since .at this

stage of the investigation no foz::mal study was planned; however,
a protocol for water and sediment sampling (68) had been prepared
by Mr. Robert Heath of HEB in ?anuary_l97,9 for use in .the
earlier Alsea investigation, and was apparently used by Mr.
Wheeler as a general procedure.
Mr, Wheeler returned to CSU on July 31 with the samples

-

..

which were stored frozen awaiting disposition instructions from
Mr. Dav.iel.o ,-On July 31, Dr. McGrath informed Dr. Griffith of Mr.
Johnson's request and requested that Griffith discuss the response
with him (9).

A meeting was held during the week of August 6, at

which Frank Davida outlined to Ed Johnson, Peter McGrath and
Jack Griffith what actions had already been initiated and which
were planned for the future (10).
were discussed:

The following initial actions

\

r

(1)

(2)

(3)
( 4)

-7-

Dr. Googins' request for assistance from the Colorado ESP.

Discussion of questionnaires administered by Lincoln County
Health Department
Interviews conducted thus far by Mr. Wheeler (Coloradd ESP)

Water and sediment samples collected in Five Rivers (Identified
1
sites A,C, and D.in TableI 1).
as ON-107 through ON-110 and
I
'
It was also decided to undertake additional work, as

follows:
( 1)

(2)

collect small animals nea,l water sites

ob tain
pestici
.
. "d e spray h.istories
.
f or t he area
l

(3) .map residences and their water supplies

( 4) .

(5)

.

I

examine
questionnaire
resu.
.
.
11 ts

place water filters on fakily taps for subsequent analysis

I
Most of the residents' wa?er supplies consisted of a gravity

fed system installed from a sp?ing to the home.
I

!

Conceivably

o

with this type of "open" water:supply the opportunity for
chemical ?and bacterial contamihation existed.

.-

Therefore, water

and sedi?ent samples were colllcted"from thr?? of the women who

had sign_ed the Connelly letter and had also reported spontaneous

?bortions.

I

(All three women lived within approximately one mile
!

of the 2,4-D/picloram spray arta.)

Also, the same types of sam ples

were co?lected from other local residents.

All animal samples

1

were taken within a 200 foot r ldius of the residents' collecting

and holding ponds, and were to[ serve as possible indicators of
environmental pesticide contam nation.
i

Water and sediment samples were deemed appropriate because

of the proximity of the Five Rivers to Alsea (they are in the

".'!.

-asame drainage areal.

Considering the., ??perience gained from

the Alsea study, the above sampling made good _investigative sense.
.eased in part on this experience, Dr. Griffith in HEB decided to
have the samples _analyzed for picloram, 2,4-D, ,2,4,5-T, silvex,
'
r
o -i ...._ r. -?
. ' . .. .
and TCDD*.
On August 6, the date of the followup meeting with
Mr. Johnson and Dr. McGrath on the status of the investigation,
Frank Davide called Dr. Miller at CSU and informed him that
water and sediment samples collected by the Colorado ESP should
be shipped to EPA's Bay .St. Louis laboratory for pesticide
. analysis.

These were later shipped by BSL to Dr. Michael

Gross at the University of Nebraska for TCDD analyses.

Mr.

Davide's rough telephone notes concerning this telephone call
only list 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (11); however, it is .clear from
...... ---the context and from other (unrec?ed) telephone conversations

----

___

that the intent was _to have the samples analyzed for all five
.

....;:__::..-___...,---=-

chemical's.

.-

At that time, the Bay St, Louis Laboratory (BSL),

managed by EPA's Office of Program Information and Integration,
was. the \:entral receiving and storage laboratory for all EPA
Dioxin.Monitoring Program (DMP)** samples, as well as a general
pesticide analysis laboratory.

At the request of the DMP

coordinator, who was in the Special Pesticide Review Division
(SPRD) of OPP at that time, BSL .would forw.ar.d .samples or extracts
of samples to other laboratories (12).

It is not clear from

*Throughout this document, TCDD refers to 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-para-dioxin,
*A description of the Dioxin Monrtoring Program is at page 24
of this document.

-9the immediately available record who was officially the DMP

I

Coordinator during the latter half of 1979; however, during
':,

I

o

this time P.eriod Dr. Dupuy at BSL received instructions (12)

I

regarding the disposition of t?e samples from Mr. Michael

,

Dellarco in SPRD.
It should be noted that the samples collected from Five
I
Rivers. were tracked through the DMP under the title "Alsea

I

Phase II" or "Alsea II" samplesI (43,58).

-

It is clear that requests 'for herbicide analysis were made

- .

to BSL (17); however, procedurJs for completion and reporting
of results broke down.
o--,..

1Instead of splitting

the samples for

herbicide analysis at BSL and TCDD analysis at the University

- - - 1- - -- - -- - .-

of Nebraska, the entire sam.:,les were in most cases sent to the
Univers{ty.

However, the University was affiliated with

the DMP t? 7 ough a cooperative ?greement, and its mission was
only to carry out TCDD analyses. On the other hand, notes

-

.

...-.-. --

---

from telephone conversations be\twee? Frank Davida and Mike

7-.,. .. --.-

Dellarco (22) imply that DMP management was in fact involved

?:

????em ent ?;;.??e -?-er?,;?,??e ??:?? ; o .,_ Th_?;e :'. !- h_;?-?:.'
'.:
no record available of any prov1 ision to... send the samples
,. or

..'"'=7? .,..,.,.._ ? .:?-?, ----..--,.--

=?......,.
,for pesticide analysis after
oratories
other l.a........b-u--..
to?-..,,
extracts.-

-

exer=Hon a, the Universicy.

l

On August 7, Mr. Wheeler r turned to Oregon, accompanied

l
ESP, to meet with personnel
by Dr. Eldon Savage of the Colorado
I

of the State Health Department,! the Lincoln County Health Dept.,
and Dr. Watson, the EPA Region X representative (13).

The

-10purpose. of this. trip_ was ?S! discuss project activities in ):he
-

o

'

----:: o

-

o

- -- ..

-

- - .J.- '

area and to collect ad ditional environmental samples and complete
interviews with the remaining women and two other women who
felt that their health status was impaired.

During this period

(August 7-22), Mr. Wheeler collected 14 animal samples from
the residents' water supply areas.

These samples (UN 191-204

in Table I) were transported to CSU for shipment to BSL.
On August 8, Colorado ESP personnel met with Oregon
\'
State and local health officia ls to discuss the situation
and decide on further action.

The results of the health

questionnaire survey administered by the Lincoln County
Departm?nt were discussed in detail.

At this meeting it

was decided to do call-backs to non-resp ondents. to expand
the data base, develop a second questionnaire, and to
possibly have Colorado State University do a statistical
analysis of.?he data collected (13).

(Had the Lincoln

County Health Department not alread y administered a health
questionnaire survey to the 71 families living in the Five

. ..

Rivers area, the Health Effects Branch would have attempted
to do so.

This was also a standard operating procedure in

the Branch. )
On August 14, a second letter (15) was written by the same
.group of women in Five Rivers to Douglas Castle, the EPA Admini-
strator.

This letter was answered by Mr. Johnson's office on

November 2, 1979 ( 15).

Mr. Johnson's reply is similar to the

August 16 reply made by Frank Davide (14) except that the November

-112 letter refers to the invest gation in Five Rivers as the ?Five

Rivers Study".

Mr, Johnson's letter states that "water and sedi-

ment samples from several res dents' drinking water suppli?s have

been collected and are being lnalyzed for 2,4-D, picloram, 2,4,5-T,

silvex, and dioxin.

I

You will receive the results of these, analyses

as soon as they are available".

Mr. Johnson's letter also dis-

cussed other issues mentioned,in the Connelly letter, such as

control of spray drift, risks versus benefits, citizens' rights
to refuse participation in area spraying either through elected

officials or through the courts, etc.

On August 15, a status r?port on the Five Rivers investi-

gation was submitted by Dr. M?ller to Frank Davide.

It contained

information on women intervieJed, samoles
collected, discussion
I
of questionnaires administered,
'
' etc (16).
.On August 16, Frank Daviqo sent a written reply to Ms.

Connelly concerning her initial le?ter of July 17, 1979 (14).

The letter briefly summarized what had been done to date, and

. .-

,1

picloram, 2,4, 5-T, silvex and
stated thc\t analyses for 2,4.
.
.
dioxin would be done on collected samples. Mr. Davide also
sent a brief status report to Dr. Griffith (10).

This report

stated that the Colorado ESP was currently involved in obtaining

spray data, mapping of reside)ces and their water supplies,

trapping small animals near sabpled water supplies, examining

Lincoln County heal th question\naires, and ass is ting the county
on call-backs.

[

-12:-

'

On August 28, 1979, Dr. Miller shipped the frozen water,
.sediment and small animal samples from the Five Rivers area (UN
107-110, Site A, C, D and UN 191-204 in Table I*) to BSL with a
.- request for 2,4-D, 2,4,S-T, picloram, and TCDD analyses of the
samples (17).

Silvex is not mentioned in the transmittal memo.

BSL received these samples August 31,. 1979, and as per
instructions of EPA's Dioxin Monitoring Program Coordinator
-

- -

--

held them in cold storage until further notification (12).
During the week of September 10-19, Mr. Wheeler returned
to Five Rivers to install ?ater pie filters on the water supplies
of several of the residents.

At that time a deformed kitten

which died several hours after birth, one chick and four ducklings with abnormal feet and blisters which had died since the
-

t=----

?--

-

-

-?

-

----

-

-

spring 2,4-.D-picloram spraying were given to Mr. Wheeler for

.

pathology and residue analyses (13,18). The cat, chick and
ducklings were examined at the Diagnostic Laboratory, CSU
College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Science.
chick

and

d.i:icklings were examined on 10/26/79.

The

The pathologist

reported verbally to Mr. Wheeler that h? that the observed
condition of the birds had any chemical connection.

The

pathology report (19) indicated no suspicion of chemical effect
and the birds were destroyed.
1, 1979.

The kitten was examined on December

The pathology report indicates that the deformation

* Table I on page 13 gives a list of all samples collected in
the Five Rivers area, together with a summary of the TCDD
results.
'

:;:_

I
-13-

Table 1
TCDD Analyses of Samples fran Five Rivers
UN-L

Sample
NUI!Der

UN-107
UN-108
UN-109
UN-110

.Site C
Site A
Site D

UN-191
UN-192
UN-193
UN-194
.UN-195
UN-196
UN-197
UN-198
UN-199
UN-200
UN-201
UN-202
UN-203
T.JN-204
UN-186
UN-187
UN-188
UN-177
UN-178
UN-179
UN-180
UN-181

5anl>le

Type

UN--L

cone

(pf-/

Sediment
SErliment
Sediment
Sediment
Water
Water
Water
Mouse
Shrew
Mruse
Mouse
Mouse
Mouse
Shrew
Tree Shrew
Tree Shrew
Bird
Mouse
Bird
Mouse
Newts
Cat
liver
Products of
conception
Tissues
Defonned
fetus
Filter
Water pie
Filter
Water pie
Filter
Water pie
Filter
Water pie
Filter
Water pie

Detection
limits

RTP
cone.

(pptl/

(pptl/

Not
analyzed
II
II

3

ND
ND

(pptl/

(1 )
(2)
( 2)

ND
ND
ND
ND

II

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Detection
limits

Not sent to RTP

(0.13)
(0. 08)
(0. 08)
(4)
(3)
(18)
(2)
( 3)
(3)
( 8)
(7)
(4)
(1)
(1)
(5)
(2)
(3)
,..
(3)
(2)
(1)
(15)

(l)

II

II
II
II

Analysis underway
Not sent to ,RTP
II
II

ND

Not sent to RTP

(2)

II

II

II
II

ND
ND

(1)
(2)

Analysis underway
Not sent to RTP

ND

(19)

Analysis underway

ND

3

(2)
(1)

Analysis underway

ND

(3)

Not sent to RTP

ND

(2)

II

ND
ND
ND

(2)
(2)
(2)

II

ND

( 6)

II

II

?l';

-14'l:'CDD Analyses of Samples fran Five Rivers
UN-L
Sample
Nunber

Sample

Type

UN-L
cone
(pptl/

Detection
limits
(pptlf

.. ...

-,,-

-

ON-182

Filter
Water pie
Filter
Water pie
Filter
Water pie
Filter
other

UN-183
UN-184
UN-185

ND

( 9)

ND

(14)

ND

( 26)

ND
ND

( 5)
( 5)

RTP
cone.
(ppt:J:.I

------- - .-"--?
Not sent
n

"
n

1/ parts par trillion
.

..

Analyses reported in the followirg references:
( 26)

Data

Report X frcm Dr. Gross, University Nebraska, Lincoln

( 28) Telefax of TCDO Analyses fran Robert Harless, RTP
(29) Memo from Robert Harless to Michael Dellarco, August 22, 1983
-.
(30) Data Report XIV fran Dr. Gross, University Nebraska, Lincoln

. .-

Detection
limits
(pptl/
to Rl'P

'

-11-

probably occurred 8 to 20 days after fertilization. ( 20).

The

kitten was returned to CSU w?erelthe ?ajor remains are presently
stored frozen. The liver was sh pped frozen to BSL on 2/19/80 (13).

-

I

Mr. Wheeler at this time was also given Sal!\ples referred

to as human aborted "products of conception" by the Lincoln

County Health Department (18).

The products of conception were

identified as from a woman residing in a town near the Five
Rivers area.

These tissues.werelstored frozed.

On October 25, 1979, Mr. Ronald Eachus of Rep. Weaver's

Oregon office telephoned Frank Davida and inquired about the
status of the Five Rivers. sampleJ (21) o
by October 29.

He asked for a response

Mr. Davido remembers telephoning Mr. Michael

Dellarco several times, but was unab le to speak to Mr. Dellarco

until October 29.

Acccrding to Mr. Davido, Mr. Dellarco told:

him that analysis of water and s?diment samples would be completed

?-

for 2,4?D and 2,4,5-T analyses by November 27, ?nd analysis of

.-

sediment samples for TCDD would also be completed by November
27.

Mr.

riavido transmitted this information to Mr. Eachus on

October 29 (22).

On No_yember 5, 1979, at the verbal request 9f Mr. Dellarco,

one fourth of each of the four sediment samples taken in July

. were -shipped to Dr. Michael Gross, University of Nebraska,
I

Lincoln (UN-L) for extraction and TCDD analyses (12).

The DMP

coordinator also requested at this time that the fourteen

small animals be sent to_Dr. Wend?ll Lorio, Mississippi State
university, for species ide ntification (12). Dr. Lorio picked

.-,.

-16,;_

up the ailimals.on December 18 and returned them to BSL on January
15, 1980 with the speciation completed (12).

Several erro rs in

this speciation were corrected in a subsequent memorandum from
Mr. Robert Heath of HEB on May 15, 1980 (23).
During early February, 1980, Mr. Wheeler returned to Five
Rivers to co llect the water pie filters which had been installed
in September on nine water supplies in the area (including
supplies of three of the five complaint signatories).

These

water pie filters were to have been checked
for bacteria because
'
early water sampl es taken by Lincoln County Health Department
from two creeks and two springs in the area were positive for
coliform bacteria ( 18) o

-?

Because of the . variance in the time. these

filters had been used and ??ct that '?nly_j;_hree had been
kept frozen, analysis for bacteria was not performed ( 24) o . The
Lincoln County-Health Department gave Mr. Wheeler tissues from
a human.aborted deformed fetus.

The exact location in Lincoln

County where the aborted fetus originated is unknown (25).

The

tissues .J:ro!!l the 'aborted fetus, the "products of conception".,
the live? of the deformed kitten, and the nine water pie filters
were shipped from CSU to BSL on 2/18/80 ( 25).
on March 6, 1980, Dr. Griffith, who was by then associated
with the University of Miami School of Medicine, wrot e a letter
to Mr. J. M. Conlon, the Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Pesticide Programs, in which he discussed the
sampling of the drinking water supplies in the Alsea area and
asked for a high.priority designation. for analysis of the

-11-

,,

samples._ Dr-. Griffith states in the letter that he had discussed
.. .... ? - ,,
the issue--with Mike Dellarco and intended to discuss it also

with Dorothy Patton of OGC on March 11, 1980 (57).

As directed by Mike DellarcoJ (12), BSL shipped the two

fetal samples (UN 187 and 188), the kitten liver (UN-186), and
the nine water p ic filter samples I ( UN 177-18 5) to Dr. Gross
j

for TCDD a n alyses on 4/16/80.

The fourteen small animal s amples

(whole animal) were shipped from

and half of each of the thre e

I

ksL to Dr.
I
wat r samples
?

1979 were shipped on 8/20/80 (12),

Gross on 6/4/80,

collected in August

Dr. Gross reported TCDD analyses of the fourteen small
i
animals, the fetal tissue, the products of conception, one
o

I

water pie -filter, and the cat liver to Mr. Dellarco on August
5, 1980 . in "Data Report

xo

(26),

Extracts of seven of these

samples (fetal tissue, products of conception and small animals)
-,

were sent to-EPA's Research TrianJle Park (RTP) laboratory for
confirmatory analyses on 8/26/80 (27)., Mr. Robert Harless of

the RTP-.laboratory analyzed three ismall animal extracts and
reported the results to Mr, Dellatco in a memo
......., on October 16,
I

o

1980 (28).

-

The other four sample?I were not analyzed.

On Au;ust 25, 1980, Mike Delllarco indicated in a memorandum

to 'Mr. .van X=ak, who was then in \charg-e of FIEB _project's on an .
_
acting basis, that analysis of water, sediment, and small

animal samples from Alsea, Oregon rere anticipated to be completed
by September 15, 1980.

These sampies are the Five rivers

samples, referred to by the DMP dekignation
of Alsea II.
'

The

-18-

'

memorandum discusses TCDD analyses only (58).
"Data Report XII" from Dr. Gross to Mich ael Dellarco, dated
9/8/80, indicates that the four sediment samples collected from
Five Rivers were extracted and sent to RTP for TCDD analys is (27).
The extracts of the sedimen t s were subjected to a screening
analysis fqr TCDD at RTP sometime between 10/23/81 and 8/19/83
(28,29). The results of this screening analysis were calculated
on 8/19/83 upon request of Dr. G. Fristrom (HED/OPP) and telefaxed
to EPA Headquarters on 8/22/83 (29).
these four samples.
/

was not detected in
TCDD
?""'--- .-.,;;?-:-.:.:-.-:.. - . :-_ .
'

The remaining eight water pie filters (UN 177-184) and the

/w:ater .samples were analyzed by Dr. Gross for TCDD and the results

?--=---- - . . -- - ---

sent to Michael Dellarco in Da ta Report XIV, December ....5, 1980 t (30).
to HEB, however.
never _transmitted
These results were
?
:,,=..:::.:::..:....z??-

4-?,.._.::.-- -- - -

._:;:::r.::-

?- -----

- --. -

-

Monthly

status repor?s prepared by Bill Wheel er of the Colorado ESP
during 1981 and sent to HEB indicated that labora tory reports
had .not been sent to Colorado (44); .and a s late as November 1981
.oo

Fra nk Dav.ido in HEB asked Mike Dellarco in SPRD for the analytical
__any -further
of
There are no available records
.
... ? - -. -- .
?--------------....______
attempts to obtain the reports after this time,

results (61).

The results of the TCDD analyses f9r all the Five Rivers
. s_amples are shown in Table I o

1 gives the detailed
Aooendix
.:....::..---

history of collection, chain-of-custody, storage, and analysis
for each sample.
None of these Five Rivers samples was ever analyzed for

..

.

'

_.JI

'

.

silvex, 2,4-D, 2,4,S,-T or picloram, as promised in the

I

letters of 8/16/79 and 11/2/79 to Ms. Connelly, and as requested

by Dr. Miller in his. memorandum Jf 8/27/79 to Dr. Dupuy at

BSL ( 17) o

I

1

The s?s of the samples a j of 9/30/83 is as follows (12,28,
/
_
\ 31, 6 o,67l,
I

---=-------?--.=--?"------?--------+;
Th.ese sediment samoles were analyzed

1. Three-fourths of each sediment samole is retained refrigerlted

at the BSL laborat?ry.

-

I

for the four herbi cides in September 1983; a report of the results is expected in mid-December, 1983.

2. One-fourth of each sediment sample was sent to UN-L.
1

of the sample was extracted; the remainder

Wi=!S

I

A portion

stored frozen. 'part

of each extract was sent to RTP, and the remainer was also stored
frozen at U?:Lo

RTP analyzed a portion of the extracts for TCDD

and retained the unused portion. frozen.

TCDD was not detected

in any of these four samples, as noted on page 18.

.. -

.

.

I

3. Porti ons of the tissue of the ?mall animals remain frozen

at UN-L. With the exception of UN l93 and UN-199, extracts of
f
these animals also remain frozen at UN-L. Frozen extracts of

.

animals UN-193, 197, 202, 203, and 204 are stored at RTP.

.

I

4. One-half of each water sample remains frozen at BSL.

I

The other

.
o f extracted
half of each samp 1 e was sent to U -L, where portions
sample remain frozen.

l

5. Unextracted water pie filters and portions of the extract

-?

?. ,,
'
, :,

-20remain frozen at UN-L.
6. The remains of the kitten are stored frozen at CSU,

A

portion of the liver and the extract rema?n frozen at UN-L.
7.

A portion of the samples of the products .of conception and

fetal tissues, and the extracts of these samples, remain frozen
at UN-L.

RTP h as retained the frozen extract of these tissues

shipped to them on 8/26/80.
In summary, portions of original Five Rive rs samples have
been located for all 33 samples.

OPP intends to have these

-remaining samples analyzed for the four herbicides.

The original

samples retained at UN-L were sent to the BSL laboratory on
10/3L?.3 ( 67). Analyses. _are now underway at BSL; a complete report
of the results should be available by mid-December, 1983.

-

It

that the age of the samples will render the
must be stressed
analytical .results suspect; however OPP believes that the
analyses should be completed in any event o
... .

--

. . . With regard to the analyses for TCDD by the University of
Nebraska, the analytical work is complete, and the results are
shown in Table.I.
questioned by EPA.

The technical quality of this work is not
Nebraska's report of this work has not been

accepted by the Agency, but only because the table presenting
analytical results for the Five Rivers samples also contains
results of the samples from Region V,

EPA has requested that

these data be placed in separate tables,

'

-21-

o ,.>

o.

Eleven.of the 33 samples were sent to RTP for duplicate

TCDD analysis.

Analyses have been completed for these samples

(TCDD was not detected in anyii a report is expected to be

completed by RTP by November 30, 1983.

When the report is

completed, a comparison with lhe UN-L results and a final j
'
assessment of the Five Rivers TCDD sample results will need to
I

be prepared by ORD.

_,

.-

.

. ..

'.

-22III.

.:.::. ,:_. =-- ;--

. ? ;;. -

,: ;- ,- -

.... ,:-,

. ,:-,. .:.. -'.

.,

. ' ...... ;

.

Discussion of ...the health questionnaire investigations
carried out by Li?coln __County and by _the Colorado ESP,
Dr. Barbi.ra Wood, the Lincoln Cou'i,;.ty Health Officer? h;,;d

-...

-?

.

conducted a health survey apparently in early July 1979.

The

questionnaire was designed to provide health data.on residents
of the Five Rivers area.
s of the Oregon State,
John Googin
On July 24, 1979, Dr.
-------=--,.. -.- ----Health Department contacted Dr. Eldon Savage, Project Director
of the Colorado Epidemiologic Studies Program concerning the
occurrence of five miscarriages in the Five Rivers area of
Oregon.

Dr. Savage was invited to Oregon to discuss the

overall health situation and to advice and/or assist the Lincoln
On August

,County Health Department with their health survey.

7, 1979 Dr. Savage and Bill Wheeler met with Drs. Googins and
Wood.

It was learned at this time that Dr. Barbara Wood had sent

a four pag e?nealth questionnaire (32) to 71 families residing
in the Five Rivers area; a total of. 40 questionnaires were
initiall;{ ?eturned.

Dr. Savage was asked to evaluate the survey

design, the questionnaire, etc. and pr ovide whatever assistance
which might be needed.

Dr. Savage advised the Lincoln County

Health Department on how to d o call-backs to nonrespondents
in order to expand the data base.
-of respondents to a total of 51.

This increased the number
Also, Dr. Savage volunteered

the services of Colorado State University in statist ical analysis
of the data.
The data was collected by the Lincoln County Health Department

..

'o .

-? .-.?
o

-23-

and is considered the.ir prope ty.

The statistical effort

provided by Colorado ESP was from persons only partially funded by
EPA.

No computer time was paid for with EPA funds.

The combined

effort was strictly an agreemJnt between the Colorado ESP and
Lincoln County.

Whe.n all staJistical work was returned to.

Lincoln County, a report was

courtesy copy provided to EPA.

Io

1

be generated by them
with
.

I

It appears that the investigators

hoped that chemical exposure .nformation i:-esulting from thJ
.

. !

analysis of the samples could be used in judging any relationship
to the i:-es ul ts of the heal th s;urvey.

-...

--

.,oo o oI

?.. ,
.....-.

' ...
.., .. ,,.,.--

However, no report was

ever developed by the Lincoln iCounty Health Department, in no
small part because of the Agency's failure to complete the
sample analysis.

Pursuant to a telephone d.iscussion with the Lincoln County
Health Department staff, EPA s?nt the Department a letter on

September
.
- . 2, 1983, formally asking whether the data can be
released (33).

A reply (64), ?hich stated that when the laboratory

test results of all the

samplesI

.

collected were released to the

Lin??ln County Health Departmeht, EPA could have access to their

survey data, was received Octo er 4, 1983,

,.

-'i

1'
o

'.
-24-

o' '.? --' - :

The Dioxin Monitoring Program (DMP) was located in the
Special Pesticide Review Division (SPRD) of OPP when the initial.
response to Melyce Connelly's let ter began in July, 1979,
, -.'
The DMP was an outgrowth of the earlier Dioxin Implementation
Plan (DIP), which was initiated in 1974 to de tect TCDD in
the environment associat ed with the use of 2,4,5-T.

The D?Y

----

was initially comori?ed..Q.L_government, academic,?? industry
scientists, including chemists who had expertise in di oxin
analyses, and represent atives of public interest groups.

The

DIP project officer in SPRD was respo nsible for holding a
series of meetings at which the chemists established the
analytical criteria under which samples would be analyzed and
reviewed the results of actual analyses,
The DIP had several managers during its history,_including
Dr, Ralph Ross, Mr. Tom Hollaway, and Ms. Ca rolyn Offutt.

Ms.

Offu tt was reassigned to the staff of ?he SPRD Division Director
,-4

.ooo

Mr. Holl?way was to serve as the

primary contact for dioxin work (the DMP), the responsibility
f or which remained in Chemical Review Branch #2 of SPRD (59).
During the __ following several months there does not appear to
have been an official DMP coordinator.

A memorandum dated

_November 16, 1979, changed the pr oject officer for the DMP
cooperative agreements from Carolyn Offutt to Tom Hollaway
(60).

am-
'('li/''

o

IV. Overview, of the Dioxin Mani taring. Program

beginning on June 3, 1979;

' II

It seems clear from several memos and notes in the

r?cord, however, that during this time period Mike Dellarco
',.

I
_
-_25r
was exe rcising day-to-day.
respons bili ty for the operation of
i
the DMP, For example, as noted on page 8 and 9 of this analysis,

Mike.?ellarco was directing the disposition of the Five Rivers

samples during the latter half of 1979,

A memorandum of November

6, 1979 (in 12) from Aubry Dupuy to Mike Dellarco reported the:
,: =

,., ".r.

--.. .

shipment of sample s UN-105 through UN-110 to Dr, Gross at the
University of Nebraska,

e o

A transmittal memo from Aubry Dupuy

to Michael Gross (in 34) was also copied to Mike Dellarco.

Also, as noted on page 15 of this'.analysis, Frank Davido requested

and obtained the projected completion dates for both h_erbicide

and TCDD analyses of the water and sediment samples fr.om Mike

I
Dellarco in October 1979 in respo?se to a congressional inquiry.
In March, 1979, after many 2,:4,5-T and silvex uses. were

suspended by EPA, the public meetings and interactions with
industry (Dow Chemical Co.) and other government chemists
(USDA and
- ceased.
. FDA)

.

However, Jrogram activities within

EPA continued un der the revised de:signation of Dioxin Monitoring

Program, with Agency c?emists Dr, 'Aubry Dupuy of the Bay St. Louis
oo
I
laboratory and Robert Har less of the ORD laboratory in Research

Triangle Park, ;o?-th .;aro.l?na, parlicipating.

In addition, Dr.

Michael Gross of the University of Nebraska and Dr. Thomas

Tiernan of Wright State University participated under cooperative agreements ?ith the Agency (3

)?
1

In March, 1981, responsibilit? for the DMP was transferred

to the imme diate office of the Asslstant Administrator for

Pesticides and Toxic Substance s, and Dr. Donald Barnes became

-26the, interim coo.rdina tor.
from. Mr. James

'

The February 2.6, 19 81, memorandum

M, Conlon, Deputy Office Director of. OPP,

transferring the responsibility for DMP to Dr, Barnes (.34)
lists five OPP studies underway in DMP laboratories; however,
analysis of sampl_es from Five Rivers is not listed as an ongoing
study, nor is Alsea II sample analysis (the DMP designation
for Five Rivers) -listed as ongoing.
An appendix to a dr aft memorandum prepared in June 1980
for the signature of Mr. Johnson, the OPP Office Director, but
apparently never transmitted, lists 18 studies underway in the
DMP (62).

Included in this list is "Alsea Phase II study -

Accession No. 12", which is contained in a group of studies listed
as "of interest tci the 2,4,5-T Hearings".

Also listed in.-=
this

appendix as Accession
No. 4 are the water and sediment
samples
- ,:o.1,-c?-..?---=-----=--......,__,...,, ---::: .:!l ,,,,_,_ ..---... c;: .. .-:z- .. -- --- -.-_...........,.

----?? -=--=--.

from Region V.
?---.
___
.--- - ____,

In.June, 1981, the Office of Research and Development
assumed responsibility for the DMP, an? Dr. Josephine Huang

-.

became . the coordina tor (29),

Later, Mr. Dellarco again became

the coordinator as an ORD staff member,
Analyses for TCD? at the parts-per-trillion (ppt) level
require s methods which are 1000 times more sensitive than
routine environmen?al pollutant analyses,

This ne cessitates

the use of sophisticat ed analytical equipment, and analyses
carried out by the DMP routinely utilized a gas chromatograph
coupled to a mas s spectrometei:-.

Stringent performance _criteria

and quality control measures must be met before a co nclusion
,."

"'

..

o

.-21-

is made that any given signal response of this equipment in

fact represents actual TCDD and iot some chemical interference

or detector response due to laboratory contamination.

preparation procedures are also

Sample

emanding, especially when

'.

chemical interferences or carbon particulates are present in

the samples to be analyzed (34).

Because of the likelihood of chemical interfarence and

weak signal responses at or near the limits of detection, DMP

samples which show apparent posi?ive results .at or near the limit
of detection are routinely re-extlracted and/or reanalyzed by a
second independent laboratory.

If this second laboratory con-

firms the initial p9sitive results, then the sample is considered
to be positive for TCDD.

If TCDD' is not detected in. the sample

at.a lower detection limit, the sbcond analysis is reported

.' . 1
. . than the origina
. was moreI sensitive
f or t.he samp 1e because it

measurement.

'
To guard against false negative results, approxi:-

mately 20% of initial negative samples are re-extracted and

laboratory'I ( 34 h
r ean.alyzed by a second
o
.

..

.

This stringent analytical methodology for TCDD was pioneered
I

by the DIP,

Only a small number

lf

government, academic, and

industrial,_laboratories were capable of detecting TCDD at the

ppt level during the 1979-1981 tike period.

I

At that time, the

.tlM!'i had confidence only in the University o'f Nebraska and Wright
State University labor_<:,tories !,_o?
Mr. Harless' l?
RTP.
at
a9?atory---..
.....,
-

-

-

------

-

?--

--

.......
-.?

l'l:.a? a?';_lys;:s, ,0_
-

.

?

<<e:::-

addi_tio_'.;_ toi
-?

At the time when the Five Ri ers investigation began in

I

....

?

-28-

'

1979, the DMP was. attempting to manage the analyses. of all samples
collected by the Agency for TCDD analysis (12);
samples were sent to Dr. Dupuy at BSL.

Al l of these

Personnel in the laboratory

maintained a log of all samples which described the originator,
the kind of samples, their condition, and any other information
about them that was provided with the shipment.
Samples were generally extracted, coded, and shipped by
Dr. Dupuy with control samples to the analysts.

Codes did not

distinguish between test and control samples, so that the
analyses were conducted blindly.

Analysts reported coded

results to the DMP coordinator who ensured that the analytical
criteria were followed for each sample and that the quality
control samples indicated no laboratory contamination with
contamination with TC?D or instrument error.

The coordinator

de-coded the data, coordinated reviews of results with .the
chemists, c9?ducted peer review sessions, and reported final
results to the originator (34).
The-utilization of a single sample preparation laboratory

.o

(BSL) and three analytical laboratories resulted in a large

-?- -

sample backlog at BSL.

---'?

Consequently, samples collected in

--

late 1978 were not being analyzed and reported until early

1980.

?-c.-.

.-----"..'"'""

__......-.

-.-. '--'-"'---?- -

t=---""--?

After March 1, 1979, prioritization was employed which.

. focussed on analytical support for the 2,4,5-T litigation
effort.

Analyses were conducted first for samples from relevant,

well-design ed, documented studies which contained adequate
study plans and quali_ty assurance.

Samples from studies without

',-

-

..

? .. o'llJ
.-.
.

.

-29-

)

study plans or formal reques s for analysis, analyses requested
by EPA regional offices or b

I

l

.

.

other government agencies,- and

analyses which were not rele ant to the issues in the litfgation
l
were given lower priority (3 ).

f
--

.

' .. .. ....
.

?--. (f).

-30-

'
0

V.o EPA responses to External Requests for Information on

Five Rivers

EPA is a defendant in the case of Merrell v. Block, which
involves a challenge un der NEPA to the Forest Service herbicide
spray program in the Siuslaw Nation al Forest in Oregon.

The

plaintiff in that litigation, Paul Merrell*, has repeatedly
attempted to obtain information on the Five Rivers investigation
through both Freedom of Information (FOIA) and discovery pro-
c'edures.

As detailed below, Mr. Merrell initially sought

information under a May 15, 1981 FOIA regar ding a study of
human health effects related to pesticide use in the Five
Rivers area (RIN 1489-81 (35), later renumbered !uN-1413-82).
Later, he requested that EPA produce, through discovery, documents
relating to a study or investigation of human health effects
asso ciated with the use of pesticides in that portion of the
Siuslaw National Forest which contains the Five Rivers area.
In sever_al ?ubsequent pleadings in the litigation, Mr. Merrell
repeated his discovery request and also referenced his FOIA
request o. NDtwithstanding these requests, Mr. Merrell apparently
did not receive any results from the Five Rivers investigation
until August 1983, when his attorney, Michael Axline of the
Pacific No?thwest Resources Clinic, obtained a copy of the
table showing TCDD analytical results from Dr. Gross of UN-L.
included in the material sent by --nr. .Gross were the results of
the Region V samples, as well as results from Five Rivers samples.
* Mr. Merrell is a resident of the Five Rivers area and the
husband of one of the signers of the July 17, 1979 letter
to the Agency.

.

?

..o

._

....

I

-31-

.

I

.

However, -certain documents- relating to. the results of the

Five Rivers analyses were in the files of EPA's Office of

General Counsel (OGC) and in the DMP files (26,27) at the time

of the Agency's response to Mr, Merrell's discovery request.

I

:

(,These documents ? ?produced in response !;GBP. ? request>
. This apparently resulted because the staff involved with the

I

case at that time inadvertently f,ailed to interpret the request
I

i

as covering the Five Rivers analyIse? (40). Nor does it appear
l
that these or any other documents containing results were made

available to Mr. Merrell in the A!1gency' s responses to his FOIA
request?rther, it ap pears that
.?.. government pleadings
i other

-

besides the d;EGBP.??ry ???p_GBP,nse co?tained
statements
incorrect
?---111,_r:r ee *-- _.,,,,
? ?-:::..z..
...

,:.;1

.

indicating that no additiona? inform.ation was available beyond

that which the Agency turned over, to Mr. Merrell in response

to his FOIA request.

on August 25, 1981 Mr. Merrell submitted his
For example,
-.
First.Request for Admissions (36), which requested all the

.-

Federal: defendants in the case of: Merrell v. Block to make

admissions -?egarding the authenti/:ity of numerou s documents
I
.
and .the truth of a number of statements. Mr. Merre 11 's May

15, 1981, FOIA request letter, Mr[ Johnson's response and the

fifteen en;losures concerning thelFive Rivers, Or?gon, investi-
gation are named .as Exhibit'S l th?gti -5 and 10 ttr-rougn 21 of
this request for admissions.

Stalement 2-11 in the list of.

statements includes the following sentence, relating to the
samples taken in the Five Rivers

"All of these samples

:.:

'o

..
-32-

'

'! oo

for res:idueS' of 2., 4-0 1 picloram,
analyzed
to ha-ve cfbeen
were.
_ e--"--,.,.- -- -. . ,.... ,.--1
2,4,5-T, silvex, and dioxin; but because of analytical priorities
set by USEPA's Special Pesticide Review Division, no chemical
( analyses were ever peFfOrll!?Jl.".

The samples referred to in

""'"'-...".. "this sentence are those listed in a January 2, 1980, letter
from Wendell Lorio to Or. AYE.EY,fiDJJp=u_y ( 23 l , containing an attached
list of vertebrates, and in a March 10, 1980, memorandum (25)
from Mr, Bill Wheele r of the Colorado ESP to Mr. Michael Oellarco
in the Special Pesticide Review Division of OPP.

These documents

were contained in a group of materials given to Mr. Merrell in
the June 23, 1981 response to RIN-1489-81.
EPA's response to this request for admissions, dated October
23, 1981, admitted that these documents give an. accurate
i

accounting of samples taken for chemical analyses from Five
Rivers residents, but denied that "all of these samples were.
silvex, and cioxin (si?l".

.- .

The record assembled in the present
. d'icates at
Analysis, however, clearly in
. ,'<'?It is not
. h erwise.
=--clear from this record why this admission was
7-r
.- - .. -- denied.

.....-==. =-==-.--=------=-..... - -.---:--

-_1/4

As mentioned above, EPA had previously received a Freedom
of Informa?ion request from Mr. Merrell (35).

The request, dated

May 15, 1981, was assigned Request Identification Number CRIN)
. 1489-81.

The OPP Information Services Branch, in the Program

Support Division of OPP, received the request letter on May 27.
In this request, Mr. Merrell asked for the following items:

'

..

f

-33-

.'l:jl

,<

1.. A document sent by the Linclln County,_,Board of Commissioners

o

to Siuslaw National Forest IAlsea Ranger District) to request

postponement of spraying
2.

60 days.

I
for

. .

A decision document signed Jy Larry A. Fellows (Forest Super-

visor) denying the Lincoln dounty request.

3.

A letter from Dr. Barbara Wo Id, County Health Officer, thlt

. 4.

A letter sent by Mr. Fellows to the Lincoln County Board 6f
I

s.

accompanied item 1.

Commissioners advising them of his decision.

the U.S. EPA, USDA For est
All documents in possession df
I
Service, or any other federal' agency which has knowledge
.

I

or records pertaining to the Lincoln County Study concern?ng

6.

phenoxy herbici des, particularly 2,4-D.

All documents concerning a cooperative agreement between Siuslaw
National Forest, Institute of:I Rural and Environmental Health,

EPA, and others involved in review and monitoring of the
.
Siuslaw.1979 pesticide progra?.

?.s.

7.

-

All documents pertaining to a. research study to determine

eff?ctiveness of burning, chemical treatment, and chemical
and burning tre atments combinld on controlling brush com-

.

/

petition with n ewly planted trees o

I

.
.
.
.
. .
o f h uman
investigation
to an ear1 ier
A 11 d ocuments pertaining

I

disease and/or pesticide use ?one by Institute of Rural and

Environmental Health* for EPA in 1978 and 1979 in Five Rivers,

Oregon.

*This is the Colorado Epidemiolog c Studies Pr ogram

-349..

o

Any documents. pertaining to other investigations, reports, or
complaints in Five Rivers, Oregon involving pesticides.

10. Any correspondence, communication, or records concerning *9.
11. Reco_r ds on the Pesticide Incident Monitoring System .involving
pesticides used in Five Rivers, Oregon during 1981.
12. All other records not covered by items l through 11 which might
be of interest to Mr. Merrell.
Therese Beck M urtagh, in the Information Services Branch,
assigned the request to Sandra Avard Jamula.

Ms. Jamula

contacted Frank Davide, Robert Heath, Wes Miller, and James
Boland, all in the Health Effects Branch of HED, provided each
with a copy of the request letter, and asked that responsive
:,records be gathered.

However, Mr. Del larco in SPRD, Dr. Dupuy

, in the BSL laboratory in Mississippi, Dr. Gross in Nebraska,
;and Mr. Harless in the EPA laboratory in North Carolina were
apparently ?not
contacted.
.
'

Most or all of the records gathered that were responsive

to i terns, 5 ,.. 8, 9, and 10 of the request were obtained from
the files of Dr. Miller, the HEB Field Studies Coordinator
in Colorado. 'Information not releasable according to the
Privacy A?t was deleted and the records were sent as OPP's
complete answer to these items.

The. records were sent as

enclosures to the June 23, 1981, letter prepared by Ms. Murtagh
and signed by the OPP Director.
enclosed with the June 23 letter o

PIMS reports were also
. These reports were provided

by James Boland and were sent in response to item 11.

o

!

I \?

o

.?
-3r-

Orr June 22, 1981, Linda Fen im?n of the Office of General
_
l
Counsel, in connection with Mr, errell's second and third re-
r
quests ( 37) for production of documents in the case Merrell V.,

Block, visited the Iniormation slrvices Section.

. -- .. . I

..

-

.. .-

She was

.

provided with copies of the items that were to be sent to

i-

-

L

Mr, Merrell with the June 23, 1981, letter from the OPP Director (35).
Mr, Merrell was also told in the June 23 letter that records

responsive to items 1, 2, 3, andl4 were not in OPP ;iles; he was
referred to USDA for these records.
I

'
Concerning .item 6, Mr, Merrell was told that no responsive

records were found in the files of HED at EPA headquarters or, in

the files of the HED Field Studies Coordinator in Colorado, Frank
i
Davide had informed ISS that he inew of no .written'agreement made
I
!
by the parties named in item 6. 'ae said that there was a verbal
agreement m??e by the parties to help each other in whatever way
possible, but that nothing was written down.

.-

I no records were identified
Mr,- Me-rrel l was also told that

as responsive to item 7 or to it?m 12.

The Information Services

Section believed that all responJive records in OPP files had
been collected.

/

Ms. Murtagh ?nd Ms, Jamula do -???c? Ll i;iarticipa_tipg in
:..

/ 1:;,:J?r?n? E!?'s ?;,?????=r????;;;;??:?_?uest:;;
?dmiss?o';.:....??6 ,>, ??!_?a?- ?-?;:e d':,_1'.:e__?. The September 8, 1981,
.
\
response contains further informa 1tion about activities described
I
in the enclosures to the June 23 ,' 1981, letter.
0

-36-

'

In October 1981, t.he Information. Services Section (ISS) was
asked to participate in the OPP-wide discovery (38) in response
to Mr. Merrell's second and third requests for production of
The section was to provide only those records

documents.

available in the Program Support Di vis ion (where ISS was loca.ted) o
Response documents from other divisions of OPP, which had also
been asked to participate (38), were to be provided by these
_division s directly to OGC.

ISS .had already suppl?ed the comp lete

file for RIN-1489-81 to Linda Fentiman on June 22, 1981.

Addi-

tional PSD items supplied in October 1981 did not concern Five
Rivers.
Mr. Merrell, in .his April 26, 1982, letter to the Agency
( 39), complain ed .that OPP had' arbitrarily withheld records
responsive to his May 1981 request.

With the approval of

Mr. Merrell, the April 26 letter was considered a new FOIA

..

request and ISS was instructed on Jun e 2, 1982, to renew the
search for responsive documents.
RIN-1413-82.
.o

The new request was assigned

Ms. Jamula was asked -to work on preparing an

additio?.al .-?esp onse.

She contacted Linda Fent iman on June 10,

1982, and noted in the FOIA case log that Ms. Fentiman p rovided
additional records.

These r_ecords were the official documents

concerning the cooperative agreement between OPP and the Colorado
State University Epidemiologic Pesticides Studies Cen ter.

How-

ever, the pa ckage-provided to.rss did not include a memorandum
from Ms. Fentiman to Mr. Harless dated October 23, 1981 discussing
priorities for TCDD analysis in relation to Merrell v. Block (28).

.=

o

. ?;l . ......,
o
o

-31-

Ms.- Jamula also. contacted Frank Davida in September 1982

for additional information.

I

ae identified no additional res ponsive

records other than the documents concerning the cooperative

agreement.

In so doing, Mr. Davida failed to associate the

subject matter being requested wJth the Five Rivers investi-

gation.

Th e Information Services Section still believed that all.

responsive documents had been sedt in connection with RIN-1489-81

and did not consider that an incJmplete response had been made

to items 5, 8, 9, and 10 of that request.

Items 1-4, 6, and 7,

the items of RIN-1489-81 for which no responsive records were

identified, .were the focus of the1' renewed search in connection
'
with RIN-1413-82. aowever, Ms. J?mula did not limit her search
to items 1-4, 6, and 7.

In a November 23, 1982, letter from Ms. Murtagh (40), Mr.

Merrell was.informed that no additional records had been located
?.

other than the document s concernihg the cooperative agreement*,

ae was ..ae,ld-.that the EPA Office o? Fiscal and Contracts Management
I
would contact him about these documents.

.*The delay from June to November 982 in respond ing to Mr.
Merrell was the result of Ms. Murtagh's time-consuming partici-
pation in responding to a volumi?ous FOIA request from a public
interest gr oup.

-38VI. Discussion of the Region v Sludge Samples
-- . - No records have been located of a request to the DMP
s_?!J!!ples
of_ t,)],l;!__..-.
analysis
TCDD
V office
EPA' s Region
from
...-- _..,
=----=-----.-.-__ ?--..:c..----=----.
,.,, ___ ,____
? -_?_...,_;::.,,.for
...i?"'. ?. -c...-?.-.---.;
-----""=---.
__
.r

s amples in
which were mistakenly included with the
-- Rivers
. -Five
=---------,?--?----".?-=-?- =-e.- - _-.-,cc=a.?.,:-:a table of. TCDD analytical res?_l__t;:s?r.e,l_?as_e.9.,_)=1y__ -_the__ JJ.9_j,_ver?ity
-0

...

,!\

,

\.{X:,A p??of

???--./

IP,-,

o

_

-

N?b;a:k; ( 4 3 ??-- -?o?:?e;.: -?he ?ay S.t. Louis laboratory d?d
n =-

: ---==

receive 15 s?dil!l.etnt, slu.9_ g?, and water samples from Region V
---- - .:;!:.;..--.i.:.---=:

on October 31, 1978 (12).

1::?. -.

-

-

. ...-----

---

-

.-- . --:::--..:.1

-

-.;:.__.;:-:-.? .: -

?---.-

--

-

-

-

-?

o..

Arrangement for analyses of. the
\.. .

----- -- ? o. .:-::....:;';,,_ -:,..
-.,-

- - --

??-

- -

- ---

Director of th?__Fl.e_gJon V Central
samples was made by the
-- ----- - - ------- ---- --St.
Bay
The
(42).
Dellarco
Regional Laboratory through ; Mike
--.:.----.- - ___ ?.;;_- .. ;o
-

-

-

- -----

??-"-"'??-"'-'-"-?-"-

Louis laboratory sent the samples from Region V numbered in
sequence with those in the tab le to UN-L for extraction and
anal ysis.

However, this transmittal did not occur until March
Al-

1980 because of ?rioiities set by the DMP (12,42,65),

though BSL indicated in the sample transmittal memo (12) that
certain samp les in the shipment were from Oregon, and that
others ( slu\lges) were from Reg ion V, UN-L was not aware of the
specific details regarding the sources, of the samples.

.-

Never-

theless,. in-the final report* (43) from UN-L for the completion

--

--

of its cooperative agreement, results from the Region.v samples
?

...,

Rivers samples
with results
grouped
were mistakenly --_., -. - -=-=
- f?om_Fiv_i!
.
- -- -?---?-?=.-.in a table--sub-headed "Alsea, Oregon Phase II Project".

The

samples were apparen?ly grouped in the final report by UN-L for
-ease of reference from past individual reports to EPA, and the
*The Agency has reviewed the draft report and requested some
additions and a correction of the Table presenting the Five
Rivers analytical results. A final report is expected by
December 31, 1983.

I

-39-

_groupings corresponded to UN-L's conception of the source of

..

the samples,.

Under normal circumstances, the errors in labeling would
'.
have been detected when the DMP ,oordinator decoded and assessed

the results with the analysts.

t he
ana 1 ysts to meet and review
.

I

o

(Ideally, the DMP would like

a1 ata,

1 ity,
agree on its val'd'
.

and write a conclusion before se?ding the results to the originator.)

The erroneously labeled t/l,ble .wa f initially released by UN-L :

in response to an inquiry from Michael Axline about UN-L's
I

participation in the Five Riverslinvestigation.

It is important

to note that the error ?as in the labeling of the table; there

is no evidence to suggest that. the s_ample themselves were ever

.?-?- --=.::==--::,__

o

mixed up o

::=i.--=...::.,c_:,,_______ -?......---.:.- "-"------

- ___ . ___

-

...._-.- ----z?

Region V were to have received
Initially, the samples from ==

months of r:?eipt.

for TCDD analyses by the DMP within two

However, shortly after the samples were

shipped to BSL, Region V was informed that higher priori.ty

samples from Alsea, Oregon would have to be analyzed bef o?e

.-

. .. -?.

the Reg ion V samples.
--

During thi,s period, the Reg ion was told

that there were pr oblems in extra'cting other samples and that

the TCDD could not be .removed frJm the sediments for analysis
even though it might be present.

After receiving this comment,

the regional staff assumed that additional results would not

be forthcoming and did not continle to track the samples
c;... --a:,----

.-

----

?- .?:::------#???-.-.

::r.

--

.oo

-:.
- --- ---

( 4 2) o

,, -

-40-

VII.

Summary discussion
It is clear from the extensive discussion presented above

that a large number of independent errors or failures to com-
-- . - . ..... . .,.

plete ongoing work occurred during and subsequent to the
original Five Rivers investigation.

-

,-- - -....
At least the following

lapses can be identified:
1.

At the outset of the Five Rivers investigation, the con-

nection between the ongoing Lincoln County Health Department
survey, the interviews of the five. signatories of the July
1979 letter, and the samples collected in Five Rivers was not.
In retrospect, it appears that the re-.
- --- - - -- - - ------ ------?..:::.::--.--::;.::;,,

adequately recorded.

.

sults of the Five Rivers
environmental
samP.le analysis
could
- "-?-??.--- - --:=--:--- - - =- -. -.-::.-. - :::."?----- -.-/

?----------??-?--?-.

have served as a - preliminary indic??iqn
of the likely
. ,_ .
.
-extent
L.??--""-=. - - -.

-

.

.

..

----.-?,. - .o. : -:..;.:: .-. -- . --

of pesticide exp osure.

Much further work would have had to

be undertaken in order to achieve a reliable assessment of
the actual ?xposure; and a much larger data base would have
been needed to be able to reach any conclusions regarding
health effe.c:ts experienced by the residents of the area.

There

-was no explicit design phase for the Five R ivers investigation
which committed it to a specific course of action aiming at
specific goals, even if those goals were only to decide
whether or not a larger study was indicated and feasible.
2) The Agency clearly had pr omised the residents of Five
Rivers that samples would be analyzed and results returned to

-41-

I o

them*.

0

It is clear from the records that the EPA field studies

coordinator routinely reported to the HEB staff, at least
through 1981, that analyses had not been completed.

Inquiries

from HEB to the DMP (?l) and to the laboratory were also made
during this period.

However, after approximately the end of

1981, no further attempts to track the progress of the analyses
appear to have been made.

The lack of attention given to

completion of the analyses is a clear lapse of management
responsibility over a significant period of time.
3).

The confusion of the samples from Five Rivers with those

from Region V seems to have been a clerical error committed by
the Nebraska laboratory.

While there was no actual mixup in

the identity of the samples themselves but only in the reporting
of the results, this error is another lapse in Agency of the
investigation.
? .

A related lapse is of course that completed results of
the Region V sample analyses were released by UN-L without
consulting EPA.
Finally, the designa?ion of the investigation as the Five
Rivers inv?stigation by OPP and as Alsea II by the DMP may have
contributed to the confusion surrounding the completion and
. reporting of the analyses.

A protocol for water and sediment

sampling had been prepared by Mr. Robert Heath of HEB in January
* Mr. Johnson's November 2, 1979 letter to Ms. Connelly ap pears
to have overstated EPA's initial role in the Lincoln County
Health Survey, and created the impression that the effort
was a major EPA study.

i? .

....

-42-

1979 for use in the earlier Alsea investigation (68), and
was apparently utilized as a guide for the Five Rivers sampling.
In practice, many EPA staff involved at the time undoubtedly
viewed the collection of data at Five Rivers as an extension
of the data collection effort related to the Alsea area.
4).

A number of errors or failures to cont act knowledgeable

'staff are obvious in the handling of the various information
and discovery requests.

Clearly, all EPA staff engaged in re-

.spon ding to FOIA's or discovery motions have the obligation to
n ot only identify all data an d information in their possession
but also to identify to those responsible for coordinating the
responses the names of other Agency staff who are likely to
have information to contribute.
Finally, there is a cle ar need to properly identify the
subject.regarding which informati on is s oug ht.

For example,

failure to identify material records, ?ven though they may have
been refere?ced under another name during the response to the
. ..
FOIA and Merrell v. Block discovery, caused faulty Agency re-

sponses.
5).

The rarge number of shifts in responsibility for the Dioxin

Monitoring Program, both from one individual to another and from
. one organizational component of EPA to another, in all likelihood
made it more d ifficult to maintain reliable tracking of specific
projects and good contact with those who supplied the samples to
be analyzed.

-

<r ...

-43-

A number. of management actilns should be taken to prevent

future lapses such as those discussed above.
the following:

These include

l) o. First and foremost, all pro .ects undertaken by OPP which

involve investigation of alleged 1 pesticide exposure or health
effects must have an explicit st tement regarding the purpose

of the study, an outline of what is.to be done, and a specific

project designation which can be reliably reported a_gainst and
tracked.

A tracking system on a project-by-project basis will

then enable progress to be follo?ed and maintained.

While some

elements of such a tracking system are in existence, a more
complete system is clearly needed.

The former Health Effects

Branch has recently bee .n reloc?ted into the new Exposure Assessment
Branch in HED, and work is now underway to update and improve

the necessary tracking system.
2).

.-

Peer r?view and quality control procedures are clearly

needed to maintain control over the quality of EPA-sponsored

projects..

.New peer review procedures were published in the
,.

Federal Register in December 1980, which require that major
studies sponsored by OPP be revilwed before initiation an?
a f ter comp- let ion.
.

. .1 ar l y, qua1.1 ty assurance procedures
Simi
1

have been instituted on an EPA-wide basis over the last three

. ?a=1 the ?oc-edures Tequ-ire a duality assuranei! pl.an before,
a study can be approved.
3).

There needs to be an explicit recognition on the part of

all EPA staff that any sample collected from the public for
I

-44.-

analysis establishes a commitment to complete the analysis
and transmit the results back to the original source.

This

commitment inc ludes both the project officer in charge of the.
project and the laboratory chemist in charge of the analysis.
Tracking systems for all samples received by EPA laboratories
need to be set up where not already in place, to insure that
all samples rec eived by a laboratory will' either be analyzed
to the originator, together with a statement as
or returned
I
to why the samp le was not analyzed.

Similarly, all EPA

staff who generate samples for analysis by EPA or contract
laboratories must understand that they have the responsibility
.
.. '
.
. '
. .. :
to secure a commitment from the laboratory to analyze samples
before transmitting them.
4).

There needs to be ?-Ei:,se in?ru??i?ns to all EPA staff

regarding respon5e to FOIA's, discovery motions, and similar
,._-

-

-- - -

.---.-,

. o

?--.,

c_-..,- .....

requests foi-. information.

-=---

Clearly, the importance of response

to FOIA requests must be reiterated throughout the institution,
and mech.anisms established to assure full, complete, and timely
resp onse.

The Information Se rvices Branch in PSD is already

preparing a discussion of the importance of responses to re-
quests for- information and how OPP staff can most eff_iciently
respond to them.
5).

An

audit should be carried out of all samples remaining
?

in the Dioxin Monitoring Program.

rs:::;:--:1

?

c-

o - ::::,

The DMP has changed hands

many times over the last six years, and need for its services
will undoubtedly increase in the near future as a result of

.---.

. ..

?45-

o on d"1ox1n
' mon1
I .t or1ng.
o
the Agency 1 s emph as1s

Ade t erm1na
o t.ion

needs to be made as to whether oJher samples remain unanalyzed

or unreported in the DMP recordsJ
----==---=
6).

Finally, the extent to whic

EPA has a responsibility

to respond to individual citizen requests for assistance in

investigating a potential pesticide problem is not clear.

While EPAclearly does have a reJponsibility to evaluate the

use of pesticides to protect the I heal th of the gener'al public r
it is also clear that EPAdoes not have the resources to

follow up on each and every individual request for assistance:

.with the thoroug?ness that the requester desires or that
EPAmight like to prov ide.

At least in the initial stages

of the Five River_s investigation?, the determination of

appropriate response was not at issue.

However, in the more

general case, the number of requ?sts for individual investi-

gation that?EPA rec?ives clearly exceeds the resources of the

Agency to respo.nd in every case. i This.review of the Five
'
Rivers i-0vestigation has identified
.several process improvements
'
'

.'

that the Office of Pesticide ProQrams must make in the way
in whic h it deals with outside requests
for assistance.
I

", ,

1

 

APPENDIX 1

Detailed sample history for all Five Rivers samples

o

,t.;) --.

Data
Collect ed
or Stored
at CSU

--..--Sample SoJrce Da.te
fran
Type

- .cso

Appendix, 1
Detailed S?le History For All Five Rivers Samples
Date Rec. Date Nebraska's Analysis. Current
to
BSL arrl
( extract.. by
' Nebraska) Sample
UN-L*.
Handling
.to
Date Reported
Status
- .. o,j
at
(TM)P:Date Rep:;>rtei
.,
'
to OPP ..
UN-L

RTP Analysis!/
Date
Extr.?a=ct??E=xtr
=a?_Dat.e__
Reported to
to
RTP
IMP: Date
Reported to OPP

Nl.lllber Cbnc.YRecov.'}./
oates .cppt)
%
7/31/79"__

B_edi-
. ment

Site 8/28/79
C

if

11/5/79 .UN-101 . not .
Entire 5/8/80
3-?-07 ND (1)
. - -- .
Storei
analyzed extract.
___ . 8/22/83:
refrigerated:
to RTP:
8/22/83
1/4 sent
sample
.- to UN-L:
.stored
3/4 refrozen
tained,
? ...
.stored
refri erated

.o,

'\

Sedi-
ment

11/5/79

Stored
refrigerated:
1/4 sent
to UN-L;
3/4 retained,
stored
refri erated
Site 8/28/79
D

8/31/79

11/5/79

Storei
. refrigerated;
1/4 sent
to UN-L;
3/4 re-
tained;
stored
refri erated

UN-108

not
analyzed

1

UN-109

not
analyzed

Current
Sample
Status
at RTP

Number Cone. Y Reem,.?
(ppt) % .
Dates
.:?.

8/31/79

8/31/79.

1/31/79

oo

71

.Extract
stored
frozen

Entire 5/8/80
extract
to RTP;
sample
stored
frozen

3-NR-10 ND (2)
8/22/83:
8/22/83

68

Extract
. stored
frozen

E;ntire 5/8/80
extract
to'RTP;
sample
stored
frozen

3-NR-08 ND ( 2)
8/22/83:
8/22/83

56

Extract
stored
frozen

Data
Collecterl
or Storerl
at CSU

Sanple Source Date
fran
Type
CSU

Date Rec Date Nebraska's Analysis Current
BSL-am. to
(extract by Nebraska) Sanple
Handling UN-L* Date Reporterl to
Status
I:MP:Date Reporterl
at
to OPP
- UN-L

Date
Extract
to
RTP

Nllllber Cone.? Recov.?
(ppt)
Dates
7/31/79

-? -?

f

7/31/,79

o
ol'J.>

A o

Site B/28/79

Water

35
Site B/28/79 B/31/79 B/20/80
ND
C
12/5/80: (0.13)
Storerl
B/18/83
frozen;
1/2 sent
to UN-L;
1/2 retained;
stored frozen

B

'.4

7/31/79

not
analyzed

Sediment

Water

B/31/79

11/5/79 UN-110

Storerl
refrigerated;
1/4 sent
to UN-L;
3/4 re_____tainErl,
storerl
refri erated

ND
60
Site B/28/79 B/31/79 B/20/80
Storerl
12/5/80: . (0. OB)
B/18/83
frozen;
1/2 sent
to UN-L;
1/2 retained;
stored frozen

A

')

Extract
storerl
frozen

I '

Current
Sanple
Status
at RTP
\

Nlllllber Cone. a;Recov -? .'"
Dates
%
(ppt)

Entire 5/8/80
extract
to RTP;
- sample
stored
frozen

Extract
stored
frozen

RTP Analysis!/
Extract Date
Reporterl to_
r:MP: Date
Reported to OPP

none
sent

none
sent

3-NR--06 ND (1)
B/22/83:
B/22/83

68

Extract
stored
frozen

/'

I

---:-o
-,--,-------=-...,....,--=----::c-:----:?--;:------;:;--;,-:---:;:::=::-.:::.-=""'C::-::C.:-:=7"----;;=-:-:-::-:-:-:-==------c=:--:::-c,:-:,---,--,-----::-.!/

lbta
. Cbllecl:ed
or Storod
at CSU

Sam{ile
"l'{pe

Source

lbte
fran
CSU

lbte Pee lbte
BSL and
t:o
llandl-lng- UN-L*

Nebraska's llnalysls
Current
(extract by Nebraska) Sample .
Date Peported to
Status
lMP1 lbte llel,l(>rted
at
""=='----"---c---?to
-op p ?!? ----- ---Utf-L
Number Cone
Pecov
lbtes , (ppt)
I
-

Y

,y

7/31/79

9/19/79

Watbr

Deforttud
kltteh
cadavbr

Site
D

8/20/79

0/31/79
8/20/80 -Stored
12/5/00:
frozen,
8/10/83.
1/2 sent
to Utf-LJ
1/2 retalned1
stored frozen

tote
Extract
to
R'l'P

50
ND
(0.08)

I

Extract
stored
frozen

RTP l\nalysls
Current
Extract Date
Sample
lleported to
status
l??I Dal;!L_
aLR11'
leported to OPP
Number Cone.
llccov.
\
llltes (ppt)

Y

Y

none
sent

Lincoln
County
source
unknown

Pati'ology Examlnatlon ;t-CSU, -Dec?ber 1979. lanalns, except liver currently stored at CSU frozen.
2/21/00
Defotthed
2/10/80 Stored
li/16/00
50
ND
Sample
none
kltteli
frozen,
Utf-106
and
sent
(15)
liver
entire
8/5/801
extract
sample
0/2/83
stored
sent to
frozen
UN-L

9/i9/79

o

Productl'J
of OJnceptlon

lluman 2/18/80
abortion

2/21/00
Stored
frozen,
entire
sample
t:o UN-L

4il6/80
ND
Utf-107 (19)
8/5/001
8/2/83

. ..-.

J

..
- .,,.

,,

J-.

.

\
..??
; -;:

50

Sample 8/26/00 NRTP--27 not analyzed Extract
stored
and
extract
analysis requested
frozen
stored
9/2/83
frozen

. i.j,

. I ,. ?

?I

llJta
.eo11ected
or stornd
at c;su

Salltple
Type

Source

OJte
fran
CSU

OJte A:lc. OJte
BSL and to
llaooling UH-L6

Nebraska's l\nalysis
(extract by Nebraska!
ll3 te Reported to
D1P1tote Reported
to OPP
Number . U:Jnc o..1/Racov.
tales
(pptl
%

' .

one chick
Lincoln
four clllck- County
Five
llngs
Rlver:s
area
exact
source
unknown

0/22/79

mouse

0/22/79

moose

!l/19/79

Site

1/

OJto
lrl'P Analysis .!/
EKtract Extract OJte
to
loported to
llTP
ll1P: late
loported to OPP
Nunbir Cone o ..1/ Racov.
lbtes (ppt)
%

Current
Sample
Status
at Rl'P

1/ .

Pathology examinations at CSU 10/26/79. tb chemical involvement in abnormal feet ?oo
blisters suspected, Birds destroyed after pathological examination.

Site I\ 0/28/79

/I

Current
Sample
status
at
IM-L

0/20/79

B/31/79 6/4/00
Stored
IM-191 ND
B/5/001 (4)
frozen,
entire
0/2/03
sample
to IM-L
0/31/79 6/4/00
IM-193 ND
Stored
frozen, .:t
0/5/001 (10)
0/2/83
entire
sample
to IJN--L

55

6

sample none
and
sent
extract
stored
frozen
E><tract
Sample 8/26/00 NRTPnot
stored
analyzed.
and
26
frozen
extract
analysis requested
store<.!
frozen
9/2/03

1. '..'

. ')
--.. , ,

4

r
.,

h

rl

I '.
i

I'
lnta
<blle!)ted
or Stored
at C&'IJ

Sample
'fype'

Source

U.te
fran
CSU.

ll1 te Rec , !lite
DSL and
to
llardllng UN-L- :o
'

0/:22/79

mouse

,.

slte 0/20/79

'

0/31/79 6/4/00"
Stored
UN-194 ND
0/5/001 ( 2)
frozen1
entlre
0/2/03
sample
to UN-L

lncxJSe

Site

0/20/79
-. - -0/31/79
si:oi'ed
frozen1
entire
sample
to UN-L

6/4/00

0/22/79

111CXJS8

Site

0/20/79

6/4/00

A

0/31/79
stored
frozen,
entire
sample
to UN-L

Current
Sample
status
at
UN-L

Numbor lbnc ,..?/llocov ,_y
ll3tes
%
(pp t)

0/22/79

A

NebraskaI s l\nalysis
(extract by Nebraska)
Date Reported to
tMP, !lite Reported
to OPP

50

HTP Analysis Y
ll3te
Ex tract Extract U.te
to
Reported to
l:NP: Date
RTP
lloported to OPP

sample

N,onber Olnc o .?/Reem, ,_y
l:l3tes (ppt)
I

and

none
sent

extract
stored
frozen

UN-195
0/5/001
0/2/03

-- ND

(JI

50

sample _____
ard
extract
stored
fr;ozen

none
sent

UN-196
0/5/001
0/2/83

ND

55

sample
and
extract
stored
,frozen

none

.

( JI

.A

5

Current
Sample
Status
at R'l'P

sent

'
."'1

'

oo'

"ll'lta
Cbllected
or stored
et CSU

Salftple
'fype

Source

Ible
fran
CSIJ

Dile llec lllte
BSL and
to
llandling UN-Lo

Nebraska's Jlnalysls
(extract by Nebraska)
liite Reported to
,ll1P1 Cate Repot:ted
ID OPP

Current
Sample
Status
at
UN-L

lllte
Extract
to
RTP

'

Numbe_r Cbnc o.Y l!ecov .l/
Dltes
(ppt)
0/22/79

0/22/79

.

'

0/22/79

Sln:ew

shrew

Tree
s,rew

Site 0/20/79

0/31/79
Stornd
frozen,
entlrn
sample
to UN-L

6/4/00

site 0/20/79 0/31/79
/I
Stornd
frozen,
entlrn
sample
to UN-L

6/4/00

Site
D

6/4/00

A

0/20/79

0/31/79
stoi:ed
frozen,
entlrn
sample
sent to
to llN-L

UN-192
0/5/001
0/2/03

ND

55

UN-197
0/5/001
0/2/0]

ND

30

UN-190
0/5/001
0/2/03

ND

50

(JJ

(OJ

(7)

't

"
6

sample
and
exti:act
stornd
frozen

RTP Analysis 17
Extract Olte
Reported to
IJ11'1 lllte
l!epoi:-ted to OPP

Ntnnher Cbnc. .Ynecov .1;
Dile
%
t

,;'

none
sent

sample
and
0/26/00 NRTP--0
. exti:act
0/16/001
stoi:ed
0/10/03
frozen
sample
none
and
extract sent
stored
frozen

0lt"rent
Sample
Status
at RTP

ND
( 2)

70

Extract
stored
frozen

.\

h1ta
Cl:>llected
or Stored
at CSU

Sample Sm1i:-ce

---Type
----

-

Ible
fron
CSU

Ible !be. fute Nebraska I s llnalysls
!lSL and
to
(extract by Nebraska)
Ilardi
lng--UN-L"
Date.
Reported to
.
.
'
'
I.MP103te He(X)rted
to OPP

tiumbei: . . Cl:>nc o Y
Cates

(ppt )

Current
Sample
Status
at
UH-L

ll1te
Extract

to

H'l'P

lbcov .:}/
I

0/22/79

'l'ree
Sirew

Site 0/20/79
D

0/31/79
Stored
frozen,
entire
sample
sent to
UN-L

6/4/00 UN-199 ND (4)
0/5/001 ND (1)
0/2/03 ND (1)

65

Sample none
and
sent
stored
frozen

0/22/79

Biro

Site 0/20/79 0/31/79
C
Stored
frozen,
entire
sample
to UN-L

6/4/00 UN.-200 ND (5)
0/5/001
0/2/03

50

erunple none
sent
and
extract
stored
frozen

0/22/79

Mouse

Site 8/20/79

6/4/00 UN-201 ND (21
0/5/001
0/2/0]

60

sample none
and
sent
extract
stornd
frozen

C

0/31/79
Stored
frozen,
entire
sanple
to UN-L

7

oo

HTP Analysis Y
Extr<1ct ll1te
Heported - to
l:MP1 ll1te
lbpofted to OPP
NLnnber Cone
Date

Current
Sample
Status
at fil'P

necov.
%

., '

$>

. '. .

.. '

.,

l
?

U3ta
Collected
or Stored
at CSU

Sample

Source

'lype

Date
fron
CSU

lllte lee. nite
DSL and
to
lla1rlllng UN-L*

Nebraska's l\nalysie
(extract by Nebraska)
na te lleported to
I.MPs l:ote llcported
to OPP

Current
Sample
Status
at
UN--L

nite
Extract

to

RTP

Nunber O:mc .y llccov .]/
03tes
%
(ppt)
il/22/79

Bini

Site
D

0/20/79

0/31/79
Stored
frozen,
entire
sample
sent to
UN-L

6/4/00 u-t-202
0/5/001

ND (3) 50

sample
ard

extract
stored
frozen

0/2/83

0/i2/79

Hoose

Site
D

0/20/79

8/31/79
stored
frozen,
entire
sample
sent to
UN-L

6/4/80 UN;-203
0/5/001
0/2/03

ND (JI JO

0/22/79

Newts

Site 0/20/79

0/31/79
Stored
frozen,
entire
sample
sent to
UN--L

6/4/00 UN-204
0/5/801
0/2/03

tlEI (21 50
ND Ill

...l

8

RTP l\nalysls Y
Extract nite
Peported to
lNP1 lllte
loported to OPP
Number
lllte

0/26/00

Current
Sample
Status
at RfP

Cone o.Y Rccov.

Nlfl'P-10 ND Ill
l0/16/00:
0/lO/0J

sample 0/26/00 NRTP-12 ND (21
.and
10/16/001
extract
0/JB/0J
stored
frozen

%

1/

69 Extract
stnred
frozen

19

sample 0/26/00
NRTP-20 not analzyed
ancl
analysis requested
extract
stored
9/2/03
frozen

EKtract
stored
frozen

3ta
:>llected
r Stored
t CSU

Sample Source Date
fran
Type
CSU

Date Rec. Date Nebraska's Analysis Current
BSL and to
(extract-by Nebraska) Sample
Handling UN-Lo Date Reported to
Status
DMP:Date Reported
at
to OPP
UN-L

Date
RTP Analysis Y
Extract Extract Date
to
Reported to
RTP
[MP: Date
Reported to OPP

:. Number Conc.1/ Recov,2/
%
Dates
(ppt) 1
Tissues
Deformed
Fetus

2/80

Abortion 2/18/80
Human
anecephalic
Lincoln
County
llealth
De t.

2/21/80 4/16/80 UN-188
stored
8/5/80:
frozen;
8/2/83
entire
sample
to UN-L

3( 2)
ND(l)

2/80

50

Filter
Site
2/18/80 2/21/80 4/16/80 UN-177 ND (3) 45
Water
B
Stored
12/5/80:
Pie
8/18/83
frozen;
__________________.entire
sample
_sent to
UN-L

2/80

Filter
Water
Pie

Site EV 2/18/80 2/21/80 4/16/80 UN-178 ND (2) 60
Stored
12/5/80:
frozen;
8/18/83
entire
sample
sent to
UN--L

,.

.,

,;:
;1

.,..,

.

'

9

sample none
sent
and
extract.
stored
frozen

''

Number Cone .3;_ Recov. 2/
Dates
%

Sample 8/26/80 NRTP-22 not
and
analyzed
extract
analysis
stored
requested
frozen
9/2/83

sample none
sent
and
extract
stored
frozen

Current
Sample
Status
at RI'P

Extr act
stored
frozen

,1?t

.

.

.'

f -

"

' '

lbta
Cbllected
or Stor:ed
at CSIJ

Sample Source IBte
fnm
CSU

Typa

lbte floe l.:ote
DSC, and
to
llarrllin;r UM-Lo

Nebraska's llnalysis
(extract by Nebraska)
Date Reported to
tllP1 late Reported
l;o OPP

'

Cui:r:ent
Sample
Status
at
UM-L

Number Cone .,Y Recov o
futes
(ppt)
2/80

2/80
.. t

2/liO

.

\ ;

.

Fllter
water
pie

Filter
Water:
Pie

l'lltbr
Water:
Pie

-?:
'J

Site
F

Sito

G

Site
D

2/18/00 2/21/00

Stored
frozen,
entire
sanple
sent to
UN-L

2/18/00 2/21/80

Stored
frozenr.
entire
sample
sent to
UN-L

2/18/00 2/21/80

Stored
frozen,
entire
sample
sent to
UN-L

4/16/00
UM-179
NO
12/5/801 ( 2)
8/18/83 ND
( 2)

4/16/00
ND
UM-100
(_ i!)
12/5/801
0/18/83

4/16/00
UN-101
NO
12/5/801 (6)
B/10/83

Date
Extr:act
to
RTP

!/

35

sample

40

ard

extract
stored
frozen

none
sent

sample none
sent
and
extract
stored
.r.r,ozen
.. ,
,,,!'it-"
. .r

30

l

,,

-? c
-1..

.'

CUrr:ent
Sample
Status
at RrP

NLDnber Cone .,Y llecov o.!/
I.late
%

sample
and
none
extr:act sent
stored
frozen

60

RTP l\nalysls Y
Extract Date
lloported to
tllP: lbte
lloported to OPP

Dita
Collected
or Stored
at CSU

Sample
'IYP9

Source

llite
fran
CSU

[ate Joe llitEJ
to
DSL am
lla1xlllrg Utt-Lo

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

Nebraska's J\nalysls
(extract by thbraska)
Dito Reported to
DIP: [ate lleported
to OPPI
Nt.mlJQr
llites

L .

Cone.
(ppt)

y

Current
Srnnple
Status
at
UN-L

'

llecov.

llite
Extract
to
RTP

11

2/00

Fllter site II
Water
Pie

2/10/00 2/21/80
stored
frozen,
entire
sample
. sent to
UN-L

4/16/80 UN-182 ?ND (91 30
12/5/801
8/18/83

sample
none
and
sent
extract
Btot"ed
ft"ozen

2/00

Filter Site ,J
Water
Pie

2/10/00 2/21/00
Stored
frozen,
entire
sample
sent to
UN-L

4/16/oo rn-103 ND (14) 6
12/5/001
0/10/0J

,sample
none
ard
sent
extract
stored ___
frozen

2/00

Filter
Water
Pie

2/10/00 2/21/00
Stored
frozen,
entire
sample
sent to
UN-L

4/16/00 Ltl-104 ND ( 261 15 sample
nano
12/5/80
ard
sent
0/?0/?J
extract
stored
frozen

Site I

I

11

'

m.p J\nalysls
Extract llJto
Reported to
DIP: _tote_
Reported to OPP

Nunher ClJnc .y llecov.
I.ates (ppt)
%

Current
Sample
Status
at RTP

11
, ;? t

.,

'
\,

Data
Collected
or Stored
at CSU

Sanple
Type

Source Date
fr.an
CSU

Date Rec Date
Nebraska'' s Analysis
BSL arrl
to
(extract by Nebraska)
llarrl li (lg ,Ut-1--L*. Date Reported to
DMP:Date Reported
, to OP?

Current
Sample
Status
at

UN-L

Date
Extract
to
RTP

Number Conc.Y Recov.lf
Dates
(ppt)
%
2/00

Filter Site K
other

*

.!/

2/18/80 2/21/80
Stored
frozen;
entire
sample
sent to
Ut-1--L

4/16/00 UN-185
8/5/80
8/2/83

ND (5) 50
ND (5)

sample
and
extract
stored
frozen

none
sent

.

Sarrple extracted at Ut-1--L

Y ,Recovery

in parts per trillion; limit of detection in parenthesis

percent of added starrlanl

it Sites C /lnd E may be

the same

.,'
12

Current
Sample
Status
at RI'P

Number Conc:Y Recov o
Dates
%

University Nebraska - Lincoln

Y Conoentration detected

RTP Analysis .!/
Extract Date
Reported to
l,t,!P: Date
Reported to OPP

.V

 


APPENDIX 2'

Organizational Status of Personnel

 

(I}-.-.
o . ,,

- 1,: --=- _..,

'.

r.

??

.,

GS-1320 .

Detail 3-26-79
Frein AA for Office of Toxic Substances, IlAA for ?estic;ide Pta;taws
BFSD, Ecolcgical Monitc? Branch
To

AA fer Office of Toxic Substances, DAA for Pta;tam Integration
& Infot:naticn, Survey and Analysis Division, Field Studies
81:aru:h
Il!mediate Supervisor Martin Halper, D:i.=ectcr, SAD
2nd Level
Marilyn Bracken, IlAA

Mess chan;e 8-12-79
Ftan AA for Toxics Substances, IlAA for Pesticide Pr01rams, BFSD
Ecolcgical Monitoring Branch
To

AA fer Toxic_ Substances, CM fer Pre.gram Int..cgration
Monitoring Division, Imnediate Office

&

Info:cmation

Imnediate SUperVisor
2nd Level
Marilyn Bracken, OM

\._

IPA Detail 5-4-80 to l.:,31-82
Mass O'lan;Je 10-S-,.80
Fran AA for Toxic Subst=s, CM fol. Pta;tam & Integration
SUrvey Analysis Division, Illmediate Office
To

.-

.&

Infomaticn

Imnediate Supervisor Martin Eal.per, Di..'"eeter, SAD
Marilyn Bracken, DAA
2nd Level
AA for Tcxic Substances, IlAA for Toxic Substances, Elq:cstJre
Evaluauon J)j.vision, Field Studies Branch
Imilediate Supervisor Fred Kutz, Branch Chief, Field Studies
Michael Callahan, 'Acting Direcwr,
2nd Level
Exposure Evaluation Division

...

Mass Change 7-1-81
Everything remain same, except triples A level was abolished
and AA organizational Name changed to Office of Pesticides &
Toxic Substances

Mass Change 3-6--83
Fran AA.For Pesticide & Toxic: Substances, Office of Toxic Substances,
E:lposure Evaluation Division, Field Studies Branch
Imnediate Supervisor lllJbry Dupuy, tab Director
2nd Level
. Fred Kut:, Branch Chief

,.;

.-ro

o. AA fer Pesticide & Toxic. Substances, Office of.l?estic::ide
,.'.!?- .

., o .::

.

o. Pl.cgzmas, EFSD, Io.

.
.
I .
Dil;ectci:
t.ab
D.Jpuy,
Immediate Supervisor Aubry
Jim Touhey, Director, BFSD
2nd Level
1Mass Chan;ie 4-3-83
:
FrQII AA for E'esticide & Toxic Substar=s, Office cf !?esticide
Pl.::.gcmas, EFSD, Im:nediate Office
.

Tc

I

AA fer Pesticide & Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide
Pl.c;itans, !3CD, Chemical Ope:cations Branch, Ern{irclll!lental
.
Chenist:y Lab Section
1
Imnediate Supervisor Aubry Dupuy, tab Director
2nd Level
Don Marlow, Branch Chief
J:im Touhey, Divisicri Director

R:lBERr' 8EA'.lJ! GS-1530
Sama as frail below
6-1-79 to ll-2-80

Imnediate Supervisor Branch Chief,
Division Director,
2nd Level
AAA
oDAA

....

I
I

{_

MasS Change ll-2-80
Fran AA for Tcxics SUl:stances, DAA for Pesticide Ptc.gtams, EFSD,
Human Effect Monitoring Branch

To

...-

1Im:nediate SlJI:ervisor
an:i 2rxi Level Sane as
above
-

I.

II.

,

Jack Griffith
William ?y
Mike Ccnlon
F.cl Johnson

l

,.
'r,

?..

M for Toxics Substance, ? for Pesticide Ptcgtams, .BED
Health Effects Branch
. Imnediate Supervisor
Imnediate Sucervisor, Deputy Dir. BED
Director,
AAA
DAA

m:o

Van Kozak
Jphn Melone
Ma.rath
Peter
'.
Mike Conlon
Edwin Johnson

Mass Change 7-1-81
Everything remain same, except triple A's level was abolished
and AA name changed to Office of Pesticide andl Toxic Substances
l
7-1-81 Peter McG:cath lef?
Jphn Melone
:Acting Director, BED
Van Kozak
Acting Branch_ Chief, HES
6-22-82 Van Kozak left
Director
Acting BrallCl Chief, HES

John Melone
wpia Garner
l

.-

,o};:.

-3-?,?t!<.?.'1?:: -.
Fran Office of Pesticide & Toxics Substance,
.:BED, HEB

TO:
?
..?..:..

.

4

. {',,:;

-, ?:?r.:

. oi".--"" .o 2-20-83 Reass

.

OM

,- ,-?J -???:,.

..:

.. .;.,_???.-.,:/."
.. ?-;?;?;

o -- <.::; ,?

.......

, BLanc!i

:?-"."-.--- '.

.?.-.:???

fer Pesticide J?_o;;1.axus, B:SD, Immediate Office

Il!rnediate Supervisor

_J:!m Touhey, Division Direc-..cr

AA fer Toxic Substarice, CM fer Pesticide l?1.c:g1.am, am
Imnediate Office as Acting Division Directer

IE'A

. .. .. While

. /i?,,-?;;.J!EO

. 10-15-79 to NTE 10-16-83

on IE'A, lccated in Office of Pesticide. l?1.ogz.ams,
until 1.e01.ganization
_

Re:1Lya.1izaticn

:e:a:
III.

..-;;

Office of Pesticide & Toxics Substance, Office of Toxic Substance
? Evaluation Division, Design and Develqmmt Branch
,.,.Imne::! .
U[:e?
.. ,_ :?. . .
ia te S
Joseoh Carra
'Chief ..:--:
iscr
Martin aelper, Division Directcr
. 2nd r.evel
Jack Griffith GS-601-15
Detailed 3-18-79 NrE 7-16-79

FLcn AA fer T::ccic Substance,

TO:

:i

Office of Pesticide l?1.cy1.ams

.-f?""-:""-..;.,&f,?1?:o.

.

am,

- --...?-

4-3-83
?1?ide ? Evaluation Division,

_.,,;,,;_;:

.-

. ?-

' .. ...? .-o

.
.. ,...,:_,_ ?-"

AOBRI tol?UY . Supervisor 01emistey GM-1320-14
Detail. 3-26-79

..

Fran AA fer .office of Toxics SUbstance, CM for Pesticidf., l?tc:g1.ams
. BFSD, Ecolc:gical Monitoring Branch
To:

?.,.

-?:.,;

I?o',

AA fer.,.Office of Tcxics Substance, CM for, l?tc:gi:a111 Integration an:l
. Infa:mation. Survey an:l Anal. Division,. Field Studies Branch
.; Imnediate Supervisor
aan Tai
,.c'.:,,2n:l Level
. Martin aalper, Division Director
?,.,_.t '.

Mass Change 10-5-80
Fn:m AA for Toxic Substar.ce, CM fer Prcgram Integration and
Infotmation.Survey Anal. Division, Imnediate Office
!mnec:liate Supervisor
Mart"in Halper, Director SAD
Marilyn Branken, OM
2nd Level
To: AA fer Pesticide an:l Toxic Substance, CM fer Toxic Substance,
Field St:udies Branch
Evaluation Division
E:xcosure
o
FLed Kutz, Branch Chief
!nmediate sucervisor.
.
Michael caJ.lahan, Acting Di.rector
2nd Level

Mass Cl!ange 7-1-81

Everthin:; remained the same, except t=iple A level was abolished an:l AA
organization name changed

:Ii;

?

.1[?,

&)

?-

II ..,

o.

Mass Change 3-6-83
Frcn AA for l?esticicie and Toxic Substance,\ Office of Toxic
Substance, E:Jc;)osure Evaluation Division Field Studies Branch
Imne:iiate Supervisor
To

Fred Kutz

AA for Pesticide and Toxic Substance,! Office of ?esticide ?rograms
BFSD, Ilm!ediate Office
Imnediate Superviscr

Jim Touhey

Mass Change 4-3-83
:'= Office of ;?gsticide an:! Toxic Substance, Office of Pesticide Prcgrams,
Benifit and Field Studies Division, I:tmediate Office - Sam: Supervisor
To

Office of Pesticide an:! Toxic Substani:e, Office pesticide J?ro;;rams,
BOD, Chemisty Operation Division, Ernl'iromental Chemistry !.aboratory
Imnediate Sllp!_.-visor
' 2n::i Level

D:n Marlow, Branch Chief
Jim Touhey, Division Directer

TY. Mic:al\EL IlEUJ\RCO Enviromental Scientist l30l
6-l-79
AA for Toxic Substances, DAA for Pesticide P1.cg1.a111s, SPRD, Chemical Review
Branch 5
I
Inrnediate Superviscr
Gerry werdig, Acting Branch Chief
:ZOO Level
William Wills, Acting Director I

..

2-10-SO fran
F= Sane as above
.'

Tc

AA for Toxic Substances, DAA for Pesticide Prcgrams, SPRD, Chemical Review
Brandi "2 ...
Immediate Supe1.Visor
:ZOO Level

Kyle Barbenhenn, Section Head
Frank Parsons, Branch Chief
Marcia Williams, Division Direc-..or

l-3-82 Reassignnent
Fran Same as Pratction Infoi:mation (To Block)
To

AA for Research and -Develq:ment, Offide for Monitoring Systans and Quality
Assurance, Quality Assurance Managenerit: Staff

.

Imrediate Supe1.Visor
2nd Level

I
.

Christopher T:imn, Di.'"8Ctor Staff
Courtney Riordan

i.:.

--

..-- . -?.-..

.

-?

.. .

-s-

1

V.

FRANK DAVU:O Biclcgist GS-40i

. -. ?. .. . . ,_... :::,...

6-l--79
AA for Toxic Substances, DAA for Pesticide Prcgrams, BFSD, aunan Effec-..s
Moni? Branch
Ilmlediate Suoervisor
2nd Level

Dale Pai::tish, Ac-..ing B:canch Chief
Jack Griffith, Acting Directer

No paper l<<X"k authorizing chariges (No SO's or 52's)
10-4-Sl
M fer Pesticide anJ. Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Ptcgrams, am
Sealth Effects Branch
Il!mediate Su,:ervisor
2nd. Level

Willa. Garner, Branch Chief
John Melone, Directer

..
. - ..

. ..
.- .

.

...

.;

. . .. . .

>

.,

,,

,..
' ....,

?t..

OPP ORGANIZATIONAL CONCEPTS

,

I

110

no

.l

IIIIIECTOII
IIElilSTRA TIOII
OFrlCE

.I

. srno
OSPII

'

A

DIRECTOR
o REVIEW 0111\HCIIES
: (IIICL. 11/IITFl

LAO AUDIT
REGULATORY
EfF[li-lS-1111;-l/2 - -.. AIIAl:.YSIS--- - ,. ORAIICII
P[Sllf.lllES
PROJECT OFFICE
EFFICACY &
ECOLOGICAL

..

CEO

\

A

TSO

DIRECTOR
METABOLIC
EFFECTS
OIIAIICII
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
- DIIAIICll 1 /2
CIIEMISTHY
ORAIICII

OD

on

CED

_l_

no

CIIEM on LAD
PEST REF STD

ODAA

DIRECTOR
REGIONA L
coom11t1ATIDH
RRAIICII
TRAIIIIIIG
RIIAIICII
- ---

'

IIFOII.MATIOII
DRAIICII
smoronT
SYSTEMS
BRANCH

..

.

f,!fB?-o.

.<<9

.--

..

DIIIECTOR
OFFICE OF
PIIOGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
EVALUATIOII &
ADMIIIISTRATIOH
-STRATEGIC
STUDIES UIIIT

TSO

.

ECOIIOMIC .
AIIALYSIS
DRANCII
PLAIIT STUDIES
DRAIICII
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
OIIAIICll 1 /2

o

PSO

A

EPISODE
REPDIITIIIG UNIT
.

..

.--?

I

OD

DIRECT OR
IIUMAH EFFECTS
MONIT. ORANCII
ECOLOGICAL
MDIIIT. ORAIICII
CIIEM/810
IIIVEST.DRAHCII
HAZARD
EVALUATION
PROGRAM
o

A

PESTICIDES
SCIENCE
OFFICE
TOXICOLOGY
011.AIICII
EFFICACY &
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
DRAIICII 1/i
CIIEMISTIIY- -ORAHCII
LESS: LAO

I

&

'

l<Jl.V

I

DFSQ

.IIED

no

_..,..

I..

ODAA

\

?

l.

orr1c1 o,
tl&tlCIPI r!IIIIIUIIS

r!_ ..

oo

l

.....
1.a1w:iMH aurrpar
DIVISIOtf

.

HOl!ilUtlPII
PUIBIOK

- foqaro- ?owafapoonl
- lnaacctctJa /lo4oo&l-
cl4a luncb
o114 lvduolaA llrarich
- lun1tcldo/Harblctoo
- AJolnloorolluA and
luAcb
foronnnoI lorvlca1
lu11cb
r DlalRlaccante lroodt
trocaaa Coorotaafloq
h1lur-l104 lnyh,1
ooo11d1
lruclr,
- s,.,, oo. lu?en1? lraach

'

.

lrECl&L IISJIClbl.
uy111101,11101

IIUUD IYUUlllON
DlfUlllll

,: h----,---f

? o?1ula1arr balr1la in4 io loatc0101, lraac?
Lao Au4ha luaco
o S,1vlnnauul rate

o Cba..cal J?rlav lrtnch

ll
o a. ..tcao lo1h11 ,,ancll
IJ
- Cl1aolc1I lnh1i1 lroach
II
T Cl,aalcd Rnlov IUAC?

"

o Chaolc1I byl4o lr11111c?
IS

'

,!

fraqc?

o lu?JU? Chaol11frf
lune"
r lcoloah:oJ J llaclt
1,,nco

llt:IUITI AND IIILD
BJIJOlll DlVIIIOM

Otl!UIIOWI
DIVUIO?

.

- lcolaalctl HclnlcorlD'
o loal aaal lufpocl lcaact.
- Jn111rotoa 11,t Haao1o-
lraaco
oooI aao Uoo Cl1a1l-
? luoaq lf(tCII ffoDileJloI
lh:a&laa lf"1cil
lraru:b
o c11 ..1u1. on4 llol101co1
l11wud1oUoD1 l.-1acb
- lconoalc Anal,alo 1,-auco
' ... ta.a, ac:1am::ao luach
o lnlad lchnu1 1116'
lnba IJHcll

\

I

\

.. .--. ..... . . .... . ... .. ..

..--..-.. ........-. .. .?-. ........-...---..

. ..

-- .-.."

.-. ?

...-.

-?"

'

'

,.

i
I'

( \

,,

)

.

..?.?
,

i.

l'rnucnt Organt?atlon

How Orsonlzotton

Offlca of tha Deputy Aeeletant
A,lmlntotra.tor

Office of the Deputy Aeetotent
Adrulntotrotor

EKternal Affallte Unit

External Affatro StAff

Office of rrogtem Development
Evaluation, ona Admlntetretlon -------------- TO

rso.

International Affatro Btoff

Office of R11aufotory & roUcy
Affairs ------?-------------------(Split to ODM & f6D)
Sclunce Advisory ranel
Office of Special reet1c1de Revlewa ------------ TO Sl'RD
llfrectora Office------------------------- TO srnil

Executive Support Unit
(Sctenttftc Advisory Penal)
Speclal frojecto Ptoff

?ltevle11-Drs11che11-one-thrn11gh four ------;--- TO Gl'RD
lleregletrotion Task Fprce ------------------ TO Sl'RD

-?.".

- - - -- ------ - --- -------- --- -- - .

'

(?)o

10

i

I

. II
i

PJIOGIIAH Slli'PORT DIVIS JOH

U@lf Ornqulzat.tm1
Directoi-s Office
, I

ot

1

.o

,ft

:'11 ,,

,:?_;1 ::-\

,.,

_.

.

.

. >
,\o

I

'.

rro11ra111 Dovslop111ent':_& Evaluqtton Branch (From ODAA)
Ad111inhtraUon & Per11onnel Pervfcea Branch (Fro111 OPAA) .
lnfoflJUltlon llervtcea Bnncti (Fro11 T&D)
Systems S11r11ort branch (Fro11 TSD)

o

'

o

'.

.- - --- ;,--

.,

?\ "

,'

.'

'.

.

..'

?.
...,. ...'-'.

.

NEW ORGANIZATION

o

SPECIAL PESTICIDE REVIEW DIVISION
Offit:e of the.Dtrector

.,
o o
Reaulatory Anolyeia & J,a6
Audits B_i:anch
Che111lcal Revtew Branch l

\

Che111lcal Review Branch 2
Che111ical Review Branch 3
Ct11,111Jcal Review Branch 4
Chemical Revie11 Branch 5
---- -

Orllantzation previou.ely Hated under the Office of the DAA

I
I

?-- -- -

o

OPERATIONS 111Vl610U

-::

!'resent Orsenlzetlon

New OrRenlzation

Plrectorq Office

llirectorq Ofitce

llegional Support Branch

Re11io11al Support Branch

l'rocram Support Branch

lntesreted Peet Management
., Uee Claee.lUcation Drench

l'eeticide-Epieode Reeponee Teerq ------ TO Bli'BII

.

.' . - I

'j .

.

.

..

i

',,

. o\

I

-.?
. '.

?-

oo

REGISTRATION DIVISION
Old oruoulzotlon
.,

lllroctora Office
rcetlcldo rroJoct Office

tlew Orsontzotton
Dlrectora Office

...

lnuecttclde/Rodentlcide Branch

Special Reahtratlon Branch

Fungicide/llerbicida Branch

lltoudordp & LabeUna Branch

Diulnfect1111ta Bra11ch

l'entlclde Regletratlon Office

l'roceeo Coordinotion Branch

rroduct Control Branch
Inaecticlde & Rodenticlde Branch
lllalnfectanta Branch
Fuuglcide & llerhlcide Branch
Pentlclde Science Officer _________..;.________ TO

mm

Chemlutry Branch--------------------------?-- TO IIED
(except Petition tlethod T/:"yout Laboratory)-- TO BFSD
(i,xcept Analytical Standard l,ahoratory)--- TO BFSD
Ef flcncy & Ecoloatcal l!ffecta Branch ------ 1/2 TO 111!D
Toxlcoloay Branch -?--------------------- TO UED.:

'
\

-

.

I

I

i

'.

:' '

!

I
I
.,
i

I

.!

i

Neu OCeontzotfon

PrPtumt Opmnlzntlon

Criteria II Evuluation Divtelon
Dlrectora Office
Che,oletry Branch

I

I ' . II

llazard Evaluation Dlviuton

'

Dlractoru Qfftca
Envtron,.ental fate Branch

HotaboUc Effects Branch

ToJPYlcoloay Branch (Part from RD)

Plant .Stndiea Branch---------.:------TQ BFSII

Reet,lua Chemtutry Brunch (From RD)

Econo10ic Analyeia Branch----------TO DFBD

Ecoloatcal Effactu Branch (Part from RJl)

TO DFSD
l!coloalcal Effecta Dranch-------1/2
'
...,

o

\

!'

#

I
.1

Preoc"t Orcanlzotlo"
'feclmlc11 l Servfcee lllvieJon

I
I

Dlrectore Office

.o

o

Dlrectora Office
Antmnl Sclencea & Jndex Branch
(l/2 EBO From C&B DlvJeton)
(88 Section ID From TSO)

Chcmlcol & Blologlcol
JnveetJgotlone Branch

Chemical & Dloloalcal lm_reettsotlona
Brunch

llumun Effecta tlonltorlna
llrouch ..

llumon Effectu Honitoring Branch

Ecoloalcol tlonhoring Branch
Information Broncl1 ----------- TO PSD

l!coloslcal tlonttorins Branch

(SS Section to BFSD)

Plant 8clenceo Drench
(From C&B Dlvtelon)
l!cono,ntc ,.nelyolo Dranclo
(From C&B Dlvteton)

,.

_ _J __

\

'

Hew Orconfzotlon
Benefit, Field Studies Dlviaion

Syu tetne Suppo.rt Bronci, ----------"-- TO PSD ,

__

...??-l??

---- -

- --

!

I
i

.,'

I

r

'GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIOIIS OFFICE OF PESTICJDE PROGRAMS

..o

.,

o

o

LOCATION

'Office of the ppputy Assistant Administrator'

East Tower Waterstde Hall

(Excep? Executive Support Unit)

0th Floor Crystall Hall II

Program Support Divis Ion
Deneflts & Flelij Studies Dlylslon

(Except Chemlcal & Biological Investigations Branch)

. East Tower Waterside Hall
8th floor Crystall Hall II
Deltsvllle, 110

(Field Stations Outside Washington, D.C. Area Remain The Same)

.,

Operations Division

11th Floor Cryst11H 11all II

(Except Reglonal Support Branch)

Watersldu 11al1 2nd floor

Registration Division

East Tower Waterside Hall

llazard Evaluation Divis Ion

East Tower Waterside Hall

Special Pesticide Review Division

East Towr.r lfaterslde Han

.-; .?,...1 I

I

:.
.

VACANT HANAGEHENT POSITIOIIS
OFFICE
OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
'o
PIIOGRAH SUPPORt DIVISION

hEGISTRATIOII DIVISION

GS-16
Division Director
De11uty Dlvhloh Director llS?15

Director GS-1301-16
llerblctde-f1mglclde Branch Chief GS?401-15

orERATIOIIS DIVISION

Disinfectants Branch Chief GS-4Dl-16

Integrated Pest Management
& Use Classification Branch Chief
GS-028-14

Process Coordination Branch Chief GS-401-14/15

BEIIEFITS & FIElO STUDIES DIVISION

Plrector GS-16

Ecological Monitoring Branch Chief GS--IJOl-16

Regulatory Analysis & Lab Alldlts Prancb Chief GS-14/16

Director GS-Hi
Deputy Olrectot. ??:15
_.,,.

SPECIAL PESTICIDE IIEVIEW DIVISION

I

t

' !

I

I

I

I

?

Chemical Review Pranch 5 Chief GS-D20-14/15
I

l

Eculoylcal Effects Branch Chief G?-401-16
Toxicology Pr'ohch Chief GS-405-16

.\

!

lns.ecttctde Rodenttclde Bra11ch Chief GS-401-16

Program Develojlnlent & Evaluation
Brnnch Chief. .(iS-340-16

IIAZARO EVALUATION OIVISIOII

.o . . I

'I

,.

{;

RECRUITHEHT

&

PROHOTIOH ACTIVITl{S

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
_
o
. .

I

i

IIIITIL TIIE REORGAIIIZATIOII

,s

..,

ltlPLEHENTEo,. tnE DFFl?E Of PESTIC.0GBP PROGRAHS HILL CONTINUE TO

PROMOTE EMPLOYEES 11IT11 PROHOTIOII POTENTIAL OR EHPLOVGBPES WIIO HAVE ACqUIREO i\DPITIOHAI- DUTIES.
HOii SUPERVISORY VACANT POSITIOIIS WILL CONTINUE TD BE fllLED TIIRDU!ill_ THE I\GEIICY HERIT PROHOT,011
.
.
' PROCESS, l'EIIOIHG AIID AFTER IHPLEHEIITATIO? Of THE REORGANIZATION,
SECTION LEVEL POSITIOIIS AIID ADOVE VACI\IIT OR IIIIJCII BECOME VACANT NILi- HOT DE FILLED UNTIi-,
DIVISION DIRECTORS AIID BRANCH CHIEF POSITIONS ARE FILLED AFTER IHPLEHENTATION OF TIIE

. '
'l,

REOIIGAIIIZATION.
I CIICOUIIAGE ALL ELIGIOLE OPP E!'IPLOYEES TO APPLY FOR ANY OF THESE. POSITIOIIS o. Ill ADDITION.,
I AH ALSO IIRITIIIG TO OTHER POTENTIALLY ELiGIDLE PERSOIIS TO .ENCOURAGE TIIEH TO APPLY Willi TIIE
IIITEllT OF ?TREllliTIIEIIING TIIE PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS tlAIIAGERIAL PROGRAHS,
'
'
!'
.o:

,

. , (? ..
,....

- , -

:.r'

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

IT IS ANTICIPATED TIIAT TWO WEEKS AFTER Tll? IHPLEHENTATIOff OF TIIIS REORGANIZATIOII, TIIE iNTERll1
HOVE TO BRING TOGETHER TUE NEW_ DIVISIONS NILL COl1HENCE,
-- -

o

.o

,o;

. 0'
TIIE OPERATIONS DIVISION' (EXCEPT TIIE REG IONAL SUPPORT BRANCH) NILL HOVE TO CRYSTAL MALL II FIRST.

TIIE DFSO NON AT WATERSIDE HILL JOIN TIIE REST OF TIIEIR DMNCIIES AT CRYSTAL II AS TUE SECOND
STEP IN TIIE CONSOLIDATION PROCESS.
SIHULTANEOULY, TIIE IIED DRAHCIIES NOW AT CRYSTAL HALL II Nill HOVE TO THE EAST TONER, WATERSIDE
MALL.
WE DO HOT EXPECT AIIY MOVEMENT OF TIIE PROGRAM SUPPORT DIVISION OR .SPECIAL PESTICIDE REVIEW DIVISION
PERSONNEL AT TIIIS TIHE.

;.

8
l"

?-:

..

o
OFFICE

OF

PESTICIDE

PROGRAMS

O='FIC:: OF '!!:E OL"U:.,1 ,.CR,

Office Ilirec--..or
Edwin I.. Johnsal

i'
I,

teputy O'"-fice Direc-..or

Janes M.

?

POLIC! &
-.

SPEC!AL ProJEC'S STAFF

Staff Chief
SUsana. She=an

...

.-'o

',.!

.

o

.,.,. .....

\

.:; oo

,_.

.:.- . ,.,..- ,-,.,,-..

o.

P!!ST1Cf'D!

= o =--1

JIJai:aaN MIi iCiDl!dZ

.,.,,.-

1o , ..... ,_ ,.--.??

.'

I

,.

kuia P. ?. ?o
.

?Din=

tlUlJal maciman.

-

.. o

11!S:m: 1114Jc2!Z.!

IIIWC!!

oo ?

-C:U.of

.

I

I

-C:U.of
-II. ?

.

,,

...

.,,.

-'

,. <

? l!IWfOI

.

..

- -,,

o rm.

MHIC LENf S!Cff:11

--

.JclNIIII.-

.

..

?.
.........
?=
...

C>lcau

I I

..

IM

l!IWfOI
I

?-

' us
.
- =
IIIPO,

......

._

..oo

-

...

UlUiSE!t'naS

-0'1&f
IClUiDC.

o

...

I

--==
----c:::m

IKtiCl'I
I

!INd

aMQI

-C:U.of
tlGinC. "I'

--

CDl>amtssmB
m::m,
I-

--.
-Pmnda.J.IJ.eb,

..

.
?:a. '-

s,sm,is.

.

,.; .....i.,
!

1112 iillllHMZ.
l!DIT?

I

"

o ==
'DliJl9a..?zam
.,

--

..
'.

'

'

.

. '

.

,.

-Lo-=

-a.-

-11.' --.- .- --? CP"'!I!!

-?.

-.or

lllS.lCI o . ll'Ol:W.

?

c=u...m::

.,._. -I!!

--.ef!imDL.?

?- --11.
-?
- --- --_.._ __
- -I

.-

I

- _c.__,

o wa:::IIM MlrOU!..rEdl
o lllll'l<m =i

mvma,

k:ma P. ':l:l:la.

m

I

"'" .

?

'

""""'

a: .airoo

? lllWCI
-ia.,,in

-

Ol:Dl%CI:.

<-

Dtt2 C:Z:.I
"""'1Cll!IWC!

llllll.aoC. -

-=cu.t.

- -.....,.

ll:IICD'l'el!t'

'!:!mS'Dl'T

-,s. -

..

,...._.,

.

.-o '

V'

?.1_,..,,_
,;_.

--- -- -?
--

..

..

..

.. .. - --- -

....,,,.,_..,,

.,_ ._.-. . ?

ICXKICMAZ=s

IIIWC<

ElqinC.l'!y
..

..o.

.

i::m

'll:IIOlM II, -

m

'

-

""'"'

ca Cl3llal:'

_,.,__,
.

??
azr.a:nwB.Bl:rl::ac'

St&tfQQa:!

-.

-c.--IRS I II!-.
Xi.L"I ..ICU BUR:2t

......,,
1?.:[J
--..
-=,...,.,,,

- --Lo -

.

-W.E....,_

-.:Ill-

-- --.:ti

en.-

,.

-

..

.

'""

IIIC:l!Cl

....

11WiaC.l'IIU2jpl

..,-; _

m=,

SCJ:IC _,,_

.-mmar..
"""""' ff>ff

-

mv=,

az..:= Vo .l!llft:,ln

IOWC!

&mmT..?

I

m

DI< o ..,._,,

?

I

----Lo-- .--- --

.o

-"-B&U

1fU11,-. tl:ldl:?

o

-id-t.a WitGBP.?

mwc,

111ft

-n::::z

.....,.:c !ft'!C:S

- =--

.

-?

---

-

'-

'-

.....,,

.-Qlid
l1CM:rd

=- lcnill1u

-me

IIIWCI

-

Hr

,,,_.. WUla

?- l
------?

bJan>lscPJC:Rr'I umct

'""'?' .

...... ......
...,.,.

ii!SKJ&

ll'ECW,-

.rmumusw

....

a..

?

"

;_

., ... '

.. ,

r?

.

--?
;

OP'P!C!

.

---?
P!g'T".tern!!

OP

P1t0C:R.\IIIIS

? .um csr mv!S:n:R

-\
.-.c:.-

SICC"M>l. ?
,mr,!'lllmM

-

.ldrwD-

I
.....,,
.- _,_ __

.-

- .....,.,. =

--

c:!IDIIOt,WlUIS

-Ctlet

...

itaffCl!af

I

I
II

.._,,
-d-.

cm.:,, smtal1'

..w.-c:. ?

'

.-

I

-=

IC2D<IC
swc,
__, __
.lm>ldt..

-----?
MIii
r.
CS!iUS1la .........

--

- == -

.,

ac,mwwwa..

awu:s:Ja:?

-.

--

?Qaply

-

....

.-

KMr,mucr
=,

WJUUCS

--.w...

llomldll.

.--

-miz.cm
I

,:cm,

CliaD,;-

,,

-;

- '"""""'=
_._.,

-

--:-..-..

sau

.,,...

?--na:,,,.,
?

Q;T ARD

-llllloian

I

-

Dm!,U.

BDU<1\S

-;z.
a.=lal

.-

7

..
..
'

?
I

o

0

..

o

o

., ,

.

"

, oo

I,

. _._.

oo

. i fi:

t
H
?
_
:
"?
0

?--'----,

,.

.

'.'

' o

p,

16 I

t--------,.

.'

J

11 k
B

I
'

j/

o,i

-

?i ii

1- JJ
. I

"......
..
.,

0

_

,-.

. , ,r

___.

:

111?i1

I

I

n
I
"
Ii II f
M

'

I

Ml I

! 11
.I

m

- II _ Ml

I

m I?!!

I?

. . I

?

Ii-I

I

I

? 11
JI

'

.
!
1
i
1
.
.
i.:
;i G

) j,

!
,
,
I!;Jl. Jl .- II
I
i - J II,J

I'

I

.

..

,

ilm I?
I

-.
.-

1i ]?
r-;; Ii ilG I?
I
g

1 11

ii

?
11
i

.I_ 1! I II
I

"'

I

.

,,

.,

II

oo
.,

' .

i

, I

'I

I

flI ii J'1 ; .f V;
J 'I i i1
=I
'

I

.1

,,

ff ? I

lf lg

-

?1
I
I
;I

---- --

gRN

. !
'
!

._4.

,i ____
1

a

fr I I
i

.

,__

!iI 1' ,_
i I

!I .

.- 1nl-

-

-

u1 11I
I

1

.

I

Nf

ff i
v

?1I

-- -

-

?

?

I',1 jl JJIf ?'
al lj
I

.

.

-

-

rr

I'r v i
ft
I i

?I

.

I

.11 ,, !

--- -

-- -

.
'
I-

.;

'

!I !1 jl
'

!I !?t

I-

I

II i er i

?

gl
?

_Ii_o

0

0

,.,.
"

a

1!"I1 I
I

I

-

....
"..
..
..
.....
....
.."
.."
..
"..
0

I

' ' 1!'I I I1I 111 l"fII 111
1,. 1. ! 9 I
I

.

I

.I ?1
!"I

al

I

H II !
ll ii 11
.

---

'I

..

o

- ?-.?

_,

?

'.

?.-

- : :._.

. ?-.:......--

::;_

o J ,, --,-...--...- ----

-

APPENDIX 3
List of references

. ..

,.

,'i.

,o

Five Rivers.References
l. EPA response to Congressman Weavero1 s inquiry.
Letter Lee Thomas to ?aver, 8/12/?3, 2 pages.
Telefax Dupuy to Roberts, 8/5/83; Transmittal slip, 3 pages dOC1Jinentihg
receipt samples at BSL, 3 pages dodumenting shipment samples to Gross?
Telefax Dupuy to Roberts, 8/8/83; kansmittal slip, 1 page documenting
receipt Region V samples and their [shipment to Gross.
i
f
?=ew???D??;=??f ;?{?? ?:??? : :1=?o? ?':??; ?
UN-L Data Report X frcrn Gross, 10 pages.
!
UN-L Data Report XII frcrn Gross , . 3 'pages.
UN-L Data Report XIV fran Gross, 7 pages.

?=?:::

2. First letter from Five Rivers, Oregon.
Copy envelope indicating addressee
date of posting.
Letter with attached table giving spray and miscarriage data.

and

3. Transmittal documents for Five Rivers letter, Costle to McGrath.
Transmittal slip Jellinek to Johnson, 7/24/79.
Transmittal slip Johnson to McGrath, 7/26/79, 2 pages.
Memo Johnson to McGrath, 7/25/79.

, .

4. Telephone hates Davide - Watson 7/24/79, re: Five Rivers CCillplaint.
5.-Telefax of Five Rivers letter Watson to Davide.
Telefax cover sheet.
Letter and spray and miscarriage data o.
. Transmittal slip Watson to Griffith, 7/23/79.
Xerox of letter and data table.

6. Telefax of merro concerning Colorado CSP Center
contacts with Five Rivers,
'.
8/6/79, 2 pages.
Tele_gbon?.notes Davide - Wheeler and Savage, 7/26/79.

7. Telephone notes between Davide, Watson, and Oregon doctors, 7/27/79.
8. Alsea Study Ou?stionnaire, 19 pages[ ..

9. Transmittal documents Five Rivers 1ltter, McGrath to Griffith.
Transmittal slio McGrath to Griffitfu, 7/31/79.
Johnson transmittal slip to McGrath!
Meno Johnson to McGrath, 7/25/79. I
Documents shJwing Griffith to David9 transmittal: copy of Johnson to
McGrath transmittal, merro Johnson to McGrath, and Connelly letter.

10. Davide memo.to Griffith, 8/16/79 re: Five Rivers letter.

11. Telephone notes Davide - Miller, 8}6/79 re: Five Rivers camplaint.

,.

y

-2-

.... ,, ..... '

, .,

12. Menes J:\.lpuy:,to Davido concerning Fh,e Rivers samples.
. Memo J:tipuy to Davido, 8/25/83, Additional ccments Alsea II sarnples;
2 pages.
Meno Miller to Dupuy, 8/27/79, Samples for analysis.
Me!O Cl.lpuy to Davida, 8/23/83, Comtents Alsea II study, 2 pages.
Document specifying dates receipt of Region V sarnples, Five-Rivers
samples and dates shipnent to Gross,. 3 pages.
Telefax J:\.lpuy to Roberts, 8/5/831 transmittal slip, 3 pages documenting
receipt of sarnples, 3 pages documenting shipnent of samples to Gross.
Telefax Dupuy to Roberts, 8/8/831 transmittal slip, l page documenting
receipt Region V samples and their shipnent to Gross.
Memo Wheeler to Dellarco, 3/10/80 identifying UN
of sarnples, 2 pages.
Memo McDaniel to Fristrom, 9/22/83 re: sarnples at SSL laboratory.

numbers

13. Miller chronolcgy Five Rivers events, 3 pages.
Mano Miller to Savage, 7/5/79 re: Oregon 2,4,5-T study o
. Five Rivers letter, 7/17/79.
Memo Miller to J:\.lpuy, 8/27/79, Samples for analysis.
Meno Wheeler to Dellarco, 3/10/80, sarnple identification, 3 pages.
Patholcgy report CSU on chick and ducklings.
Patholcgy report CSU on deformed kitten.
Mero Keefe to Miller, 3/28/80, 1978 ?ta for Oregcn study.
14. Davido response to Five Rivers July 1979 letter.
0

15. Second letter from Five Rivers, 'Oregon to Castle, 2 pages.
Johnson's reply to letter, 4 pages.
Letter Senator Hatfield to Castle 9/5/79.
16. Mem::> Davide to Miller, 8/16/79 requesting status report Five Rivers.
Telefax ?.of status report.
17. Memo Miller to Dupuy, 8/27/79, Samples for analysis_.

.-

18. Mano Miller to Davida, 10/4/79, Status report Five Rivers, Oregon,
"" 3:: pages.
???"'.:I:??:?.
- -. .
19. Meno Wheeler to Miller, 8/19/83, Information on fate ducks and
.?":,: ..'chicken and,.,,tissue sample acephalic fetus.
'.', Patholcgy report CSU on ducks and chicken.
20. Pathology report CSU on deformed kitten, 3 pages.
21. Telephone notes Davida - Congressman Weaver's office, 10/25/79.
22. Teleohone notes Davida - Dellarco, Davida - Miller, and Davida Congressman Weaver's Office, 10/29/79 re: analysis of sarnples.

;,.
\

Cbcuments on speciation of small animals: Transmittal slip Cl.lpuy
to Heath, Letter w. Lorio, MSU and speciatidn, mem::, to Heath, 5/15/80
corrections to Lorio speciation, 2 pages.

- 3 -i

I

.,...

. \

o

24, .Mem:l Davide to Dellarco, 3/17/80 i ntifying alL f>amples taken at Five
:.Rivers; .3 pages;::: .2, ..

25. 1-emo Wheeler to Dellarcc, 3/10/80 isting sample shipnents frcn CSU
to BSL laboratory, 2 pages.
_
I
o.
26. Data Report X frcn Gross at ON-L, 9 pages.

27.

Data

Report XII fran Gross at ON-L, 3 pages.

28. Telefax of 'ICDD analyses Harless to Fristran, 8/19/83.
Mem:l Harless to Fristran re: sample analysis, 2 pages.
Memo Harless to Cel.larc:o, 10/16/80, sample analyses, 3 pages.
Letter Fentiman to Harless, 10/23/8?, re: sample analysis.
Memo Harless to PUrdue, 6/14/83, rel relocation mass scectrc:meter
.
at RTP, 2 pages.
.
29. Memo Harless to r::ellarcc, 8/22/83, -;rcoo analyses, 2 pages.
Sample shipient letter? to Harless, 5/14/80.
Letter Fentiman to Harless, 10/23/81, re: sample analysis.
:'
30. r:::ata Report XIV fran Gross at ON-L,, 7 pages.

I

.

-

31, Letter fran Weerasinghe to Fristran; 8/24/83 identifying samples
remaining at ON-L, 2 pages,

.-

.;I

. 32. Lincoln County Health Questionnaire; 4 pages o
.
MeI!0 Mi ler to Davide, 8/19/83, re: \Lincoln County health data.
?
''
. 33. Letter to Lincoln County Health r::epartment, 9/2/83, re: health survey
I
data.
_.
,
I
.,I
'
34. Docurtents describi? Dioxin Monitoring Program and its management
'
1919-01.
.
I
?te to Dellarcc fran Conlon, 8/25/83, Five Rivers analysis.
?te tc Johnson fran Cellarco, 8/31?83, CMP management during Five
[
Rivers investigation, 4 pages.
. Five Rivers, oregon - Questions tha? need to be answered, 8/23/83.
Mem::, to Johnson fran Cellarco, 8/23/83,. Five Rivers questions fran
j
External Affairs, 3 pages.
Memo Barnes, 8/26/83, Five Rivers, CMP and Me, 2 pages plus 8 chain
of custody records for samples,
Dat;a Report X fran Gross, 6 f:)ages,
and letter Gross to Fentiman 9/22/8 l
l re: sample codes and chain of custody
records.
J.
Memo Jovanovich, 7/29/81, .Dioxin Mo . toring Pr.ogr.am, 3 pages.
1
MeI!0 Conlon to Barnes, 2/26/81, Admi istration Dioxin Monitoring.
Program, 2 pages.

copy

i

-4-

'f'
..

. ...

-. e;..,

-.

,.

. .?
35. Merrell first .FOI request, 5/15/81; .5 pages plus one page news release.
Pes?nse to request:
Letter Avard to Merrell, 6/8/81, re: time extension for res?nse.
Transmittal slic for reouest, Avard to Miller, 5/29/81.
Case leg Avard 5/29 to 6/23/81.
Five Rivers July 1979 letter.
Letter Johnson to Merrell, 6/23/81,- 2 pages.
List releasable documents.
Telefax Miller to Ce.vido,. 8/6/79, CSP Center coctacts with .Five Rivers,
2 pages.
Transmittal slips Office AA for Toxic Substances to Johnson, 2 slips.
Second Five Rivers Letter, 8/14/79, 2 pages.
Memo fran USDA, Alsea Ranger District, 8/2/79, re: sprayirg in Harlan
1
area.
) Letter fran FAA, '. 8/3/79, re: Forest Service sprayirg.
1
Men'O Ce.vido to Miller, 8/15/79, requesting status rei;ort Five Rivers..
Memo Ce.vido to Miller, 9/26/79, questions on Five Rivers innvestigation.
Telefax Miller to Davida, 9/17/79, status rei;ort.
Meino Davida to Griffith, 8/16/79, re: Five Rivers letter.
Davida res?nse to first Five Rivers letter, 8/16/79.
' Memo Miller to D.lpuy, 'q/27/79, samples for analysis.
_ List of sanP+es at CSU, 2/80
- .- Memo Miller to Davida, 10/4/79, status rei;ort Five Rivers, Oregon
3 pages.
0
Letter LOrio to D.lpuy, 1/2/80 and snall animal speciation, 2 pages.
Meno Miller to Davida,. 2/28/80, Status rei;ort Five Rivers area:
IIBlO- Savage to Miller, 2/25/80,_ CSU pathology. re?rt kittell . and ..
chick and ducks, 6 pages.
identification,
Memo Wheeler to Cella=, 3/10/80, Five Rivers samole
o
.
2 pages.
- - Memo Ce.vidp_ to Cella=, 3/17/80, identification of samples sent to
SSL, 3 pages.
Lincoln County Health QJestionnaire, 4 pages.
Notice to bring suit, Merrell to EPA, 6/29/81.
,.,

'

36. Merreli first request for admissions, 8/25/81, 8 pages.
E:l?A res?nse to Merrell first request for admissions, 10/23/81,
8 pages (2 copies).
tepartment of.J.tiiterior re?nse to Merrell first request for ad-
missions, 10/23/81, 1 page ( 2 copies).
Cepartment of Jlqriculture re?nse to Me!.1.all first request for
admissions, 10/23/81, 5 pages o
o
37. Merrell second request for prcx:luction of docurrents, 8/31/81, 3 pages.
Mettell thi-r:i ? 'ftJr 1:Jreduction of documem:s, ?/4/'81, "2 pages.
. 38. M:Ino Colleli to Conlon, 10/26/81, request to produce documents in case
Merrell v Block.
Memo Fent:iman to Johnson, date illegible, status of Merrell v Block
et al., 2 pages.

--

-5-

?
o

- 39 o Merrell. appeal fra1r denials FOI. request,. 4/26/82., 2 pages.
Copy of. original FOI 213, 6 pages.
Letter Lipfert to Merrell, 6/2/82, assigning request new numbers.

I
.
.I
40.. Response to Merrell appeal from denials:

. .,

letter Murtagh to Merrell,
11/23/82, action log sheet and noteslJamula 6/8 to 11/18/82, 3 pages.
41. Merrell third FOI request, 7/26/83, 3 pages.
Memo Miller_ to Davida, 2/28/80, s"tatUS report .Five Rivers,. Oregon,

"" . ? ?

,. '
_,,,_-._,_..-,,.

!S: :i1er to Da?i??, . 2/28/80, .statJs report Five Rivers, Oregon.
Memo Savage to Miller, 2/25/80, update Five Rivers study, 2 pages.
Wheeler list of samples taken fran Five Rivers, 8/21/79.
g

.
I
42. Telef? Bremer to Conlon, 9/7/83, transmitt al rnem:> 9/2/83, list
of Region v 1978. samples, response to questions about samples, 3 pages.
.
.
.
I
43. Final Report from .Gross, UN-L under qocperati ve agreement No. CR..

:.lilt '
.:;..4:

oo"'-'?

-?GBP

-..r?.

...::
_oto..;,.
,..

:_'{;,

.?... '

,,.,,,_,

806847, 6/24/83, 18 pages text, 22 pages tables (copy received
.missing tables -6, 9, 11 - 14), 4 pag? sample handling procedures,
and S reprints.
,Gross, 1982, Host Factors in Human Carcinogenesis,IARC Scientific
Publications, No. 39, 20pp.
Letter to the Editor, Fd. Chern.'Toxic. Vol. 20, 1982, 2 pp.
Gross and Chess, 1980, Analytical Chemistry, Vol .o 52, 5 pp..
Gross et al., 198!, Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 53, S pp.
Gross, 1982, J. Chern. Education, Vol.! 59, 5 pages.

....,.,.,_.

44. Miller m:mthly status reports, 2/19/8:I to 10/15/81, 9 pages.

57. Letter Grifffith to Conlon, 3/6/80, re: Dioxin analyses and co!
operative agreements. 4 pages. .
Telephor:1ei notes Griffith 3/80 to 10/80, 4 pages.

suppc:,rt
for CMP studies, 2 pages.
58. Memo D:llarco to Kozak, 8/25/80,
.
I
I
.
.
59. Memo Williams to Parsons, 6/18/79, release Offutt from dioxin work.
60. Memo Willia'l!S to Greene, 11/16/79,
Dioxin cooperative agreements.

tr! nsfer project'officer on

61. Memo Davide to D:llarco, 10/7/81, re: analysis results.

62. Memo Johnson to Jellinek, 6/26/80, pe ticides and the CMP, 11 pages.
64. Letter fran Lincoln County Health Depbnt, 9/29/83, re: health
survey data, 2 pag?s.
I
les at BSL.
66. Memo McDaniel to Fristran, .9/22/83, s
r
67. Telefax Dupuy to Fristran, 10/12/83, transmittal cover and list of
samples received at ESL fran Gross. I
68. Water.and Sediment Procedures, l/29/79.

(

-6COcurnents Not Cited in Text

. .- -

to

-Five

45. Additio?:U documents in Davide
.Rivers file.
Note Dale to McGrath and Williams, 7/26/79, NCI bioassay program.
Transmittal slip She:cman to Griffith arrl Davida, 10/1/79, re: Davida
response to first Five Rivers letter.
MellO Davida to Griffith, 8/16/79, Five Rivers letter.
Transnittal slip, no date, notes contact with Whee ler and Dellarco
re: identification numbers for samples.
...
Telephone notes Davida to Miller, 2/20/80, requesting update Five
Rivers.
Telephone notes Davida to Region X, 8/ 3/79, re: Five Rivers letter.
Telephone notes Davida to Wheeler, 8/3/79, re: sampling Five Rivers.
Telephone notes Davida to Miller, 8/7/79, re: Five Rivers investigation.
Teleohone notes Davide to Miller, 8/10/79, re: families and contacts
'made. at Five Rivers.
Telephone leg Davide, 8/9/79 to 8/28/80, 5 pages.
Second letter frc:m Five Rivers, 8/14/79 and 3 tramsmittal slios;
McGrath to Davida 9/10/79, Jellinek to Johnson 9/7/79, Office AA
for Toxic Substances to Jellinek 8/20/79.
Letter USDA Alsea Ran;Jer District to Sutton, 8/2/79, re: spraying
in Barlan.
'Letter FAA to Connelley, 8/3/79, re: Forest Service spraying.
'M9IIO Savage to Miller, 2/25/80, Up::!ate of Five Rivers Study, 2 .pages,
CSU patoology report on chick and ducks, list of samples CSU sending
ESL 2/19/80, news clipings on 9 miscarriages in Seattle Times 9/8/80,
'and Great Falls Tribune 2/8/80.
46. Telephone-I_!lellQ_ :Wa,t?9!}r 5/J.j/7-?, re: Tidewater area and 2,4-D spraying.
47. Griffith telephone notes, 3/80 to 10/80, 7 pages.
48. Additional i'lotes Miller on chronology Five Rivers events, 8/26/83,
3 pages.
Telefax CSP Center contacts with Five Rivers, 8/6/79, 2 pages.
Mem:i Davida to Miller, 8/15/79, status Five Rivers investigation.
Miller__resP.Onse to 8/15/79 status quecy.
Status report Oregon 2,4-D study, 9/24/79.
Questions Davida to Miller 9/26/79 on investigation.
Memo Miller to Davide, 2/28/80, Status report Five Rivers.
Memo Miller to Davide, 4/29/80, Distribution of 2,4,5-T data, 2 page
. list persons to receive data.
Memo Mill?r to Davida, 5/7/80, Additional persons to receive 2,4,S-T data.
Memo Wheeler to Davida, 8/6/80, requesting 2,4,5-T data Oregon samples.
Memo Miller to Davida, 8/16/83, re: availability Lincoln County Health
DepartJllent survey .data.
49. Additional docunents frc:m BSL.
Transmittal slip Marlow to Davida, 8/24/83 and chronology receipt and
shipnent Oregon samples.
Telefax McDaniel to Fristrc:m, 8/18/83 re: receipt and shipment samples
UN 174-190, 4 pages.
50. Memo Kutz to Conlon, 9/1/83, Environrnental.cspecimens Five Rivers area,

.-

o

<... o ,
f

,.

-7-

....--

?
' 51.

Meno Brerrer to Conlon, 8/2/83, re: Region v samples; transmittal mere,
list of 1978 samples, ans,.,,ers to questions about samples, 2 pages.
Mero OS,,,ald to Brener, 4/9/79, Results for analysis of environmental
samples fran. Mic?igan, Region v for TCDD, 18 GBP:)ages.

52. Press mem:,s.
Note Hall to Conlon, 8/17 /83, ABC news release, 2 pages.
Meno IbbertS to Johnson, 8/8/83, Samples Eran five Rivers oroject.
Note to BUD fran Johnson, 8/6i83, re: television news release.
'Iransrnittal slip Abramson to Johnson, 8/5/83, Press release Qregon
Dioxin sample analyses.
?ss st:at2menc on oregon Dioxin sample analyses.
53. D:x.-uments missing fran Y1Eaver Response (L::oa..1111:mt ll.
List samples received, SSL, 2/21/80.
h
Cain of c-JStcdy notes Eran Cupuy, 3 ;,ages.
54. Cba.arents missing fran response to Merrell first fOI.
Telefax Miller to D..tpuy, 9/17/79, Samples sent to BSL 8/28/79.
Lincoln County Health OJestionnaire, 4 pages.
'Ielephone notes Davide to Connelly, 9/20/79, re: Five Rivers problen.
Telefax Davide to Miller, 9/26/79, OJestions on Five Rivers investigation.
55. Cbcurrents received fran oa:, 8/83.
r-'eito Conlon to Wheeler am Roberts, 8/25/83, Fi:ve Rivers and 2,4,S-T
hearin gs.
Memo Patton to Conlon, 8/30/83, Five Rivers and 2,4,S-T hearings, 5 pages.
Merrell first FOI request, 5/15/81, 6 pages plus l page news release on
Siuslaw Forest.
Letter A.1ard to Merrell, 6/8/81 , FOI t.ilre extension.
Avard FOI_?ction notes, 5/29 to 6/23/81.
Johnson's. response to FOI 6/22/81, 2 pages.
List doCU1rents supplied with response to Merrell FOI.
Five Rivers July 1979 letter.
Five Rivers Au.gust 1979 letter, 2 pages.
Mere 1)avido to Griffith, 8/16/79, re: Five Rivers, Oregon letter.
Letter Davide to Connelly, 8/16/79.
Mero Miller to Davida, 10/4/79, Status report Five Rivers, 3 pages.
Letter Johnson to Connelly, 11/2/79, 4 pages.
Merrell's first request for admissions, 8/25/81, 8 pages.
Letter Q:oss to Fenciman, 9/22/81 plus 5 chain of custody documents.
t:ata Fep::5rt X Eran Gross, 6 pages.
Chain of custody documents for samples UN 107-110, 5 pages.
Letter Lee. to Fentiroan, 10/23/81, re: response to Merrell' s first request
for admissions.
EPA response Merrell first request for admissions, 8 9&Jes.
USDA. resp:mse Merrell first request for admissions, 3 pages.
D:?3-rt:ment of Interior response Merrell first request for admissions,
2 ?ages.
Notic e to bring suit, Merrell to EPA, 6/29/81.
Merrell api;:eal FOI denials, 4/26/82, 2 ;,ages.
teeter Lipfer:. to Merrell, 6/2/82, re: api;:eal.
Janru.la action 1? on ap?al, 6/8 to 11/18/82.

-0l

55. continued.
.,
Letter Murtagh to Merrell, 11/23/82, re: api;:eal.
Meirc Fent:iman to Huan:;i, 11/23/81, authorization of Dioxin analyses.
Letter Fenblnan to Barless, 10/23/81, re: Dioxin analyses.
Transmittal slips Cupuy to Rol::erts, 8/9 and 8/12/83 re: Five Rivers
FOI.
Chain of custody records BSL, 13 pages.
BSL latoratory log documents, 10 pages.
Lorio speciation of snall animals, 3 copies.
I.etter Lorio to .eup.iy, 1/2/80, re: speciation.
Memo Heath, 5/15/80, corrections to speciation, 2 pages.
List of sanp.les received BSL 2/21/80,
cata Report X fran Gross, 7 f?ages.
Cata Report XII fran ?ss, 5 pages.
56. Merrell FOI for IBT data, 9/4/81, 2 f?ages.
Position statement, 4/13/81, 2 f?ages, 2 copies.
Merrell FOI for backgrcund statements and lal::els of i;:esticides used
in Pacific 1'tlrth-west, 6/29/81, 3 pages.
Merrell second request for prcduction of dOC1.JI11ents, 8/31/81, 3 pages.
Memo Williams to Johnson, euarterly Report on IBT Prcgrarn, 2 pages.
Merrell third request for production of documents, received 9/8/81,
1 page.

,

63. /1.dditional doo.mients fran the CMP files.
Transmittal slip Cellarco to Severn, 9/23/83.
Transmittal slip Mike to Bill, 7/23, re: sample analysis.
Transmittal slip Williams to Johnson, 7/11/80.
Note to Williams fran Cellarco, 7/9/80, re: sample analysis review.
Undated, unsigned note to Cellarco, re: ideas for rep;;,?.
N:ite Cella= to Johnson, undated, re: CMP funds.
Transrnitthl slip Mike to Frank, 10/13, re: notification of ind ividuals
in study..
Note Johnson to Williams, 80, re: Disposition CMP.
Meno Bracken to Jellinek, 7/14/80, St..mnary Dioxin Meetin;i, 6/30/80,
.
.
.2 p<ig?s. ..
"Mm. Johnson to Jellinek, 6/26/80, Pesticides and the CMP, 11 pages.
:n:ansnittal. slip Williams to Cellarco, 8/29.
Memo Melone to Williams, 8/18/80, HED support for the CMP.
Memo D:ll'.d to Clark, 1981, Pqreement to Transfer CMP to ORD, 3 pages.
Memo Jovanovich, 7/29/81, CMP, 3 pages.
1-bte fran Riordan, 3/19/81, Proposal for CMP, 4 !?ages.
Memo Williams to Johnson, undat..<>d, re: Transfer CMP, 8 pages.
Notes on CMP transfer, Frank P. to Mary, 2/28.
Note on CMP transfer, 2/11/80, re: U.51: .stl.ldi.? -in ?regress.
Notes Cellarco, 2/80 - 3/80, review of Dioxin studies.
Memo Conlon to Barnes, 2/20/81, Mninistration Dioxin Program, 2 !;iages.
CMP funding sources, 2 pages.
Memo McGrath to Williams, 5/12/80, BED support for release of 0'1P
studies.
Note McGrat.'1 to Boland, 4/15, re: response for William's memo.

--

. r-..
'

-9-

63. continued.
Me!?X) Willians to McGrath, 4/7/80, HED support foe release CMP studies,
2 pages.
Memo Kliever to Boland, 5/1/80. Clinicians foe CMP.
Mem:> Kozak to ce11arco, 10/15/80, Payment University Nebraska for soil
analyses.
University Nebraska bills for TCDD analyses, 1980, 3 pages.
Transmittal slip to Reece, Parsons, Williams, 5/19, re: meeting CMP
chemists.
Transmission slip Willians, undated, message illegible.
Mem:> McGrath to Williams, 5/12/80, HED supt)Ort for r-elease Q.1P studies.

?ank

Pm Fore



E.M 

ach?tmw?sbi 61A.

res 

k1 {Comb