NEWS ON TOXICS AND DEFECTS

LEAKING SOLVENT TANK IN THE
SILICON VALLEY CAUSES TRIPLING
OF BIRTH DEFECTS

 

reported in the last newsletter on
the study of birth defects in Woburn,
Massachusetts caused by solvents in the
drinking water from a toxic waste dump.

Another case of solvent produced birth
defects involving ground water contam?
ination has developed in the Silicon
Valley. A leaking storage tank of the
Fairchild Camera Company released the
solvent TCA (1,1,1 trichloroethane) into
the ground water.

Families using the wells contaminated
with TCA experienced a doubling of
miscarriages and a three time increase
in birth defects.

 

 

_1.oso.
Birth defects
General

populahon

I Moments-mint?
at" a! San Jose

 

Los Panes

'_9.059. 

Show horn an.? luck-dad pfn'gtuncrs boom dunno I900
and 19m

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  

Heart defects were particularly noted.
aboratory studies show that heart
efects are produced in animal 
an exposed to TCA during pregnancy.

or a copy of the findings of the
.ifornia study, you would want to
te the address below and request,
egnancy Outcomes in Santa Clara
ty, 1980?1982, Summaries of Two
emiological Studies'?

Calif. Dept. of Health Services

2151 Berkeley Way
erkeley, California 94704

San Francisco Examiner,
Jan. Z7, 1985



The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition is
a citizens group working on the issue and
also on right to know ordinances: 361
Willow, Suite 3, San Jose, California,
95110.

SPERMICIDE MAY CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS

 

In January, a federal court judge
ruled that the widely used spermicide
contraceptive Ortho-Gynol Contraceptive
Jelly caused a birth defect in a 3 year
old girl, and ordered a $5.1 million
settlement. Experts testified that the
gel damaged the sperm without killing it.

Washington Post, Jan. 24, 1985

THE NATIONAL NETWORK PETITIONS
THE PESTICIDE TEMIK

 

We have been busy. On December 20,
1984, the National Network petitioned
the outgoing administrator of E.P.A.,
William RUckelshaus for an emergency public
health action to remove the pesticide
Temik (aldicarb) from the market while
it was being tested.

This Union Carbide pesticide is the
most acutely toxic poison ever register?
ed by E.P.A., and has leached into the
ground Water in numerous states-

The laboratory studies indicate that
Temik, like some other chemicals of the
same family, will bioaccumulate in the
brain of the fetus to levels higher than
that of the mother animals, and cause
noticeable changes in brain chemistry.

The Environmental Protection Agency
maintains that pesticide in the brain
of the fetus is a harmless thing, and
poses no health problem.

For copies of the petition and the
reply we received back, drOp us a note.
The State of Rhode Island has banned the
use of Temik, and Wisconsin is in the
process of doing the same. The
manufacturer has agreed to voluntarily
suSpend sales on Long Island.

THE NRDC PETITION ON FARM
ANTIBIOTICS

In the September 6, 1984, issue of the
New England Journal of Medicine, a clear
case of salmonella poisoning with an
antibiotic resistant strain of 18 people
in three states was linked to farm use of
antibiotics to fatten farm animals.

Scientists for many years have been
concerned that the farm use of antibio?
tics commonly used in medicine for human
disease might lead to antibiotic resistant
bacteria. This resistant bacteria could
cause illnesses in people that would be
very difficult to treat.

The National Network signed onto a
petition developed by the Natural Res?
ources Defense Council in November 1984,
to Margaret Heckler, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services.
The petition asked for a ban on the use
of penicillin and tetracyclines in
animal feeds.

THE SALTY REMARKS OF RACHEL
CARSON IN SILENT SPRING, 1962

"The 'control of nature' is a phrase
conceived in arrogance, born of the
Neanderthal age of biology and philoso-
phy, when it was supposed that nature
exists for the convenience of man. The
concepts and practicies of applied
entomology for the most part date from
that Stone Age of science. It is our
alarming misfortune that so primitive

a science has armed itself with the
most modern and terrible weapons, and
that in turning them against the insects
it has also turned them against the
earth."

National Network To Prevent Birth Defects

Mail Address: Box 15309, Southeast Station, Washington, D.C. 200
Office Address: 530 - 7th St. S.E.,

Telephone: (202) 543~5450

There may be some legislation on the
subject in the future, and we will keep
you in touch. You may want to drop a
short note to Secretary Heckler, asking
her to ban penicillin and tetracyclines
in animal feeds.

Secretary Margaret Heckler

U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services

Hubert Humphrey Building, Rm. 

200 Independence Ave. s.w.

Washington, D.C. 20201

BHOPAL, INDIA REVISITED

 

nited Nations officials, who interview-
ed the cloth merchants in Bhopal who
had distributed shrouds for the dead,
have a much higher estimate of the
numbers who died. Based upon the num?
ber of shrouds sold, they estimate that
between seven and ten thousand people
lost their lives because of the MIC
gas leak at the Union Carbide plant.

One question that comes to mind is

why the American press_stopped counting
at 2,000 dead?

How To Join

  
  
    
    
 

State and Local Groups 5
Individuals 5

National Headquarters
of National Groups ,Sf
For larger donations that;
heed to be tax'deductgp
write your check to the:
Health and Energy I?sqf
and send to same addrES

Washington, D.C. 20003

Suits forgdamages
against Superfund?

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Two
congressmen today introduced a
bill to allow people injured by haz-
ardous wastes to sue for damages
and to recover medical costs and
some lost wages from the EPA's
Sits-billion Superfund.

The bill. introduced by Reps.
Edward J. Markey. D-Mass.. and
James J. Florio. D-NJ., would per?
mit federal suits against owners
and operators of dumps and
against transporters of toxic
wastes if people are harmed by
substances being treated. stored
or buried.

Current law permits spending
or Superfund money only for
cleaning up hazardous waste sites
and to compensate for some prop-
erty loss involving damage to nat-
ural resources

"The problem of hazardous
substance contamination affects
more than just property." Markey

 

 

Dow agrees to let U.S.
test soil at its plant for
dioxin. Page C3.

 

said. ?Hazardous substances hurt
people. people who through not
fault of their own come into con-
tact with these dangerous sub-
stances.

?People are made ill. ren-
dered unable to work. in some
cases they may even die, but they
cannot receive a penny under Su-
perfund." he said.

Markey said victims of hazard-
ous waste contamination at Times
Beach. Mo., and at Love Canal
near Niagara Falls. N.Y., would
be eligible for aid ?if they can
show continued exposure beyond
the passage of this legislation."

He predicted Congress would

30. SUPIHSUIT A2

 

 

SUPERSUIT

FRO. A 1

approve the bill ?by the end of
this year."

Markey said "unknown num-
bers of victims" could be helped
by this bill" adding that in Wo-
burn, Mass. "families have exper-
an hiah int-i-

would ?provide the business com
munity an incentive for industry
to come forward with better ways
to dispose of toxic wastes.?

"We want to induce industry to
get off the philosophy that says
land-based disposal of hazardous
wastes is good.? he said.

The bill would extend the fund
to cover claims by those injured
trimaran": substances Fees

 

SHOE
191%wa



5? [If


 

L523

431:352:









1-.



 

Water consumption threat cited
at conference on Great Lakes

KALAMAZOO (UPI) Water consumption by
neighboring states and provinces poses a far greater
threat to the future of the Great Lakes than diversion
to Western states. participants at a water diversion con-
ference were told.

The ?ve Great Lakes Huron. Ontario, Michigan,
Erie and Superior form the world?s largest inland
waterway.

Frank Kudrna, chairman of the Great Lakes Com-
mission. said Thursday a recently released study by a
U.S-Canadian research organization found consump-
tion of lake water would increase from the 4,900 cubic
feet per second in 1975 to 37,000 cubic feet per second
in 2035.

That rate would draw down the level of the lakes
sufficiently to threaten navigation and production of
electrical power. Kudrna said. resulting in a "net eco-
nomic loss well in excess of $200 million annually" to
the region. .

The consumption problem is so great. Kudrna said.
that careful management is necessary just to have
enough water for the Great Lakes states and Canadian
provinces.

Other speakers at the two-day conference. spon-
sored by Western Michigan University. discussed the
high costs of diverting water and the need for states
and provinces bordering the lakes to plan for preserva-
tion of that resource.

David Harrison. director of the Northeast-Midwest

Institute. an organization funded by foundations in 18
member states. said there is a danger the upper Mid-
west could become so preoccupied with preventing di-
version that development of a proper management
plan could take a back seat.

?There is no question water will play a dominant
role in shaping the economic growth of the region in
the year 2000 and beyond." he said. We must pro-
tect it with the pride and care we would use if it was
oil.?

Harrison. once an aide to former Michigan Gov.
William G. Milliken, said Great Lakes states should
begin pressuring the federal government to spend
more money for preservation and purification of the
lakes.

Several congressmen from states represented in
the Northeast-Midwest Institute have been upset with
Reagan administration officials. Harrison said, be
cause the president's "cabinet secretaries don?t seem
to realize the Great Lakes are a special resource."

The need for a special management plan to govern
the use of Great Lakes water was emphasized by Har-
vey Banks. a California engineer who directed a 
million federal study into the possible diverson of wa-
ter from rivers in Missouri and Arkansas into neighbor-
ing Plains states.

That study found diversion to be too expensive. he
said. making any large-scale diversion plan impracti-
cal until the latter part of the next century. it then.

Seven of 11 freed in Ala. incident

l?n o?t'nf\ 

R?an?T?f??l 

nf pnnriar. Mich- and Worrie

Dow chief denies dioxin health threat in Midland

MIDLAND (UPI) Dow Chemical Co.
President Paul F. Oreffice. in his first public
comment on the dioxin controversy. denies
dioxin contamination is responsible for health
problems in the Midland area.

in a letter to Dow?s 144.000 stockholders re-
leased by the company Thursday. Oreffice said.
"First and foremost. there is no health problem
in Midland. 

Oreffice cited recent Environmental Pro-
tection Agency data indicating that Midland
County cancer death rates for both men and
women are not significantly different from
those of the U.S. population as a whole. and
they haven't been for the past 30 years.

?It is alleged that health problems are trace-
able to the existence of dioxin compounds in
the Midland environment. Those allegations
are false." Oreffice said.

Of the dioxin amounts found in water sam-
ples from the Tlttabawasee River. Orefi?ice told
stockholders:

?Our Midland plant takes in, uses. treats and
discharges about 9 billion gallons of water per
year. The amount of dioxin contaminants the
EPA claim to have found (50 parts per quadril-
lion) in that 9 billion gallons is less than 20
drops per year."

Meanwhile. the Detroit Free Press reported
today that a state permit issued to Dow allowed
the firm to increase by 17 times its discharge of
four suspected cancer-causing chemicals into
the Tittabawassee. -

The state Department of Natural Resources
and the Michigan Water Resources Commis-
?slon. in approving a new wastewater discharge
permit for Dow, accepted such a move as a
permissible health risk. the Free Press said.

Dow says it has not increased its discharge
and does not plan to.

The state says it has. for the first time. set
specific limits on toxic water pollutants. Howev-
er. environmentalists counter that the state
should not allow any company the authority to
increase its discharge of suspected carcino~
gens. .

The chemicals involved are carbon tetra-
chloride. chloroform. tetrachloroethyiene and
2.4.6-trichlorophenol. All four. allegedly used at
Dow's Midland plant. have been linked to can-
cer in laboratory animals and suspected in hu-
mans.

The 1982 permit authorized Dow to dis-
charge more than 81.000 pounds of the four
chemicals a year. When Dow applied for the
permit. it reported discharging 4.800 pounds a
year.

Tittabawassee fish ruled unsafe

FISH. from Page 1A

diluted by then and that only fish
caught in the Tittabawassee should be
avoided.

Adamltus said several forms of
dioxin were found in Dow?s ef?uent
and in caged fish placed in the river
belbw the plant's wastewater outlet.
"This included the most toxic form of
the. compound 2.3.7.8-tetracholoro-di-
benzo-p-dioxin." he said.

The study. which began in 1981.
showed the highly toxic form of dioxin
at levels of 50 parts per quadrillion in
the? effluent, and at levels of 100 parts
per. trillion in whole fish.

The US. Food and Drug Adminstra-
tion has established 50 parts per trillion
as the danger" level of dioxin in edible
portions of fish.

Because the EPA study was done on
whole fish not fillets - its results
are not directly comparable to FDA
standards. said Adamkus.

ADAMKUS TOLD a news confer-
ence there was ?great concern" over
the accumulative effect that dioxin
might be having on the environment.

?It's going to become the ticking
bomb for human beings if it is accumu-

lated over years and years." he said;

?We?re trying to prevent this type of
tragedy in a decade or two." 

Complete results of the EPA study
will not be ready until summer.

The study was undertaken. Adam-
kus said. to establish the source of
dioxin contamination in the river and to
help Michigan of?cials in developing a
revised wastewater discharge permit
forniw. Dow is temporarily operating
under-a permit that expired in 1979.

Officials at the Michigan Depart-
mentiof Natural Resources said last
week the results of the EPA study.
which is only 25 percent complete. may
serve as the basis of a lawsuit against
Dow to stop dioxin pollution of the
Zittabawassee. 

 

BAY PORT (UPI) The federal
Food and Drug Adminstration has
gathered 150 pounds of fish from
Saginaw Bay to test for dioxin con-
tamination. and commercial fisher-
men in this Thumb community said
Thursday they?re delighted.

Several commercial fishermen said
they are confident the tests will reas-
sure customers that Saginaw Bay fish

. are safe to eat.

An FDA inspector gathered 150
pounds of carp. suckers and catfish
Wednesday for an analysis expected

 

DOW SPOKESMAN Al Wolf said
the company would not comment on
the EPA findings until it had studied the
report.

"We have not received a copy of the
report. so we're not familiar with those
findings." Wolf said.

Dow has not permitted environmen-
tal authorities to enter the plant for
testing. A company spokeswoman. Lisa
Swank. recently confirmed that Dow
had rejected EPA requests for access to
the plant?s grounds. She said the com-

had we rated in off-premises

ests on its eff uent.

She said access to a holding pond on
the plant site "exceeds their legal au-
thority and exceeds their needs for the
objective of regulating."

ADAMKUS SAID the EPA is anx-
ious to review further information on
effluent from Dow. which provided the
EPA with its own data on effluent
content. Adamkus said the report cited
only 90 pecent of what was in the
effluent and that the remaining 10
percent was ?crucial.?

The EPA sued Dow in January for
more i' 'prmation about its operations.

Bay fishermen welcome EPA dioxin tests

to be completed tumor to six weeks.
said Alan fleeting. director of the
agency?s Detroit district.

The FDA took the samples after
newspaper reports that dioxin levels
in some fish taken from Saginaw Bay
exceeded FDA limits of 50 parts per
trillion.

Although some samples showed
dioxin levels in carp up to 94 parts per
officials have said those
levels-occurred in whole fish and not
in fillets. on which FDA guidelines re
based.

 

The Clean Water Act requires waste-
water dischargers to use the ?best
available technology" that is ?economi-
cally achievable" by July 1. 1987.

The agency said that to establish
this. details must be obtained about the
wastes produced by each of the plant's
processes. before any pollutants are
diluted.

DIOXIN Is a highly poisonous. 
thetic waste by-product created during
production of herbicides and pesticides.
It has caused cancer and birth defects in
test animals. but its long-term effects
on humans are unclear.

Dow has maintained that dioxin
comes from many sources. including
combustion at coal-burning power
plants and from automobiles.

But a 1981 EPA report concluded
that Dow "has extensively contaminat-
ed their facility with (dioxin) and has
been the primary contributor to con-
tamination of the Tittabawassee and
Saginaw rivers and Lake Huron."

The conclusions were ordered
stricken from the final report by EPA
headquarters in Washington. according
to Autmkus.

94/193
0 Fl"

 

 

 

Consumers who have read recent news stories
about dioxin contamination in ?sh probably would
like to know how much contamination is really
dangerous.

Well. you can take your pick:

The Food and Drug Administration says a dioxin
level of 50 parts per trillion in fish is safe.

Two years ago. the FDA said 100 parts per trillion
was a safe level.

But the state of New York says that regular
consumption of fish containing more than 10 parts
per trillion of dioxin is dangerous.

The Province of Ontario says its safety level is 20
parts per trillion.

And scientists at the federal Environmental Pro-
tection Agency suggest that even one part per
trillion is unsafe if an individual insists on a 'no-risk'
exposure.

None of these conflicting safety standards is
based on human studies because dioxin's long-tenn
effects in humans are unknown. But this contami-
nant of pesticides causes cancer. birth defects, and
death in animals at extraordinarily low concentra-
tions. and scientists are worried about human expo-
sure.

THE CREATION of safety standards that predate
understanding of human effects is a well-known
phenomenon at such agencies as the FDA. which has
standards for several poorly understood contami-
nants in fish. including PCB. PBB. mercury, and
DDT.

The bewildered consumer of fish might wonder
how agencies arrive at exposure levels of safety and
danger in such circumstances and how different
agencies can arrive at different conclusions about
what is safe.

Estimates of the safety and risk for these contam-
inants are much shakier than. for example. the risk
estimates associated with smoking. The estimate
that a two-pack-a-day smoker runs a 15 to 25 times
greater risk of lung cancer than a nonsmoker is
based on actual observation of cancer and death
rates among smokers and nonsmokers.

0n the other hand. the risk estimates for dioxin.
PCBs. and other toxins are based on animal studies.
statistical projections and best guesses. The esti-
mates may take into account not only scientific
factors but also economic and practical consider-
ations that may differ from agency to agency.

For example. the. FDA calculated human health
dangers from dioxin in a fairly straightforward
manner.

Agency scientists took the dose of dioxin that
showed no effect on rats. and translated it on a
pound-for-pound basis to a human dose. Then they
diluted that dose several times to provide an added
margin of safety.

Using fish consumption levels in the U.S.. they
suggested an upper safety limit of 100 parts per

A safe dioxin level for fish?

 

  

 

 

trillion for dioxin in fish. In July 1981. citing
?continuing concern" for population groups that ate
large quantities of highly-contaminated fish. the
FDA dropped the suggested limit to 50 parts per
trillion. The agency also recommended that resi-
dents of areas with dioxin contamination of 25 to 50
parts per trillion should eat fish no more than once or
twice a month.

EPA CALCULATIONS began with the same rat
studies that the FDA used. But EPA extrapolations to
humans were based on a much more elaborate
mathematical model. Using this model. EPA re-
searchers calculated the cancer risk for a person
who eats a half pound of dioxin-contaminated fish
every week over a lifetime.

If that fish were contaminated with 100 parts per
trillion of dioxin. the cancer risk would be 1 in 100.
the EPA report concluded. If the dioxin level were 10 
parts per trillion. the risk would be I in 1.000.

And a person who wanted to limit the cancer risk
to in a million would be restricted to less than two
pounds of dioxin-contaminated fish in an entire
lifetime even if the fish had only one part per
trillion of dioxin.

A major caveat: the EPA formula errs on the side
of safety.

Because their study was designed to find all
possible risk. the researchers can be sure that the
cancer risks of dioxin are no greater than their
report concludes: but the risks could be much
smaller. 50. for example. while the risk of eating fish
with 100 parts per trillion of dioxin is almost
certainly no greater than one in 100. it might be
much less.

ON THE other hand. EPA scientists argue that the
FDA model is flawed because it assumes that. below
a certain level. dioxin has no effect on animal or
human health. But EPA researchers insist that
cancer-causing agents such as dioxin - are net
absolutely safe at any level. Even minuscule doses
will produce an effect in some portion of a popula-
tion. if the population tested is large enough. they
argue.

Until we know the true effects on humans of
dioxin. PCB. PBB. DDT. mercury. and other chemi-
cals. current standards are the best scientists can do.
And they are intended only as guidelines. What they
mean is that each of us must decide. individually.
how much fresh water fish. and what kinds. to eat.

 

 

 

 

.- .- .



?wa- 

Dow accused of landfill use violation

Booth Ilene Service

MIDLAND State environ-
mental officials say the Dow
Chemical Co. was aware its hazard-
ous waste landfill near Midland was
leaking. but did not immediately
stop dumping there as required by
law.

In a related development, Attor-
ney General Frank J. Kelley called
a meeting'of top state and federal
environmental officals today to as-
sess the extent of Michigan?s dioxin
problem. Officials invited include
U.S. Rep. Donald Albosta. D-Mich.,
who has proposed creating a com-
mittee to monitor progress made in

research on dioxin contamination
near the Dow plant.

Dow Chemical managers alleg-
edly knew about the seepage prob-
lems for at least two days and
possibly as much as three weeks 
prior to reporting it. according to a
spokesman for the Michigan De-
partment of Natural Resources.

The company could face civil
penalties of up to $10,000 for each
day it violated the permit. said
John Shauver, chief of the DNR's
hazardous wastes litigation section.

"We believe the duration (of the
problem) was much longer than
Dow reported. They had notice

long before they reported it, and
they continued to use the landfill
after they found out." Shauver said.

Dow officials could not be
reached for comment.

The attorney general has or-
dered Dow to stop dumping wastes
into the landfill until the company
can guarantee safe operation.

The state learned of the prob-
lem March 23. when Dow reported
that contaminated water had
leaked into the ?clean zone." an
area of sand underneath the land-
fill.

Company employees periodical-
ly test water from the ?clean zone"

to make sure the clay liner has kept
the contamination from seeping
into the groundwater. But a pipe
that pumped contaminants out of
the landfill leaked some of the liq-
uid into the clean zone.

Dow now is flushing out the
sand with water. so that it once
again will be a reliable indicator of
potential leaks. Until then. the land-
fill will remain closed. said John
Bohunsky. a DNR hazardous waste
expert.

The company is required to test
water from the clean zone 
and report the results to the DNR.
The last clean samples were report-
ed to the DNR Feb. 28.

In Dow Chemical furor

EPA plans new dioxin study

 

Continued from Page 1A

The state Public Health Depart?
ment plans to study the possible link
between dioxin and reportedly high
rates of cancer and birth defects in
Midland County.

Hernandez pledged ?to pull togeth-
er whatever resources are needed" for
the study, after meeting yesterday
with Michigan of?cials in the office of
Rep. Donald Albosta, a St. Charles
Democrat whose district includes
Dow?s Midland facilities. Also present
were Dr. Howard Tanner, director of
the DNR, and Rosemary Freeman, a
Washington representative of Gov.
James Blanchard.

ALBOSTA SAID the study could
cost over $1 million in its first year,
though an aide said later that ?we
might be able to do it for as little as
$500,000.?

At the meeting, a source said, Tan-
ner told Hernandez that the project
might cost $3 million altogether,
including $2,011,000 for tests of fish in
Saginaw Bay and its tributaries and
$985,000 for tests of soil and air in the
Midland area.

Albosta said federal and state of?-
cials would meet within two weeks to
develop a plan for the study and he
hopes for ?some de?nitive results?
within a year. ,?The important thing is

to develop a base of accurate scientific
data that tells us the extent of the
problem and what type of a cleanup, if
any, may be needed,? he said.

After the closed-door meeting, Her-
nandez said in an interview, ?It is clear
we have to move quickly to respond to
concerns of people in Michigan and to
restore their confidence in the integ-
rity of the 

OFFICIALS IN the 
regional office in Chicago have
accused Hernandez of exerting pres-
sure on them to delete parts of a 1981
dioxin report that blamed Dow for
much of the dioxin pollution in the
Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay areas.

EPA report in ?81
urged fishing ban
in Great Lakes

WASHINGTON (UPI) EPA
officials urged in a 1981 draft re-
port that fishing in the Great Lakes
be banned because of dioxin con-
tamination. but the federal govern-
ment did little to discourage fish-
ing, agency officials say.

Regional Environmental Pro-
tection Agency officials in Chicago
recommended in the report in the
spring of 1981 that Great Lakes
fishing be stopped because the po-
tential cancer risks were too high.
sources said.

But scientists at the agency's
headquarters along with former
assistant administrator John Tod-
hunter eliminated the reference.
agreeing that the decision should
be left to the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration. the sources said.

Agency officials sharply criti-
cized the resulting FDA standard
that concludes there is negligible
health risk to people who eat a
weekly meal of fish contaminated
with dioxin at levels of 25 parts per
trillion or less. and minimal risk to
those who eat fish once a week at
levels under 50 parts per trillion.

EPA scientists projected. in a
1981 assessment. that those people
face a cancer risk ranging from i in
100 to 1 in 1.000 from ingestion of

the chemical, minute amounts of
which have caused cancer in labo-
ratory animals.

ONE OFFICIAL familiar with
the assessment termed the project-
ed risks ?incredibly high.? although
acknowledging lt was not quite as
high as the health threat faced by
people exposed to dioxin in parts of
Missouri.

The 1981 EPA assessment. a
copy of which was obtained by
United Press International. was
prepared by Donald Barnes and
Paul Brown. co-chairmen of EPA's
Chlorinated Dioxins Working
Group.

It noted the FDA "has informal-
ly pointed to 100 parts per trillion
as a ?level of concern'? a level
that would pose a cancer risk of 1 in
100.

Sanford Miller. director of the
FDA's Bureau of Foods. acknowl-
edged that the FDA eventually de-
cided dioxin levels of 50 parts per
trillion or higher were too danger-
ous for human consumption lev-
els still higher than those recom-
mended by EPA scientists.

Miller questioned the validity of
risk assessments. noting they

8.. REPORT - A2

 

1 ?slum-n cue. uni; dqi limit? 

?ll

it) sisters 3m mg ?tiOii

n?wm em: new :nniinnri?v

REPORT

COHTIIUID FROM A1

were extrapolations from findings
of dioxin's effects on animals. but
said he would generally not quarrel
with EPA's calculations model.

"That's a very high level of risk.
no question about it." he said of the
l-in-loo to range.

MILLER STRESSED that the
federal government has no author-
ity to ban fishing in state waters.
but he said the FDA has banned
fish sale in interstate commerce of

   
   
 
  
   
      
     

Special Sections
in today?s
home delivered
Flint Journal.

HAMADY
KESSEL

       
      
     
  
    
     

INSERTS:
MEIJER
PERRY DRUG

  
      
  
     
    

Circulation Dept 767-0670
Advertising Dept 767-0660

 
 

fish
are

taken from contaminated
as.

He said the FDA has urged gov-
ernors of Michigan and other states
bordering the Great Lakes to ban
fishing in areas where dioxin levels
of 50 parts per trillion or higher are
detected.

Both commercial and game
fishing. particularly species that
feed on the bottom where dioxin
collects in sediment. has been halt-
ed by state governments in a num-
ber of areas because fish ?were
found to have a high level of dioxin
for some time." he said.

FLINT



200 - 3001
200 E. hm 51nd
Flint. Michigan 433502
Published Daily and Sunday
telephone 767%
I983 Booth 
Second clan postage F?nl. Mach.
Delivered by carrier per
delivery $7.75 per mouth. 01!
mm and where no carrier

is available.

    

 

 

 

$87.00 per year. $45.25 lot in MI, 523.00 hr 
three months. 57.75 per month. 
By mail oumde Michigan. 38.25 per mm. 
Sunday delivery only, $5.00 per M.
87 mod to military I, $8793 per your. All 
mail payable in advent-ice. 
Guard Omen in
Grand Rapids O. Box 2168 ah
Hm Of?ces
Washington 5%
1750 Penniytvoma NAN . Suite 1320
Lemma 1501 Bank of tau-no balding
Amino omen 
Sou?rhlleld, 437 One Non?land Drive Bldg. 3
. H.900 Wu! Eight Mile Road 
New York Len-W Air-nu! 
Chicago 221 H. 51nd 
Atlanta .0540 Poi-en Ferry Road. NW.
Los Angelo} . Wilil'wl Blvd. 1
San Frwiuo 703 Mel Sir-d 
Penman-r. il undelivered. pious- md ion-n 3579 
In The Flint Journal. 200 Fiul sir-d. Flint. Mi. ?8502.
I
. 
I Where did It!
I WhereYou look ter
I You look 20
I A size 10 . . .
I No sagging
I Unbelievablc

GRANI

SF

In Celebr:
Trent

Receh

Wt:

 



Control pollution?

. 

no?


. 

Ml econnm'~ 

-;vneratu~a arr and water pullo-

Wastea. rn't'L?pnltunnl ll'
:tlent-a and disease. ilnd mme un?
~.lte t-unyumer product:.

A nf emplm men! 
'he neulth. safety and 
'll s?mt'e their mceptmn
mu ner-n tor he-
.nu .lnl?t?hpn?SlVE. and
mr too much and delt-
t-rtng mo little. No one mould be
deluded ?nto that 
personnel .tt EPA ?Ill mite these
problems.

The mom that u'htle
=1-mger lurks everywhere. at no-
where very great. Potlutton :n the
hr. the water and tn the enttron-
ment generally increases dtseuse
risks. Including cancer Yet rarely
et er are the risks enough to
uncntute an emergency For ex-
eyen nt Love Funul. expo
?re In 2111:: slew of ha?tfduuh ?uh-
some: would be ea-ttmateu .n
reuse .tletlme cancer inCtdEnt?E
or. perhapsl percent

I DO NOT MEAN to counter;-
'?tue concerns. but rather to pro-
a rough of the proo-

COMMENTARY

faced. Life styles. tncludang
~mo-t1ng nouns 'and met. have 'a
?turn greater effect on dtsease
ones. Including cancer. than cur-
rent 
'1 at most regutalton tnltes place
r. t'rts'ts atmosphere where decr-
muyt he made Immedtalett.
M'nnut .tdequate tnye'stt-
-atlnn These problem; not ms-
;kot'dr the Indus-[not ~ortety of our
;r.:nucml..lren will present the
mm of f't??lts and glye rue to
41-: name concerns.

The haste elements of a ?Olutmn
be None 15 early ac-
but no 
can emerge thnout adore?:-
.nl: them.

one first step and by far
'he most Important Is :1 
'ton of goals. It ts to
make the ethronrnenl DYISIIDE or
reduce enwronmental 1'le :0
zero.

Stattng unrealistic goals. such as
all discharges the
moon's waterways by 1955. Is -a
rumor source of current problem?
It encourages the ortentatton.
~nort-term Mes to longvterm prob-
lems and controntatton. smce eon.
are dtssattshed 
"all a loaf and see no
:totnt tn steps toward on on
reachable gonl.

Just what does seetety deitre?
How much are we to up
:0 enhance enytronrnental qualny?
Survey data Show that
the vast matortty of the puhttc ?up.
ports environmental goals. but not.
presumably. at the cost of a large
reductton In standards The
publtc needs to be better tntormed
about what would he gamed by
each proposal and what It would
cost.

0A second Step ts to 
away from and confronta-
non more generally (use: rcuutre
tmmedlate actton wmle perma-
nent problems: requlre planntn:
.mo EPA mut-l det'e'inD an
agenda and pursue 't veg-trougly

Let?s clarify goals

-r not-mt Ulorlt

A Hep u- to unprote- the
-- of dell lat-Ir.
A. - ?f'la: my vnlle..e-e.
and urgunttel?; 
?tnlr to the th:tl
[tn-re .tlntus?t no -
?wr . ;rrenl henlth 
Enl Hint-l1 all-
llte n.tt'tre of 
tutu untrn for 
Then how awn 
that - :nn-t rw
rutmntet: H- utwuer 
'Il'ln? am! the? tin hum 
Hold :?ntll llr? Inar. t?nnt?l'p


For actentut: tznn'
the regulatory proves-y
and ~hun Its rnuen-and-tumblo .tt-
mmphere The resulttne reeutn-
mm are often and antr.
tt-rmett. and mentors-v:
:hle Iltey nre t'mtlt and l-anl
thetr goals.

pot-tam till-M 
'tl.t..-tton ut ?nib. ulbett 'Mth J'll
The them-
~el=e< run he analyzed and deer-
~tn madc- truth a ytew to when
uncertatnttes mil he re-
mtyetl The haste ol EPA
t?nn ne Improved utthnut
.mpructahle Increase: tn resources
ur t't?ldl'

IThe luurth step t4 tmproynd
tmplemenrotton The problem 2-0
large and regulatory procedures 50
that the EPA cannot
o-w-mhly protect the whole enytrun-
51?.nt moot Lulu} new .?hen?ltcan
are Introduced each year. to
'he tn common use, H31 the
HM reeulnte more than
run or three dozen new chemtcalr: 1
?Pat \?unregulatnn mecnamam~
are needed for 
standards and 


Before the at
EPA comp-antea- relted on auton-
Honduras set ny Indu?trtes and
proteysmnul awn-tattoos. The cnr~
,mrntu consctence plus the
of and
?lawn: promoted ?xtder-oread
l? 'yoluntar'.
?tandurdg.

 
  

 

 

  

EPA ENFORCEMENT of HS
?mourns 1.4 hampered by the small
numher of Its tnspectors and by
burdensome court procedures Sub-
economtc Incentives for 19'
enforcement. where catastro-
phe ts. not threatened. could tn't-
pmye enforcement

There are EPA success stones
Fur example. chlorobenztlate was
regulated by EPA In a proceedtne
'hdl woe ulttmatety to
all This poses an:-
mm. to workers, but l5 lnl-
to rttrus growers Rather
than some hold mote trite nanntne
the \L-hihlanl'E. EPA caretully oe-
lmed the uses where chlorobenzr
tale no.5 no use
exen there. and specufted how
worker?s- were to be protected

The lesson :5 that faring an to a
prohlem. carefully reytewtng the
evidence and 
.ttl pame~ rm nroduce good solu-
tions. eyen to difltcult problems

Lilli! Live is I prof-5:0! ol'
economics and public policy a!
Cam-gt. Dalton lame-4911's
gradual. animal of 


7h. Post

 

 

 


i

i

 

 

 

m?


  



Dioxins: Suspected, 3, 12
but unconvicted, killer .

By Hugh 31?ch manufacturing plants were not the only ll
Nun StarrWr-ttu source of dioxins. which was generally us- -
. stoned; they are also produced by many 
Dioxins rank high as the moat poisonous combustion processes. 
of more than four million chemical com?

. I ?l 

pounds kno?nmman. THE DOW STUDY was the compa~ .
There are approximately 75 dioxins. ny's response to state and lederal charges 
They cause birth defects and cancer in that Dow's herbicide-manufacturing plant .
laboratory animals particularly rats. in Midland had contaminated the nearby 
and scientists intuitively suspect them of Titubawaasee River with dioxins. 
being hazardous to humans. However. he- According to Dr. Aust. the Dow scientiL 

cause of their extreme toxicity. no scientif- ic investi atiun which supported the report .
ically controlled human experiments can commsn the respect of environmental
be humanely conducted to document the scientists. The report cited the following 
suspicion. sources for dioxins: the opera- 1'
"The best we can do_" any: biochemist tion of gasoline and diesel engines. rigsret
Steven D. Amt, mm, dinner nf smoking and ?replaces. refuse incinerators.
Michigan State University?s Center for chemical-tar burners. fossil-fueled power
Toxicology. "is study diox- plants. automobile muf?ers and charcoal-
in accidents to humans. suc as the one in brmled steaks.
Seveso. ltaly. in l976.? As Robert R. Bomb. research director of
The more lethal of the dioxin com- Dow's Midland Division. put it at the time
pounds are the tetra-chloro~dibenzo-diox- "19 made public: "We WW
ins Several are present think dreams have been With us since the
as byproducts produced in the advent 0f ?fe-

manufacture of the 2.4.5-1? herbicide used BUMB CQNTENDED that the inves-
AgentOrange. tigation had 'completely exonerated the .
company's Waste-discharge system design- i
THE MOST LETHAL a tetra- ed to prevent dioxins from map-n: from i
or sans-Two. the plant . .
which has the appearance of small. clear. The fear dim-Ins damn; .
needleliie it is present in Agent mm mm experiments on animals and 
Orange. A dose uf this dioxin weighing from the complaints of Vietnam war serv-
one-hillionth of an animal?s body weight is tcemen. .
suf?cienttoltill it. do not know the complete mech- .
in a loo-pound human. this would be antsm milCUlDKYui' Aust..who i8 
the equivalent to two-millionths of an 315? 0? the 
0mm stances Control Commission. Autopsies on .
The US. Army used Agent Orange dur- experimental animals inn?ed With TCDD
ing the Vietnam war to strip away leaves 5h? the" '5 a_ 9'09?" "l FD Which
and vegetation from the enemy's hiding the TCDD "Eddy bmd" ll? "913m" ?h 3
places. In the process. many soldiers from ?1rd thde .
both sides came into contact with Agent . to Aust. "mm? range
Orange. The Department of Defense ended widely Wale" tolerance to 
the a; the defoliant in Vietnam in are sensitive and some are relatively resist-

1970. Since then, many former semcernen ?The guinea 50" example. is 

who fought. in that war have complained of sensitive.? he 333?!- "The ?It ll 198! sensi- 

a wide of il edl assOCi ted 
with Aged? armada alleg y. a "The key questions is: Where does man
. [it into the high range of variables? In I,
WAS THE KILLER dioxin In. Aliment most of the studies on these kinds of com I
Orange 2.3.7.3-TCDD pounds. man appears to be like the rat.

As yet. scientists have not been able to ?The chances of people being immune to
prove or disprove the association. it are very rare." 

The ?rst concentrated study at dioxins BEFORE AN animal dies of TCDIJ 
in the United States bertan shout to years poisoning. continues Dr. Aust. it experi- 
?180 ?he? ??1?le 0? ?56039!" blo? ences a ?terrific" loss in weight. "lt?s call?
chemist Dr. Allan Poland investigated ed the wanting They refuse to
their effects on animals. About the same eat; and even if they are fed. they do not
time. Dow Chemical Co. began studies nf thrive."
the toxicological effects of TCDD. Related Also. the thymus gland. which processes
studies on the dioxin family of Compounds cells used by the animal?s immunological
also went on at the National institutes of system, dries up. and the animal develops
Health during this period. skin sores. I

Dioxin research moved forward stanifi- The long~term view. says Dr.. Aust. is
cantly in 1973 following 3 Dow Chemical that TCDD contamination "promotes"
Co. study which found that herhicide- cancer. 

 

 

 

 

 


. .,

?l

 

  
  

 
 
    

  
   

 
 

    
     
    

Eli-:1" Ilia- a? . furTheuD and tha hyatermtomiea 1n the we en. 1 can sit 0188611?!
?anywhere. Lass of toe n?d finger nail: and hair 10$? regulgr 

 

occurrences af rashes and boil like eruptsond 
elieve toxro ambatancea produce 319118? aymptoms.fot the moqt 
part. Becauae of our individual gepotic makeup anq phys1ca1:,gh ?f
the weakest argaa are attacked differently; as thejb dy 
atlemptn tb ?1d 1taelf of the foreihn material., The ouncera.? 
tumor?. kidney removals, spleen apekationa. enlarged livers and
-neart cond1t1ona are all too common. Host reaidents that move
'away the area hav; a general Health 



 

a.

t; .r .I ..-

e+a?w. Two specified areas were selected In the area in an adultiOhul
attempt to show-what health problems are occurring. Out of a

total'of 127 hbmea. the'reaidenta are known in 50, Of those b0
homes. the lieted ailments have been noted ou?the accompanying

  

 

chart. A 5" Tho 53mg procedure waegfoliowed on Sangrtugc Dr1ve.z
strret 1n the vlg?hge totaling 19 namea ?lth {l?fgasceutg or:
{311111 1 95 known{gag-3.351? -: .., 3:13:93. 739?s, far-M; 1:2 . a. 
':The analyt30a1 data by tho various atate agencie33'the ;'ug ,Lgi

material ro'r manna, ma?gdditiomxl,? 

       

    

 

   
   

 

  
  
 

 

. I I
gag! research material and tho,pea1th recorda_nnd ailments oi the - 
3.2 - area residents reveal my investigation to the present datEi? -ut-H
.-.- - .July 1 1979 . 33..?19. 1 
-p?5 ??359, @33- 'a?t a
4: 3?1-2-7212: .5 :22: 
1' 1.. A uni-E :5 
- 3 
J. 15:" - in a I >131'?i??fztixfz
s? 5 Egg-ff?" 3;
2' r: ?ii? Iiv?I-iltma?; 1th?32a'in121Jay: 5 aha-3.33al-v 3. 


Eu.?

       

.i ?v
9..
- .- 

 

151%?)

To whom it may concern: I
1231*." L3 RE ?313. 30 THEIR ISL-11113

has been in the DCWE every day lat elv.

uhy are chemicals btzried up to I

mist) Heep on the mo following pieces of pro1;-

'and members 01 the families always sicld?
West of the nest of the East 01
East of the Northwest of tiection 14,
13 North, Zienge 2 ereper Township3

?1
100 1. Shepherd no.1

'Jc?t? H32)
1.7- v:
(D :3


13.,
:31"


.1?lnnd County, N13 hi{.a11. 
Commencing 20 role East of South corner,
?keno Hort 3 #0 rod-, T?3ence Last 30 r0331 thence
South 40 rods, therce Nest 20 rode to place of
?eri?ninn (five ac:es) Section 10, 
?orth, Range 2 We Jasper Township Ld?an 
Cou1*1;y, Iiciiren. (4280 Shepherd Rd. 

1 would Sign this but it miqht cost me my

wwm?

-1 ..

C-J

job. Dozer operatcr=-1ho isonld know of this
night be able to give YOU more in1ot-metioh,
include: Kenneth Lhellev, Norm 1nne1,Nue.e
Gushin. Jim Hard~ Luther Carter

 

 

ui=l PHOTO

Part of crowd hearing Times Beach buy-out details

Hitch develops in buy-out
of contaminated town

EUREKA. Mo. (UPI) Offi-
cials said Saturday a buy-out of
dioxin-contaminated Times Beach
might be delayed by a dispute be-
tween the state and federal govern-
ments over which level of govern-
ment would then own the property.

However. an administrator of
the Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency tried to reassure 400
people. who gathered at the Eureka
Junior High School. to hear plans
for the largest government buy-out
ever for environmental reasons.

"Think positive thoughts," said
regional FEMA administrator Pat-
rick Breheny. ?Don't think nega-
tive thoughts. We'll get this thing
worked out."

Breheny told Times Beach resi-
dents the government wants to of-
fer them a ?fair market value"
based on the worth of their proper-
ty before ?ood waters from the
Meramec River inundated the town
in early December.

He added that the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. within days.
was to make its recommendations
for cleaning up dioxin contamina-
tion at Times Beach. where the
deadly chemical was sprayed on
streets in the 19705 to control dust
The town is one of 27 known dioxin
sites in Missouri.

summer but he is uncertain when
the purchases would be completed.

FEMA will offer to buy the
property of all Times Beach resi-
dents who want to move. Breheny
said.

Breheny said that in addition to
selling their Times Beach property
to the government. each family
could receive up to $15,000 in relo-
cation assistance.

 

OThe Superfund law is ?devel-
oping" regulations to deal with dis-
posal of dioxin.

The Clean Air Act is assessing
potential problems with airborne
dioxin.

OThe Toxic Substances Control
Act establishes further rules for
control of dioxin.

In addition. the Food and Drug
Administration has set limitations
on dioxin levels in Great Lakes fish.

THE CLEANUP of contaminat-
ed sites is costly, perhaps prohibi-
tively so. So far. the average cost of
cleanup of a site ranges from $5
million to $35 million.

Estimates range from $200 bil-
lion to $250 billion to clean up
known hazardous waste sites in the
United States. The Superfund has
allocated only $1.5 billion for this
purpose.

In water supplies. there may be
no way to- clean up dioxin con-
taminants.

"Dioxin does not degrade in
groundwater. where it is cold and
there is no sunlight." Epstein said.
"There are 35 gallons of
aquifers and of these. it is estimat-
ed that 1 percent are already con-
laminated.?

Epstein recommended banning
dioxin in all its forms. placing an
extremely high user tax on any
company that makes substances of
which dioxin is a contaminant or
byproduct and placing ?the strictest
of controls" on any dioxin disposal.

One proposal is to place dioxin
contaminants in underground con.
crete containers for at least 100
years until technology can find a
way to deal with them.

The buy-out plan requires state

approval. Gov. Christopher 5. Bond
has said he will sign this week a bill
approved by the Legislature to allo-
cate Missouri?s 10 percent share -
$3.3 million of the $33 million

. federal purchase.

The appropriation measure stip-
ulates the state will own the Times
Beach property only if all residents
sell. A few townspeople say they
want to stay. and legislators fear
their presence might leave Missou-
ri open to health-related suits from
the dioxin contamination.

?It?s a problem. but not an insur-
mountable problem." Breheny said.
"l'm not ascribing any bad motives
to the state.

He said if the agreement with
the state were worked out immedi-
ately. FEMA could start offering to
buy Times Beach homes by mid-

D4 SUNDAY. MAY 1.1983 - THE FLINT JOURNAL

FDA chief won?t be prosecuted
f6r making on Uncle? time

(UPI) The
Justice Department says it will not
prosecute the Food and Drug Ad-
rriinistration chief for accepting
speech lees while on government
business.

?But it says his actions showed
"insensitivity" to appearances.

FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull
Hayes has been under investigation
since Feb. 9 by the Health and Hu-
man Services Departments inspec-
general for gifts he allegedly ac-
cepted from trade. corporate and

cat groups and for alleged mis-
his government car.

it a letter to the inspector gen-
. Office. Frederick Motz.

.- 'c?dtiorney for Maryland. said he
intend to prosecute Hayes.
. Ihougn two of the speech tees
arguably.? be unlawful. 

ording to Metzs I ?Miter the

cluded 82.250 in spe?'tCh 1885.
?ging. travel on corporate
. ft and smoked chicken.

   
 
   
  
  
 

. i; said of eight allegations ex-
ed. in two caries ?his conduct
Ebe deemed to constitute the

?uranium

 

 

Arthur Hull Hayes

receipt of unlawful gratuities as
well as unlawful supplementation
of his government salary."

in both cases. Hayes was on gov-
ernment business. the letter said.
FDA rules allow Hayes to deliver
personal Speeches as long as they
do not create a conflict of interest.

The two disputed occasions

Dune-nun?

wear: A $250 lee Hayes received for
two speeches delivered Jan. 
1982. to a joint meeting of the Col-
lege of Physicians and the Greater
Philadelphia Committee for Medi-
cal-Pharmaceutical Sciences

0A $500 gift for a May 29. 1982.
commencement speech at 
vania State University. which
Hayes later returned.

"Despite the fact that Dr.
Hayes' acceptance of the honoraria
in question may arguably be unlaw-
ful. i do not believe that criminal
prosecution is warranted." Motz
wrote.

Motz said the fees were "mod-
est." There is no indication the
money was paid to in?uence Hayes?
actions. and although Hayes' con-
duct is "troublesome." he probably
did not knowingly and wilfully vio-
late the law. Motz said.

But he added. ?It appears to me
that Dr. Hayes has shown an insen-
sitivity to the principle that govern-
ment employees must scrupulo ly
avoid the appearance of my
ety in their dealings with th
lic."

 

 

 

Residue of Ch emicals in Meat
Leads to Debate on Hazards

 

By MARIAN BURROS


toxic chemicals may be present in this
country's meat supply, according to the
Food and Drug Administration. But
how much of a danger this presents to
humans is debatable. in part because
only 60 residues are monitored by the
Government and in part becameoi di-
verging opinions on the possible haz-
ards.

Someoithechemicalsinquestionan
fed to or injected into animals to stimu-
late growth and prevent disease. and
some are ingested accidentally.

Many scientists. as well as environ-
mental and consumer groups. content!
that residues of these chemicals accu-
mulate in humans and can evenmally
cause serious illnesses. Others, how-
ever. including a number of of?cials for
the Government's regulatory agencies.
saythatthere isnohardscienti?cevi-
dencethatanyonehas beenhannedby
them.

Precisely which residues can be

. found in any particular piece of meat.

however. is not clear because the
United States Department of Agricul-
ture monitors so few of them. It does

. not. for example. check for residues of

such hazardous chemicals as ethylene
.- bisdithiocarbamate (EBDC). hirazoll-
done or polybrominated biphenyl
(PBB). which are suspected of causing
cancer orbirthdetects.

Nor does it test for dioxin. a contami-


 




 

nant of the herbicides 2.4.5.-T and Sil-
vex. Dioxin is not among them because.
the department says. the cost of testing
for it -- 81.000 to 81.500 a sample -- is
prohibitive.

However, the Agriculture Depart-
ment has begun a surveillance program

Continuation Page 9. Column 

 

 

INSIDE

US. Plans Inquiry on Barbie
The Justice Department said it would
study charges that the American Gov-
ernment helped the Gestapo official
?ee to Bolivia after the war. Page 4.

GM. Reopens a Plant
Nearly 2.000 workers regained their
jobs as a General Motors plant in
Framingham. Mass. resumed pro-
duction. Page 8.

Armand New York ..12 Editorials" 
Arotmd the Nation. 8 Education "'17 18
Mound the World.. 5 Obituaries 21
Art .-..22 Op-Ed .27
Books ..23 Science Times .17-20


Business Day.. .3946 Style 2.8
.23 Television .21
Crossword .23 Theaters .22
..23 Washington Talk. .10
Day by Day 13 Weather. 

News Summary and index. Page 2
Classi?ed Ads mam Exchange. Page 41

 

Chemicals in Nation ?3 Supplies of Meat Lead to a Debate on Possible Hazards

Continued Front Page I

 

 

in conjunrtion with the Food and Drug
Administration of several Missouri
farms where livestock may have been
exposed to dioxin. So for their tests on
two animals have not turned up any
dioxin residues.

Traces of dies in did turn up in several
earlier (?mvenunent-sponmred studios
of cattle in four Middle Western and
Southwestern Staten. hoovever.

In one of those studies. conducted in
1978 for the Environmental Protection
Agency. traces of dioxin were found in a
total of four of 68 cattle from Texas.
Oklahoma. Missouri and Kansas that
had grazed on range land sprayed with
2.4.5.1. The fat in those four animals
contained between 20 and 63 parts per
trillion. Doses of dioxin ?5 low as 1.5

per trillion have caused birth de-
in the of monkeys.

Dmpite a call from the General Ac-
counting Offlce in 1979 for more exten-
sive sampling for chemical residues in
meat. a request from the Caner Admin?
istration for more funds in 1930 and an
appropriation from Congress that our
to conduct more tests. the Agri ture
Department under the Reagan Admitt-
istration has chosen to spend the money
elsewhere. Approximately 20.000 daem-
lcal residue samples have been taken
for each of the last four years from the
4.4 billion animals that are slaughtered
yearly under Federal inspection.

Residues Above Tolerances

While the Food and Drug Administra?
tion says that 'here may be residues
from 500 or 600 chemicals in meat. the

. General Accountinf Office has said 143
chemicals are like to leave ralduu
above the tolerance levels set by the
Government. Of those. 42 are suspected
of causing cancer. 20 are suspected of
causing birth defects. and six. are sus-
pected of causing mutations.

Lack of funds and effective testin
methods are the reasons some critics
the Agriculture Department believe
that the possible lurards from these
chemicals pose an increasingly serious
threat to this country's meat supply.

In 1932. {7.000 residue samples 
3.000 less than lheprevious year?were
taken. The budget for such tests was
less than $3 million. the same as It has
1979.

Testif rig before Congress at a 1N0
budget tearing. Dr. Donald Hallstatt.
the administrator of the Agriculture
Department's Food Safety and Inspec-
tion Service. said that to increase mati-
roring to 20 times the present rate would
cost an estimated an million.

?This option appears unrealistic

 

 

when viewed against our present budg-
et." Dr. liottston said. ?but may turn
out to be cost effective when viewed
from the total Governmentwide budget
for cotrtroillng toxic substances and the
Government and private costs associ-
ated with a contamination lrtciden 

Money blurted Elsewhere

in 190 Congress appropriated $1.5
million for the residue testing program.
but the was not used for that pur-
pose. inst . the Agriculture rt-
ment diverted the money to an -

use of animal drugs, to improvement of
the department's lama-Fency res
system after acclden chem] cori-
umination and to the department's
timing methods.

Today Dr. Houston prefers educa
farmers to testing their livestock

try.
?Elf we can do a better job of educat-
ing them we mightbeable tnfurtbarre-
duce residue testing." be said in a re-
cent interview. Critics of the depart-
ment say that teaching farmers bow to
prevent contamination of livestock with
chemical residues at illegal levels is
useful but that without hicreaaed moni-
toring the education program is mean-
lngleea.

Scientists have argued for over
the effects of toxic chemlca 3. On one
sldaare umwbo cite labontoryatud-

cancer and birth defects in annuals.

that humans do not react in the same
way to toxic substances: in fact. they
contend brooms may even be more
smitlve than the laboratory animals.

?they also cite epidemiological evi-
dence that brunaua suffer illnesses and
diseases to time hand In labo-
ratory arrimals when espmed to the
some chemicals such as diorrtn and
gy?bmminated blpherryl. as

A 1970 General Accotu'tt
port entitled "Problems in
the Marketing of Raw Meat and Pottitry
Containing Potentially Handful Red-
dues" stated that "there Is on We

carcinogen."

0am. some of them hi the Govern-
ment's regulatory agertcles and unity
of them In the meat industry. argue that
there is no proof that the acctunulatlon
of chemical residues In the body is
harmful. and that became a substance
camconcerinanlmalsdoes not mean
It will camecancerinhumam?'hey
say there is no scientifically sound evi-
dence linking Ingestion of the chemicals

Office re-


 

found in the meat supply with disease.

Beside. argue. if there were no
tolerance leve for such tlcides as
DDT and both which have

been'baruted but are still widespread in
the environment. there would be much
less meat available for the public.

Tolerance for Residues

The Environmental Protection Agen-
cy. which has jurisdiction over pesti-
cides. and the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, which is responsible for the
safety of drugs. have set tolerance
levels for some chemical residues in
meat and poultry. These levels are indi-
cated by maximum amounts In parts
per million of a toxic chemical that is

rmitted in food. The tolerance level
or P33 in meat is 0.3 parts per million.

to Albert Meyerbolf. an at-

'torney with the National Resources De-

fame Council. a public-interest law
firm specializing in environmental
cases. data on which to base these toler?
ances. particularly for suspected car-
. ?is often lrradequate and
sketchy."

According to the General Accounting
Office. tolerance levels are sometimes
established not because It has been
scienti?cally determined that the levels
are safe. but became there is no cer-
tainty that the substance causes cancer.
or became the residues of the substance
are unavoidable since they are persist.
like DDT.

Dr. John Spaulding. director of the
residue evaluation and planning divi-
sion of the Food Safety and inspection
Service. disagrees. "Data on safety
tolerances." hesaid. "are quite exhaus.
live. They are mutually upgraded."

Some of the chemicals legally used in
animals are drugs that make them
grow more rapidly; some are drugs ad-
ministered to combat certain diseases.
waof thebestknownof thmeare the
penicillin and tetracycline.
There is scientific evidence that the in-
creased preaeocd of these antibiotics in
meat diminishes their effectiveness in
human. who can build up a resistance
totbem.

Chemicalstotroducedinl-?eed

Other chemicals sometimes found in
meat are introduced accidentally. Ani-
mals may pick up environmental con-
taminants from the water they drink
and from foraging or grating. The 2.4.5-
T. In which dioxin Is found. ls used to
kill undesirable vegetation on range
lands.

Occasionally. chemicals are inad-
vertently added to animal feedfThal is
how the wides read contamination of
many food debt with PBR in Michi-

 

gan in 1973 an the P88 was acci-
dentally to feed for dairy cows.
Thousands of farm animals either died
or had to be destroyed. and many
Michigan farm familes with P38 in
their systems experienced serious
medical problems such as damage to
their bodies' immune systems.

because PBB Is ubiquitous. farm ant.
mals continue to die. and in a 1970 study
by a Mount Sinai Medical School team,
an estimated 97 percent of state's resi-
dents had the chemical ln their bodies.

Toxic chemicals have become more

alent since theend of World War ll.

of critics of the Department of Agri?

culture say the department?s chemical

residuemonitoring rogram has not
kept up with the prob em.

Cami Tucker Foreman was an Assist-
ant Secrets of Agriculture from 1077
to use. Her utlas included supervision
of the residue-monitoring program. She
says the agency's effort to murmur
harmful residum has never been good
and is getting worse.

"There is a good chance that the
American public consumes meat with
vlolative levels of can: attic and
teratogenic chemical rust ues with
some regularity." Mrs. Foreman said
last August In Congressional testimony.

In a recent Interview. she explained
that the residue program is not de-
signed to keep unsafe meat from reach-
ing the public. "It merely monitors the
Incidence of violations and tries to pre-
vent recurrences." she contended.

With the exception of some new and
quicker tests for checking residues.
Mrs. Foreman said. ?nothing has hap-

have always made the assumption
that we were missing a good part of the
she sat .

Changing List of Chemicals

Accordl to Dr. the de-
partment sages the residues moni-
tored each year. A scientific group from
the Agriculture Department, the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency and the
Food and Dru Administration deter-
mines which it: micals will be morti-
lured based on such criteria as the rela-
tive toxicity of the chemical and previ-
(ll-B history of violations.

Dr. Spaulding admits that the sam-
pling sluts small. but hesaid. "It ismt
critical when you are just sampling to
see what Is ing on in the population."

He said ter. "If you add up the
violation rate for all species. the total is
8.2 percent."

Both Mrs. Foreman and Rodney
Leonard, who was in charge of the Agri-
rulture Department's inspection serv-

 

ice from 190? to [088. as well assume of-
?cials in the department. disagree:
"They need much more intensive sam-
ing." Mr. Leonard said. "so they
where the most severe problems
are."

One problem frequently cited to the
timing of residue tests: they are per-
formed when the animal is slaughtered.
However. by the time test mulls for
most chemicals are evaluated. the
meat has passed into and
most likely has already been cortsumed.
The exception is a test for antibiotics: it
can be evaluated within l8 hours.
l?Aidan Is morehe . than: for

anima '3 tot origin.
soifharm residues start .a
checkcannotbemadetoseelfother
animals from thesamesource alsocon-
lain illegal levels of the chemical.

But Dr. says the quick test
for antibiotic residues. which was irrati-
tuted in 1979. and the Reagan 
tration?s emphasis on educating time
who raise livestock and poultry have

dons. The incidence of illegal sulfa resi-
dues in swinedropped from 
mild. percent between 1971 and 198:. he
so .

On the other hand. the new measures
have had no a reciable effect on the
illegal levels sulfa residue in very
young calves. according to Joseph Set-
tepani of the F.D.A.'s Bureau of Veteri-
nary Medicine. "The levels of sulfa in
calves sent to slaughter is extraordi-


The permissible level Is one-tenth of a

rt per million. he said. "and we are
hiding 100 parts. 

In a sense. however. the overall
statistics are meaningless. according to
the General Accounting Office. became
the Agriculture Department's practice
of changing the list of residues it sam-
plu each year. The department also
changes the number of each species of
animal tested and has now changed its



department recently Instituted a
joint residue testing program with the
pounry industry. In exchange for the in-
duct '8 assumption of rcepomtblily to
test or residues before slaughter, the
department has agreed not to issue a
press release when accidental contami-
nation occurs. as it used to do. Such in-
dustry-generated data are not Included
in the department's residue violation
figures.

Dr. Spaulding desc?bes the program
as "cooperative." Mrs. Foreman calls
It "collusion." -

Efforts by the Food and Drug Admin-
istration, Which is responsible for the
safety and efficacy of animal drugs. to

 

ban some of the drugs that present'seri-
hazards to humans have met with


Since 1077 the F.D.A. has tried to ban
two drugs commonly used to stimulate
animal growth?penicillin and tetracy-
cline because most agree
that their use makes bacteria in
humans resistant to the drugs. A report
on antibiotic-resistant salmonella in
The New England Journal of Medicine
last summer no the theory. But
Congress pla a moratorium on the
ban while further studies are being con-
ducted.

Another Proposed Ban

For the last to years the F.D.A. has
been to ban another class of ant.
mal- promoters. nitrofurans.
are potmtcarcinogena.

The Agriculture Department does not
monitor nltrohlran residues because
there are no tests for them. After the
F.D.A.'s last attempt for a ban. five
years :30. a United States District
Court 1 go Instructed the agency to re-
study the problem. It is now considered
likely that the agency will follow the
lead of many other countries and ban
the use of nitmfurans before the end of
theyear.

The Environmental Protection
Agency is proposing another chemical. toxaphene. be
came It causes liver problems and may
be a carcinogen. The one use that would
still be permitted is as a dip to prevent
scabies in cattle.

Even if the Government expanded its
residue-sampling program an on
liltely prospect in the current Adminis-
tration critics contend that the most
important problem of residues would
still not be addressed: assessing the
hazards of the chemicals and their
metabolites. which are the components
of the dremlcals that remain after they
breakdown.

According to Joseph Rodriclrs. for-
mer F.D.A. deaut associate commis-
sioner for heal a fairs and now a pit
vale consultant on toxic substances.
?one of the big problems with animal
drugs Is that even when the Govern
ment is monitoring the drugs, it is not
monitoring the metabolites."

Dr. Lester Crawford. director of
F.D.A.'s Bureau of Veterinary Medi-
cine. says the situation is ?pretty
scary" became the metabolites "may
do awful things: we know so little about
them."

Mrs. Foreman said. "With residues
the Government makes the assumption
that amount of meat each year will be
contaminated. They don't make a pro
tense of preventing meat from going on
with residues in It.? -

Benefit Of the dOUbt Adminstration gives chemicals edge in questions of cancer causes

By FELICITY EARRING-ER
The Poet

WASHINGTON Since President Rea-
gan took office. federal regulators repeat-
edly have refused to tighten restrictions on
known cancercausing substances In the
air. water. work places and dumping
grounds of America.

Many of these decisions are prelimi-
nary. But the Reagan regulators have de-
nied almost all requests for immediate ac-
tion. and have let existing proposals for ac-
tion linger while they review the evidence.
In effect. the administration has given
chemicals the benefit of the doubt.

AMONG RECENT decisions about
chemicals Identified as carcinogenic. or
cancer-causing. by the Health and Human
Services Department's National Toxicol-
ogy Program:

OThe Environmental Protection Agen-
cy (EPA) refused to give priority status to
regulation of formaldehyde as a toxic sub-
stance. instead the agency has allocated
$283,000 for a research information
clearinghouse and a workshop of scientific
experts. industry officials challenge the as-
sertion that formaldehyde Is a human car-
cinogen.

About 28 million people living near

chemical plants are exposed to low doses
of it. The EPA Is developing emission
standards on organic chemicals.
including formaldehyde.

.The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) also refused a re-
quwt for emergency regulation of formal-
dehyde. to which 1.3 million workers are
exposed. The Consumer Product Safety
Commission did vote to ban urea formal-
dehyde foam insulation.

0 OSHA rejected petitions for emergen.
cy standards limiting exposure to the gaso-
line additive ethylene dlbromide and the
pesticide and sterllant ethylene oxide. A
U.S. District Court judge this month or-
dered the agency to produce an emergen-
cy ethylene oxide standard: OSHA is ap?
pealing. An ethylene dtbromlde standard
is being developed.

0 OSHA ended preliminary work under
way to develop standards for nickel and
and cadmium. according to an agency offi-
cial. The agency also is revising its overall
policy on carcinogen regulation. .

OThe Food and Drug Administration
proposed a new "constituents policy."
which was developed during the Carter ad-
ministration. allowing tiny amounts of can-
cer-causing chemicals to be added to food.
drug and cosmetics If they are an integral

"Mostly. the (adminis-

tration) is looking for a

way not to act. . .
Tony Robbins

American Public
Health Association

I

part of a substance which has not proved
carcinogenic. Under this policy. the FDA
has approved for use In cosmetics and
drugs four dyes containing traces of car?
cinogens.

A free society are at ii-
berty to take certain dates. The regulator
has to have a sense of what the society
wants in terms of restrictiom and fit the
scientific evidence Into the equation." said
Arthur Upton. tamer director of the Na-
tional Cancer institute. "What worries me
is the present administration seems to he
going beyond a wholesome and reasonable
reassessment of the evidence."

"Some people want to take a knee-Jerk
reaction. We want to be protective of the
public health. but we don't want to fool the
public and take an action just for the sake

of saying 'i took an action.? said John
Todhunter. an EPA assistant administra?

r.

EPA did ban the carcinogenic pesticide
toxaphene. although allowing use of exist-
Ing stoclui. Todhunter said the agency had
kept more than 80 chemicals off the mar-
ket under the screening program.

Over the past decade. legislators. regu-
lators and scientists have moved away
from the rigid attitude exemplified by the
1958 Delaney Amendment to the Food.
Drug and Cosmetic Act. which banned out-
right carcinogens in food additives.

Recent government decisions have
sharply accelerated the trend against new
carcinogen controls. experts say.

There are sharp disagreements on the
wisdom of this policy.

Ronald A. Lang. executive director of
the American Industrial Health Council.
which supported by chemical manufac-
turers. said he applauds the decision to.re-
view what he described as the question-
able scientific basis for some rules and
proposals imued In the Carter administra-
tion's closing days. Lang also said he sup-
ports efforts lihe those of EPA administra-
tor Anne M. Gorsuch to require more peer
review of scienti?c studies.

But Tony Robbins, head of the Ameri-

can Public Henith Association. and former
head of the government's National insti-
tute for Occupational Safety and Health.

disagrees.
?Mostly. the (administration) Ls looking
for a way not to act." he said We

should accept a situation In which a small

- part of the time the tests proving carcino-

genicity are wrong. . . to eliminate the situ-
ations in which people are not protected
because a test showing no hazard was
wrong."

THE LATE 19705. the heads of the
FDA. OSHA. the EPA and the CPSC ap-
pointed a staff to develop a concensus on
some of these issues. in [979. the group
proposed the first government-wide can-
cer policy.

The proposal has not been revoked. but
the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy has assembled a group
of government scientists and regulators to
prepare new guidelines for carcinogen re-
search and regulation. Among other
things. they are putting new emphasis on
"risk amessrnent." a hybrid of statistics
and science designed to show how many
people are exposed to a chemical and
whether exposure is likely to cause can-
cer.

-

 .
Univ

MIDLAND. From Al
nam war that brought controversy.
Today. it involves Midlund's envi-
ronmt-nt and the company's political


The Tittelmwamee. after it ?ows

past Dow's huge flagship factory. is
poisoned with enough dioxin to
matte its ?sh inedible. according to
state health of?cials. Medical date
show that suit-tomes sarcoma. a rare
cancer. appears here at rate: higher
than are lound nationally. [bites of
birth defects. for unexplained rea-
sons. have exceeded state and na-
tional levels. There is dispute over
the quality of Midland's air and wa-
ter. Toxic waste dumps lenlt and the
state ordered Dow to shot down a
major burial site earlier this month.
These have become issues of con-
.tcntiou in Michigan and the nation.
but much of it in not new to this til-
fluontly serene city of 36.0th north-
.eastof Detroit. Napalm bombs made
Dow a target of ?erce Vietnam war
protests. its potent Agent Orange
herbicide. also used in Vietnam. hus
embroiled Dow and other chemical
firms in multimillion-dollar damage
suit: by veterans.

For all that might lurk in the air.
the soil and the water of Midland
County. this town is a paradoxically
inviting place. More per
square acre then mt places. [ta
own and a gleaming cen-
ter for the arts. Solid and an
imitating library. Writeis' work-
hhtipo. a nature center. endless tennis
courts and Money. Happy
workers.

Midland also is the quintessential

company town. dominated by a Dow
that brought wealth. philanthropy
and good tim. Scientists do not
raise their voices outside the plant
ates The city council and school
board are dominated by Dow em-
ployee. The few citizens who ques-
Lion Dow policies feel isolated and
LhIL-umnod.

'This is good midmtern com-
munity,? said John A. Pale-n. editor
of the Midland Daily News. ?It is
unusually educated. with a lot of
Phil's. lawyers and brain surgeons.
But it is not like a university com-
munity with different disciplines.
This is not a hotbed of humanistic
studies. The attitude here is that

.Icience and technology constitute a
kind of truth and no lmve it.?
Midland's ease stein
directly from the presence at Dow.
located here by Herbert Dow in the
late 18905 and kept here by his suc-
tensors no they built his dream into a
- hard-charging. global 

of inestimalile quer and in?uence

with 57.000 employee [7.000 lit-r0)

and ?0.6 billion in sale: in 1082.
Don: was third in the in prof-
sixth largest in sale: In wet. it
{has opt-ration: in 29 Cttultll?icn'. with
112 plants.

Company executive: today have
antizlnr l" tln- in-
l' t'l'l itll_V 


I

I





.
Lornec Under 

aruuntl lturc. 'l'ln j. liutvL
feat-rut titula-
tion the target of It virtual liuly war
that seeks to Ila theology of
bottom-lino on the American polit-
ical process.

Dow political action committees
contribute more to campaigns than
any other chemical ?rm: 3312.000 to
candidates in the 1952 congressional
elections. 5304.000 to ?tame. Senate
and presidential candidates in 19:10.
Cause and eltect may be debatable.
but llUUI'a have swung open for [low
in Washington.

President Paul P. Oret'lice. who
once likened US. economic and re-
gulatory policies to of a ho-
nam republic. helped the Reagan
White House chaise on Environ-
mental Protection Agency chief.
Dow lobbyists ?nd eager ears for
their regulatory ideas at the EPA.
One of its Washington eta-rativcs
regularly wined and dined llita M.
EPA's deposed toxic-waste
cleanup overseer.

Belore he resigned nntler pres-
sure. EPA deputy administrator
John W. Hernandez .lr. allowed Dow
to censor critical portions from an
EPA study til the putwcy ul Dow-

produced dioxin. Another Dow man'

was allowed to derail an intertmtion-
al system for testing: new chemicals.
Both issues are under 
investigation.

To the utter mystilication of its
top executives. the company new
land: itself depicted as parinh for
these and other excursions into the

world of regulation and -
The company has just hired Hill 

tit Knowlton lnc.. the world's lliguest
public relations ?rm. to help it deal
with a deteriorating image. Robert
W. Lundeen. Dow?s board chairman
and a company man for 37 years.
put it this way in a recent interview:

?We're not unaware of the public
perceptions . . . and we know Dow
doesn't get too many hero badges
.. . . We are regarded as 
. . . . [But] we are just not going to
back off on being active. effective
advocates in areas where we have a
right to be.?

Rep. Donald J. Alboeta lD-Miclt).
who was elected the area's congruen-
man in 1973 without Dow?s support.
takes a dim view of his biggest cor-
porate wnstitoant?s style. don't
think they perceive that they are
part of the problem." he said.

Dow executives warmed to Al-
bosta after he was elected. He ta?
vorsd giving the company more time
to meet an air Inillution-control
deadline. fearing jull-?l would be lost
othenvise. But when he voted for the
federal ?Superfund." requiring indus-
try to pay for dump
cleanup. and Vult?tl some til
the Reagan budget-cutting propul-
ala. Albumin was back out of lavor.

AS a result of recent discoveries of
dioxin llL?l't? clat-~
where to the country. tln- ls
phoning a [mint r- vet-w 

ll. l. .3

 

 

inch: [or [it

 

 

chemical production. is widely
thought to be one of the most potent
cancer-causing agents mode by innit.
But little is known with certainty
about its effect on human health.

Much of the EPA review work
will be done here to detennme if, as
Dow maintains. all is salubrious. or if
the ?rm's primaries have created a
massive public health threat. Dow
Pruitlent Oret'lice and other com-
pany of?cials insist that dioxin is
benign and has no harmful impact
on human health. A Dow study.
much debated and reiected by many
scientists. asserts that dioxin is a
product of combustion and is found
wherever men uses ?re.

But recently surfaced Dow inter-
nal documents suggest that company
have been concerned for
years abtnn the potential lumrds of
dioxin. One 1967 memo detailed the

 

  

GOO
MORHI

WHILE YOU

YOUR MONE

IF IT WAS

INSURED 
MARKET 

FREE MUG 0
INVEST Just
1?0 EARN Mt
MARKET nArt
GET A FREE

 

SEE Ft

COMPLE ft' 01
AND 

 

 

    

HEOEWING APPLIGZ
FOB MERIT POSITI

The Maryland-Notional Capitol Port ur
is presently receiving nppl-cot
to Merit System Board The 
Boord conipoicd at three members 
in tho held a! kl
Nye-1:? o! Ii.c Board on.- comma: 
?f 

 

STATEMENT OF
DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A.
Presented to the

Department of Health Services Workshop
February 19, 1982

AND THE

Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation and Tourism
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
March 31, 1982

My name is Bryant Fischback. I am Manager of Environmental
Services for the Western Division of Dow Chemical U.S.A. I
am speaking on behalf of my Company.

This testimony shall in large part be addressing the "Discussion
Paper: State Action to Reduce Land Disposal of Toxic Wastes?
prepared by The Interagency Task Force for Reduction of Land
Disposal of Toxic Wastes. While the major focus shall be

on specific issues and problems, let me first present an
overview of Dow's overall philosophy and policy for waste
management, followed by some general conn1nsions as they nelate
to the reduction of land disposal of hazardous wastes.

The general Dow philosophy and policy for waste management
is that land disposal is considered as an alternative only
after certain stringent requirements are met and then only
as a last alternative. It is our published policy that

1. Recycling or reuse of materials be given first con?
sideration prior to classification and disposal as waste.

2. Wastes are treated or neutralized whenever practical
to produce nonhazardous material.

3. If recycling or treatment is not acceptable or justifi-
able, then incineration should be the primary method of treat-
ment for burnable wastes, especially for liquid wastes.

It is only after these three alternatives are considered and
ruled out that land disposal is considered as an alternative.
We feel that incineration represents the best available method
of managing many by-product streams and wastes.

The following are our general conclusions as they relate to
the reduction of land disposal of hazardous wastes in
California.

 

1. We support the general policy of land disposal restric-
tions being addressed by the Department of Health Services
today. I would like to emphasize, however, that the basis
for this strategy must be predicated on the condition that
alternate technology facilities must be in place,.permitted.
and operating before land disposal restrictions are imposed.
We do not support the concept of unilateral bans.

2. It would seem that the timetable proposed.ieLunrealistic
in light of current difficulties in the permitting of new
facilities. Recognize, for.instance, that there are no rotary
kiln incinerators currently in operation in the state. We
believe, rather than providing a timetable at this time,
the permitting system should be upgraded and land disposal
restrictions should be predicated on the permitting and opera-
tion of new alternate di5posal facilities.

3. Increased diSposal costs will be incurred when alternate
technology facilities are in place and we consider this to be
appropriate. However, it should be borne in mind that these
increased costs like any other costs of doing business, will
ultimately be paid for by the.consumer.

4. The choice of environmentally satisfactory?alternate
technologies should be governed strictly by business considera-
'tions in the private sector. No attempt to mandate a particular
type of technology should be made by the state.

5. We agree basically with using the concept of the criteria
of toxicity, persistence in the environment, ability to bio'
accumulate, and mobility in a land-disposal environment to
determine when restrictions on the land disposal of wastes
are justified. However, the definition of the criteria should
be objectively based on good science, recognizing the simplic-
ity or complexity as well as the volume of the waste being
considered for disposal. For example, incinerator ash may
require a minimum amount of testing as the hazard has been
reduced. It is our belief that many hazardous materials can
be disposed of in properly designed, operated, and-maintained
land disposal facilities. It is also our belief that the
degree of hazard should be used to support the degree of con?
cern. This may require the consideration of narrow classes,
if not of individual compounds for land disposal restrictions.

Now let me address some of the specific issues as they relate

to the "Discussion Paper". While the issues presented here are
by no means a complete listing of our concerns and are only
meant to serve as examples, they will point up a need to further
define the criteria based on good science, as the determinations
are made as to which wastes should be restricted from land
disposal. Our remarks will address the categories as outlined
in the "Discussion Paper". 

  

BIPHENYLS

We support the concept that high temperature incineration is
an appropriate method of destruction for It should be
realized that there is not sugficient alternate technolOgy
capacity available for solids, such as dirt, containing low
levels of PCB's outside of TSCA approved landfillso

CYANIDE COMPOUNDS

 

 

Our position is that as a mintmum, polymers containing cyanide
groups should be excluded from disposal restrictions. For
example, materials such as ABS plastic, nitrile rubber, latexes,
and acrylic carpet are suitable for land diSposal because

the cyanide moeity_is bound.an? unavailable.

STRONG ACIDS

We have surface impoundments at our Pittsburg, California
manufacturing-site which are maintained at pH's which are greater
than 8. We occasionally neutralize a strong acid, such as
hydrochloric acid, at less than.pH 1 in these impoundmentso
Since neutralization in situ dccurs rapidly, there is little
?potential for mobilizing othen toxic.wastes in this-environment.
Additionally, current regUlations do.not permit theimixing of
incompatible wastes; thus, gooh management.practices based on
sufficient testing, preclude the need for new regulations. Land
disposal alternatives such asjthis, are appropriate and should
be exempted.?

 

 

HALOGENATED ORGANICS

It is our position that restricting land disposal of this category
by a broadbrush, generic approach is inappropriate: We have

done significant work on these materials which shows that many'

do not fit the criteria of toxicity, persistence, bioaccumulation,
or mobility outlined in the "Discussion Paper?. Let me illustrate
with just three among many examples. i

1. Plastics such as polyvinyl chloride and polymers such as
chloroprene and other chlorine?containing latexes which have
been demonstrated to be essentially non?toxic, are Suitable for
landfill disposal. I

2. Dow manufactures several halogenated heterocyclic organic
compounds, particularly those derived from.pyridinew We have
carried out significant work to identify areas of uncertainty.
Evidence to date shows that these products, their intermediates,

.and their by?products, in general, have moderate to low orders
of acute toxicity. We are continuing to study their persistence
in the environment. However? neither persistence in vivo nor

 

 

bioaccumulation in laboratory animals seems to be an issue

as even the most highly?chlorinated ones are metabOlized,and
eliminated in a matter of hours. Persistence in the environ?
ment alone, may not be sufficient cause to place restrictions

.on materials from land disposa

3. Here is an example where the criterion of mobility
in a land disposal environment has to be carefully?. evaluated
It would appear from a paper entitled ?Clay- soils permeability
and hazardous waste. storage", published in August, 1981 in
the Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation (Vol' 53,
No. 8, pp. 1347- -54) by professors Green, Lee, and Jones atl
the University of Texas, that permeability of liquids through

clay soils is surprisingly most closely related to the inverse

of the log of the.octanol?wate ?partition-coefficient and some-
what directly pr0portional to the dielectric constant of the
liquid. Thus, they determined that water.was the.most permeable
liquid studied to all three types of clay studied.: Water was
usually an order of magnitude more permeable than we1.e acetone,
methanol, -glycer.ine, trichloroethylene, xylene, benzene, and
carbon tetrachloride, the othe- solvents studied;. Benzene,
trichloroethylene and xylene were the least permeable. However,

{it was observed that. solvent breakthrough occurred in the cases

of carbon tetrachloride, benzene, and to a lesser extent,
xylene.. This' was attributed to clay- shrinkage with subsequ.ent

.cracking. Interestingly, trichlo-roethy.lene did not show break-
.through with any of the clays tested The authors conclude

that wastes. such as benzene, xylene, or carbon tetrachloride
might best be co?disposed with a higher dielectric and,
preferably miscible liquid. Certainly this study.indicates
that halogenated organic liquids, as a class, do not consis?
tantly show increased mobility characteristics when disposed
of into clay soils.

EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS WASTES

 

We submit that rather than outright prohibition of these
materials that suitable determinations should be made con-
cerning the land disposal of them based on concentrations,
physical form, and quantity. Furthermore, there seems to
be an inconsistency in the prohibition inferred in this
category versus the concentrat-ion limits provided in ot?her
categories, e. g. ,beryllium, cyanide salts, mercury. We
support the concept of de minimus levels based on evaluation
of the criteria cited previously. Soils containing low con?
centrations of these materials may not be amenable to any
alternative disposal method.

 

 

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

 

We consider the vapor pressure limit of 0.1 mm Hg to be
unreasonably low. For example, propylene glycol, which has

a vapor pressure greater than that allowable is approved

by the Food and Drug Administration as a food additive. We
can use it in ice.cream, but cannot dispose of it in the lando
Migration through evaporation wOuld not be a factor with
materials'of such low volatility,

Finally, a general consideration.which relates to all classes
of waste being considered here should be addressed before
final regulations restricting land disposal are adopted.

The physical form of the waste should be considered, Such
things as contaminated soils, contaminated 
sludges, solid, semi~solid still bottom residues and other
nOn?burnable materials may be best or only managed by land
,disposala?

In summary, then, Dow Chemical firmly believes that
upgrading the permitting system in California is the key to
-success for this program, Additionally, we believe that innin-
eration should be the primary method of treatment burnable
..wastes which cannot_be viably recycled, reused, or treated,
;Additionally, We strongly support the proposal ofitbe Chemical
Industry Conncil of California that a scientific task force
from the CIC meet with a scientific task force from.the Depart-
ment of Health Services to address and resOlve thetissues and
problems raised in these worksh0ps and in pending?legislationv
We agree with the CIC position that good regulatory management
must be based on good science that works:

 

0 The Toxic Waste Incinerator would be located in lronbound on 
Lister Ave.

0 Millions of gallons of toxic chemicals would be brought to lronbound
Atrom other parts of New Jersey and from other states

0 Only 1% of the toxic wastes would be from Newark
0 Many of the chemicals cause cancer

0 Some of the chemicals cause health problems for people in very small
quantities and in very low concentrations

0 Even It there are no problems with the incinerator, some of the chemi?
cals will get into our air

. 0 Potential problems with the incinerator can be caused by not follow-
ing all rules and regulations regarding satety

The Attorney filed a $26 million lawsuit against the companies
that would own the incinerator for pollution problems at the Kin Buc
land?"

I in March 1979 the N. J. Dept. of Environmental protection denied an
application by the same companies for a hazardous waste landfill
because "the reliability of the applicant to properly operate a land
based hazardous waste facility has not been 
records of the Solid Waste Administration indicate that on Oct. 28,1978
chemical waste was disposed at the Parklands sanitary landfill facility
in violation of the conditions oi its registration. This incident raises
questions as to the reliability of SCA Services or its subsidiaries to
operate this facility.?

a The North Carolina State Health Director conducted an investigation

into SCA's background and found that the company ?has not

demonstrated a consistent record of operating other waste facilities in

accordance with sound management practices and in substantial
compliance with Federal and State laws and regulations."

0 On Aug 28 1978. a judge in Illinois found that SCAMS is. .dii ll there
was a public nuisance

5 years ago. a toxic waste incinerator Jersey had an accident.
6 people were killed and toxic chemicals were thrown into the air

0 Numerous other investigations are going on now or have occurred

i, with regard to these companies including: in min 1 5 
?4sz )i'Wii .J. Hazardous Waste Task Force 0 
r? 30 cm/ 0 ,9 NJ. Attorney General State Police i
All W6, Congress Luxjx il- 01p
r? 713 - Ur cyst-i

LMVZ6 (63:3:?00 . Illa; 

N- . MWWQ waaounD

 Incineration Proposal

  

What do they plan to do? SCA. in partnership with Scientific Inc.. want to bring thousands of
gallons of toxic chemicals. each day. to the lronbound section of Newark. They would then try to
destroy the chemicals in an incinerator. This is supposed to solve the problem of toxic waste
disposal for the chemical industry. .

Who are these companies? SCA is a multi-million dollar waste disposal corporate conglomerate
empire. They have had their facilities closed down by court orders in other parts of the country.
They have been caught time and time again disposing of toxic waste chemicals in an unsafe.
illegal manner. They have been caught bribing government officials and are now under an
indictment in Georgia for monopolistic practices. They are growing like a cancer through the
acquistion of other companies.

Scientific lnc. has a similar record. although they are a smaller company. Together. the two
companies were responsible for the cancerous mess at Kin Buc in Edison. Both companies. and
their joint venture - Earthline. which would own and operate the proposed incinerator. are
currently trying to defend themselves against a $26 million lawsuit. filed against them by the US.
Attorney's office for the devastation at Kin Buc.

Where it be? This toxic incinerator will be located in the center of one of the most densely
populated areas in the world. Specifically. Newark. Anaccident at the site would effect the
neighboring cities of Elizabeth. Jersey City. Bayonne. Kearny. Staten Island and New York City.
The chemicals will travel in trucks on the highways that lead to Newark: the N.J. Turnpike.
Routes 1 9. 22, 21. l-78. l-280. l-95. Trucks will pass through all the cities towns located along
these routes. Accidents during transport are certain; the only questions are how frequently they
will happen and how serious each will be. The effects on the health a safety of truckers.
firefighters. commuters and residents from one (or more) of these accidents are unknown.

What are the chemicals they will handle, and what are their effects? 
biphenyls) are known to have extremely hazardous health environmental effects. even at very
low levels of concentration. The dangers include: tumors. skin lesions. reproductive failures.
swelling of joints and skin rash. The manufacture of the chemicals has been banned since 1977.
but they are still in use. Dioxin three ounces distributed in drinking water can kill 1.000.000 people.
One millionth of a gram can kill a rabbit. It causes cancer and birth defects, liver and kidney
damage. 1. 2, dichloroethane causes liver and kidney damage. circulatory and respiratory failure
and cancer. Other chlorinated hydrocarbons have similar effects.

These are only a few of the identified chemicals that SCA would truck, store and handle. There are
hundreds of others.

Who will protect us? We don't have an answer, but we have more questions. Who protected the
peOple near Love Canal? Who protected those near Kin Buc, where it took a $250,000 private law
suit to get the facility closed? Who protected the peOple in Elizabeth who protested against the
conditions at Chemical Control for years before it finally exploded? Are there workable evacuation
plans for the communities involved? Do the firemen have sufficient training to handle all the types
of accidents where toxic wastes are involved or will we be told that they'll just have to let the toxic
fire burn itself out? Can anyone handle an accident where the chemicals are unknown? You
probably have more.

What has happened in the past? In 1979, there were 16,000 accidents involving trucks
carrying hazardous materials. Another 1.200 accidents occured involving trains. These
numbers are dramatically higher than those of 10 years ago.

In 1980. Chemical Control another toxic waste facility. a few miles from the proposed SCA
site, blew up. Many people were injured. others will get cancer in the years to come. Workers
were killed in an explosion at Rollins Chemicals, another toxic waste site in New Jersey. The
groundwater in many areas of New Jersey has been polluted with toxic chemical wastes.

is the SCAproposal environmentally sound? No! If the chemicals are actually burned. the residues ..
including by-products and unburned chemicals will be deposited in our air. No combustion
process is ever complete. Even a small percentage of unburned toxic chemicals (thousands
of pounds) can cause profound environmental damage.

Since a profit making corporation, the incentive will be to do whatever costs less. it is
cheaper to burn the chemicals at a lower temperature than to spend moey on expensive oil
required to actually destroy them. i

Past experience (a few incidents are mentioned above out of the vast number that have
occured) shows that companies do try to dispose of chemicals for the least amount of money. It
also shows that monitoring of environmental damage is minimal and often corrupt.

What are the alternatives? _No matter which alternative is used. facilities cannot be located
in the most densely populated areas of our country. Decentralization to smaller facilities can
reduce the impact on any one community and eliminate the ?out of sight, out of mind"
approach. Moreover. the further each ton of toxic wastes travels. the higher the frequency of
transport accidents. The larger the concentration of these chemicals in one site. the larger the
damage to people. property ?tdtheenvironment when an on-site accident occurs.
- Greater Newark Bay Coalition Against Toxic Wastes
95 Fleming Ave.
Newark. N.J. 07105
tel. 344-7210 or 354-1811

 

 

Alternatives 

Many promising alternative technologies for toxic waste disposal exist, including: 
encapsulation in clay, molten salt pyrolysis. calcination. chlorolysis, wet air oxidation,
microwave discharge and dozens more. Some of these can be tailored to specific waste
streams, often they can be performed at, the site where the wastes are produced,
eliminating the need for transporting the dangerous chemicals. Each year, there are more
than 16,000 transportation accidents involving hazardous chemicals.

 
 

But, they?re not used?

Instead of using many of these alternatives, both the chemical and hazardous waste
disposal industries have chosen cheaper methods. These have included: dumping the
toxic mess on the ground; pouring it into our rivers, streams and lakes; piling it up in
barrells; illegally hauling it to municipal and other landfills designed only for ordinary
garbage; dumping it on highways during rainstorms; legally dumping it into our sewer
systems while calling it "detoxification"; and releasing it into our air supply in ill-thought-
out incineration schemes. The methods used, resulting in the devastation of a Love Canal,
Kin Buc or Chemical Control, were each, in their time, praised by both the industry and
the ?regulatory(sic) agencies for being the ?state of the art" in technology.

 

State of the Art

The problem is the lack of both honest scientific endeavor and concern for human
life. Instead, we have painted with murky chemicals, images of our citizens
suffering agonizing deaths from cancer, and horror stories that should have remained in.
the movies - not our daily lives.

Concerns of the industry

Money is needed to implement the alternatives, to make toxic waste disposal safer.
Instead of spending this money, the chemical industry strives for higher and higher
profits; dividends for their stockholders; interest payments to the banks; corporate
officers' escalating salaries, bonuses, stock options, outlandish severance pay ?perks";
and bribes. .

In addition, huge sums are spent on advertising, buying other companies, building 
fancy corporate headquarters and paying lawyers and accountants to find tax loopholes. 
Research and development funds are allocated for finding new product lines (of 
questionable safety or need and generating more chemical wastes) instead of being Spent
on finding ways to clean up the cancerous mess they've already made.

 

 

Workers, Consumers and Residents

When New Jersey's other toxic waste incinerator (owned by Rollins) exploded in
1977, six workers were killed and many others injured, while residents of the area had
45,000 gallons of PCB's dumped into their air.

In addition, we have been ?given" cancerous consumer products like red dye 
asbestos hair dryers, Triss (a carcinogen used in children's clothing) and countless
others. The harm inflicted on workers, consumers and residents of the areas surrounding
these industries (a good part of New Jersey), springs from the same fact - the chemical
industry's mad dash for higher and higher profits using backward and essentially
unregulated technologies and manufacturing processes.

Maybe the alternative we need is an alternative to the chemical industry, as it is
currently owned and operated and an alternative to the government agencies that bend to
its will.

 

 

  

Fact0?heet
At Sea Incineration Corp.

What do they plan to do? At Sea plans to build a $75 million tank farm. storage facility and
terminal to unload trucks and load boats with highly toxic chemical wastes. A ?eet of ships
transport the chemicals 100 miles off the Jersey Shore supposedly to be burned at sea.

Who is behind this proposal? We?re not sure, but it certainly is a lot of money to be invested.
Two individuals are listed as their of?cers. One, Donald Henry, worked on the Glomar
expedition, which tried and failed to raise a Russian nuclear submarine from the bottom of the
ocean. The other, Irwin Solomon, has spent his career in the ?eld ofinsurance. An unlikely pair
to be responsible for the safe handling of millions of pounds of dangerous toxic chemicals.

Some of us guess that the large chemical corporations are the primary ?nancial backers for
this enterprise.

Where will it be? These toxic tanks will be located in the center of one of the most densely
populated areas in the world. Speci?cally, Port Newark, one of the busiest in the world. An
accident at the site would effect the neighboring cities of Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City,
Bayonne, Kearny, Staten Island and New York City.

The chemicals will travel in trucks on the highways that lead to Newark: the NJ Turnpike,
Routes 1 9, 22, 21, I-78, 1280. I-95. Hundreds oftrucks, daily, will pass through all the cities 
towns located along these routes. Accidents during transport are certain; the only questions are
how frequently they will happen and how serious each will be. The effects on the health 

safety of truckers, fire?ghters. commuters and residents from one (or more) of these accidents
are unknown.

What are the chemicals At Sea will handle, and what are their effects? 
biphenyls) are known to have extremely hazardous health environmental
effects, even at low levels of concentration. The dangers include: tumors, skin lesions,
reproductive failures, swelling of joints and skin rash. The manufacture of the chemicals has
been banned since 1977, but they are still in use. Dioxin Three ounces distributed in drinking
water can kill 1,000,000 people. One millionth of a gram can kill a rabbit. It causes cancer and
birth defects, liver and kidney damage. I, 2 dichloroethane cause liver and kidney damage,
circulatory and respiratory failure and cancer. Other chlorinated hydrocarbons have similar
effects.

These are only a few of the identi?ed chemicals that At Sea would truck, ship and store. There
are many others.

Who will protect us? We don?t have an answer but we have more questions. Are there
workable evacuation plans for every municipality that the toxic wastes will be transported
through? Do ?remen have suf?cient training to handle all the types of accidents where toxic
wastes are involved? Can anyone handle an accident where the chemicals are unknown? You
probably have more.

What has happened in the past? In 1979, there were 16,000 accidents involving trucks
carrying hazardous materials. Another 1,200 accidents occured involving trains. These
numbers are dramatically higher than those of 10 years ago.

In 1980, Chemical Control another toxic waste facility, a few miles from the proposed At Sea
site, blew up. Many people were injured, others will get cancer in the years to come. Workers
were killed in an explosion at Rollins Chemicals, another toxic waste site in New Jersey. The
groundwater in many areas of New Jersey has been polluted with toxic chemical wastes.

Is the At Sea proposal environmentally sound? No! At Sea means at sea dumping. If the
chemicals are actually burned, the residues including by-products and unburned chemicals will
be deposited in the ocean. No combustion process is ever complete. Even a small percentage of
unburned toxic chemicals (thousands or millions of pounds) can cause profound environmental
damage.

Since At Sea is a pro?t making corporation, the incentive will be to do whatever costs less. It is
cheaper to dump all the chemicals in the ocean than to spend money on expensive oil required
to actually burn them.

Past experience (a few incidents are mentioned above out of the vast number that have
occured) shows that companies do try to dispose of chemicals for the least amount of money. It
also shows that monitoring of environmental damage is minimal and often corrupt.

What are the alternatives? No matter which alternative is used, facilities cannot be located
in the most densely populated areas of our country. Decentralization to smaller facilities can
reduce the impact on any one community and eliminate the "out of sight, out of mind"
approach. Moreover, the further each ton of toxic wastes travels, the higher the frequency of
transport accidents. The larger the concentration of these chemicals in one site, the larger the
damage to people, property and the environment when an on-site accident occurs.

Who we are? The Greater Newark Bay Coalition Against Toxic Wastes includes: Coalition for
a United Elizabeth NJ Committee for Occupational Safety Health 
Ironbound Health Project; N.J. Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG): NJ. Toxics Project;
Rutgers Law School Environmental Law Council: The Ironbound Grouszssex County Safe
Energy Alternatives (SEA) Alliance: Rutgers Law School Land Use Planning Service.
We've been working together for the last year to research and let people know about the
proposed At Sea facility and the dangers for the peOple (especially working people who live
near the proposed site) of Northern New Jersey.

Greater Newark Bay Coalition Against Toxic Wastes
95 Fleming Ave.
Newark, N.J. 07105
tel. 3-44-7210 or 354-1811

LABOR DONATE